iTunes Chart-Toppers (a/o February 21st):
It was supposed to be the complete opposite. But years into this digital revolution, the music industry seems to resemble a third world country. I'm talking about extreme gaps between the rich and poor, a depressingly large group in poverty, endemic corruption, extended decline, and the presence of pervasive, religious ideas that have little connection to reality.
This industry has become so totally bi-polar, I'm not even sure
where to begin. Well, how about the charts - any chart. Whether it's BigChampagne's Ultimate Chart, Billboard's Hot 100, or the most-streamed songs on Grooveshark, the top-ranked artists are all the same. It's Lady Gaga, Pitbull, Justin Bieber, and the Black Eyed Peas, week after week, over and over again. And sure, indie success stories are definitely happening, but why aren't they hogging the rankings next to the mainstream, major label priorities?
The rich are a tiny, elite cadre, and they're benefiting from a preferential pipe that still matters. In fact, not only do mainstream channels like terrestrial radio and TV still matter, they have a dominant influence over music culture. But these channels are also controlled by a tiny group - ie, mostly the majors. Turn on a terrestrial station, and it's the same artists played ad nauseum (in fact, it looks like this), while the masses languish in obscurity.
And how about the road? Maybe festivals are the bright spot, but the huge artist ransoms belong to Bon Jovi, U2, and Lady Gaga, who are minting millions every night. It's a tiny group, but how can that be reconciled with the artists that are struggling to pay for gas for their tour bus? For example, Imogen Heap, and the mass of other artists struggling to cover tour costs?
Then there are the obscene - and questionable - salaries for a top cadre of executives. We just learned that RIAA president Cary Sherman yanked down $3.2 million in compensation for 2009, and Mitch Bainwol $1.6 million. And we've been witnessing a textbook looting of Warner Music Group for years, with a select group of operators walking away with tens of millions in cash. Yet, every week I hear about new layoffs, or get emails from people struggling to find employment in this business. It's almost impossible to find a good job it seems - even for really qualified people. That's why people are fleeing towards other industries, just like people emigrate from horrible economic situations.
And what about the impoverished artists? Instead of some egalitarian revolt, a vast majority of artists are barely surviving. Forget about the pricing debate between Tunecore and CD Baby for a second - because on both platforms, the average yearly payout is about $175 per artist - before costs (we calculated both). Yet the pervasive idea is that direct-to-fan channels can make artists self-supported winners, that intermediaries don't matter, that radio is dead, that labels are redundant, and that the solution is to simply respond to every tweet and email.
And who gives us this misguided inspiration? The extremely rare lottery winner, or artists that were already promoted by the major label machine (like Amanda Palmer or Radiohead). As if somehow, these post-major success stories are a template for others to follow, rather than rare exceptions.
I'd say nothing's changed from the 'old days,' but it seems like it's actually gotten worse. And I'm left wondering why this 'music nation' keeps sliding.
/pr
Comments Closed
@trailofdata Monday, May 23, 2011
Trail Of Data
Great stuff.
@Mrone50one Monday, May 23, 2011
Mr. one50one
Don't Quit Ur Day Job!
Beezy Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Indeed. Don't quit your day job or at least try and get a record deal. Very interesting figures here:
http://www.musicthinktank.com/mtt-open/what-are-the-odds-of-succeeding-without-a-record-deal.html
@mediajorge Monday, May 23, 2011
Jorge
Oh, snap.
Maxwellian Monday, May 23, 2011
I'm reading this thinking: maybe the "lottery winner" is all there will ever be. Too much music and too few listeners that want to listen to 1000s of artists. Either you're a lucky winner and your numbers match, or you get a day job and a normal life.
::MW
Lester Harrington Monday, May 23, 2011
never been any different than that, really.
Gbee Thursday, May 26, 2011
Yes, it has been different, just not in recent memory.
samantha Friday, June 24, 2011
When has it been different? I'd like to see some real historical data on it, because it seems to me there have always been a very few big winners and lots of losers (including top sellers who ended up broke anyway). What seems to be in question now is a more amorphous group of those who can make a decent living with their music, if not get rich. If that group is shrinking as a percentage, it might well be because the internet has allowed their numbers to so far outstrip the market. But, as I said, I'd like to see someone do the research.
@bammtv Monday, May 23, 2011
BAMM.TV
Another incisive and insightful editorial by Digital Music News. What do you think?
@juliepsamuels Monday, May 23, 2011
Julie Samuels
It's time to find a better way.
Game Changer Monday, May 23, 2011
There are two words that are a game changer...
STOP PIRACY
http://bit.ly/ProtectIP
no wonder the music biz looks like a third world country, look at Somolia, Ethiopia and Nigeria to see how well Piracy works as a social norm.
Yves Villeneuve Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Note to the Listener,
Did you know, Internet service providers (ISPs) profit from illegal downloading of music when more bandwidth is used to perform downloads of audio files?
Did you know, Internet service providers (ISPs) spend millions upon millions upon millions entertaining your politicians to convince them not to take real action against illegal downloading of music?
Did you know, stealing music via illegal downloading is similar to stealing music from a CD store?
Are you aware?
Brought to you by
The Coalition of Disaffected Music Industry Participants
keithmohr Monday, May 23, 2011
the worst thing an indie artist can do is spend precious time concerned with industry trends. They are not a part of the old industry anyway.. Get off the computer and go write songs and perform live!
@Rachieheather Monday, May 23, 2011
Rachel Kaplan
Good read!
buckypbuchanan Monday, May 23, 2011
nail on the head
Jason Parker Monday, May 23, 2011
Great stuff? Nail on the head?? Really???
Dude, your doom and gloom is killing me.
Contrary to your black-and-white pronouncement here, there are a TON of independent artists making a fine living right now. Steve Lawson, Zoe Keating, Hope and Social and little old me, just to name a handful.
It's not about labels and radio and TV. It's not about answering every tweet either. It's about the ability to find and connect with your fans in ways that have never been easier.
There are fans for EVERYTING out there. From bubble-gum pop to the most esoteric music you can envision. Somewhere there are fans. And the internet has made it easier than ever before to find those fans. Yes, it takes hard work. But don't think for a minute that Gaga and Palmer and the freakin' Beatles didn't work hard to get what they got.
You call your site "Digital Music News", and yet you are still stuck on old models, or at least misguided views of new models. How about profiling some of the people I listed above and actually HELPING other artists find their own way instead of just talking about how impossible it is?
Jason Parker
http://oneworkingmusician.com
CTyankee Monday, May 23, 2011
Jason, I read your comments with great interest but always find these sorts of proclamations lack any real numbers. And the problem is that it's all theoretical but I rarely find artists living off the niche. At this article has numbers in it esp. about CDBaby and TuneCore, where are yours?
Jason Parker Monday, May 23, 2011
Thanks for your reply, CTyankee. I can only give you my own numbers, but I'm glad to do so.
I quit my day job to become a full time musician in 2001. That year I made $8,000. Since then, my income has grown each year, and in 2010 I made $40,000. That, couple with my wife's income (she's a self-employed artist too), is enough for us to cover all our expenses, bills, rent, a couple of vacations a year and put a small amount in savings each year. I am proudly a member of what I call the "musical middle-class". And I'm not the only one. I know scores of musicians, both personally and through the web, who are making a living as well.
For me, and the artists like me, it's not about becoming rich, being a star, signing a big deal. It's about making a living doing what we want to do and the way we want to do it. That's what I define as success. And using that definition, there are many of us out here who are great successes!
Robert Levine Monday, May 23, 2011
Here's a statistic: There are about 19 percent fewer self-identified working musicians in the U.S. than there were in 2001. Jason, do you have a stat, or just an ideology?
Robert Levine Monday, May 23, 2011
>>>I can only give you my own numbers, but I'm glad to do so.
This isn't a statistic, it's an anecdote. Paul has some pretty compelling numbers to support his views. Can you say the same?
Jason Parker Monday, May 23, 2011
Throw out all the stats you want, and poo-poo the stories of real working musicians making a living. My point is that doesn't help anyone!
I have no idea where you get your numbers, but let's just agree for a moment that there are indeed 19% less self-identified musicians. Who cares? The fact remains that the mechanisms exist to allow independent musicians to make a living like no other time in history.
We're in a period of sea-change. Those who have figured out how to use technology to indentify and find their fans are succeeding. It can be done. It's not all doom and gloom.
Call my posts "ideology" and "anecdotes" all you want. I'm just trying to point out that it can be done.
Robert Levine Monday, May 23, 2011
>>>I have no idea where you get your numbers
The U.S. Dept. of Labor.
>>>Call my posts "ideology" and "anecdotes" all you want. I'm just trying to point out that it can be done.
And I'm trying to bring some logic to the discussion. If I told you I got a great book deal, would it give you the sense that the publishing business is thriving? It's not. You have to look at the bigger picture.
I cannot find any evidence that more people are making a living as musicians. I'd love to see some. Until then, it makes sense to rely on what we can measure: Sales declines, development budget cuts, concert business problems.
Jason Parker Monday, May 23, 2011
Good for you, Robert. I'll be over here making a living. ;)
Jason Parker Monday, May 23, 2011
And just for clarifications sake, I never said that the music business is thriving nor that more people are making a living as musicians. I said it's never been easier for independent musicians to find and connect with their fans. This has been my route to success.
If anyone is interested, I've written about some of the ways I've done this and had success on my blog. Feel free to take a look if you're tired of the doom and gloom.
Jason
http://oneworkingmusician.com
Robert Levine Tuesday, May 24, 2011
I am making a living as well. (I'm a journalist, not a musician.) Ironically, at a time when the journalism business is terrible, I am doing better than ever. This is because the overall business climate only has so much influence - you can always beat the odds.
But I am not concerned about myself. I am concerned about a media business in which so much money gets taken off the table by aggregators, especially Google, that there's not much left to invest in artist development, investigative journalism, or movies that aren't sequels. Even if I were so rich I never had to work again - and, believe me, I'm not even close - I would still be concerned about this. I worry about a world where Colombia Records would have given up on Bruce Springsteen after his second album, where non-performing songwriters can't make money, where authors can't get the advances they need to take the time to write.
You are doing well because technology enables easier distribution - that's great. Other artists are doing poorly because technology also enables easier piracy on a massive scale. Being enthusiastic about the possibilities of the first does not mean we have to tolerate the second. Wanting to regulate the Interet, smartly and fairly, doesn't mean I don't understand technology any more than respecting the speed limit means I don't understand the automobile.
kthomson Tuesday, May 24, 2011
I agree that it's really tough to talk about this issue -- or even evaluate the health of the music community -- without data.
Are there more working musicians today than ten years ago? On what revenue streams are today's musicians relying? What is the ratio among different sources, whether it be royalties, money from gigs, t-shirt sales, or any of the 29 other meaningful revenue streams that FMC has identified? How are things different for emerging versus established musicians? And how are things different for a pit orchestra player, a Nashville songwriter, a jazz composer?
Future of Music Coalition is interested in the question about how musicians today are making a living. That's why we started the Artist Revenue Streams project last fall. We're using a three part methodology: in-person interviews with about 25 different musician types -- including TV and film composers, chamber music players, salaried orchestra members, songwriters, jazz performers, from major label artists to unsigned folks; financial case studies; and a large scale online survey that we'll be launching in September 2011.
Musicians who are interested in the project can learn about it here: http://bit.ly/FMCrevenue
We hope that the results of this project will enrich the public dialog about the complex nature of being a musician in today's environment.
Kristin Thomson
co-director of Artist Revenue Streams project
kristin@futureofmusic.org
Robert Levine Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Future of Music
coalition would get more respect if you had fewer anti-copyright activists on
the advisory board. Sure, it's a perspective worth hearing from. But you have Yochai Benkler, James Boyle, Terry
Fisher, Lawrence Lessig, Jessica Litman, Gigi Sohn, and Fred von Lohmann. That's _seven_ people - 5 academics, one activist-slash lobbyist (Sohn) and one activist-turned-Google-executive (von Lohmann) - who don't play music and have never worked in the music business. Why are they all there? How much do they actually know about the music business? And, most importantly, whose interests do they represent?
Mr. Joseph Tuesday, May 24, 2011
I've read all of the replies in this thread and its quite interesting. Before I go any further I'd like to relay an anecdote shared with me at my alma mater Berklee College of Music:
Miles Davis plays a set and is later holding court back stage in his green room. An A&R rep wanting to meet him attempts to approach him and is stopped by members of Miles' entourage. Miles is informed of this A&R's presence and asks what he wants. The A&R tells them that he's in the music business and Miles' being friendly to musicians waves him in and asks him what he plays. The A&R proceeds to say "I don't play, I'm with Artists and repertoire with ____Records." Responds by saying "Man you ain't in the music business you're in the record business. Get him out of here!"
All of the arguments put forth here except a few make the A&R's assumption. Records, publishing, and performance revenue streams are only part of the monetization of the music industry. The American record industry is hurting and does resemble a third world country but the simple reality is that the record industry rests on the back of music industry, which has been neglected and mismanaged for years with no such conversation. Even so it survives, look at the products sector (instruments, accessories, books, methods, etc.) teaching, one- time commissions (film scores, jingles, synchronized songs, etc.) etc., there's money there it just happens to be specialized. What I've seen is a lack of interest or preparedness in exploiting these other areas. If Bach, Haydn, and Beethoven all wrote, played, AND taught who are we to think that music money (which has always only gone to the very best of the best) should come easily for anyone who picks up an instrument or sits in front of Garageband? I applaud The Future of Music Coalition (notice it's not the Future of the Record Industry Coalition) sidestepping this entitled pigeonhole-perspective attitude and seeking to provide real musician life examples on how to make a realistic living (as compared with the incomes of non-superstar musicians, writers, etc. of by artist with music.
I also applaud Mr. Resnikoff's dedication to the empirical assessment of the industry as it's quite important to moving study of these matters forward. I must however, lament that invariably these assessments conspicuously lack contextualization or real world examples that aren't based on the indie rock band or music that is so completely obscure and niche that only those members of a particular cult could possibly care. All the numbers in the world don't amount to a hill of beans when certain realities are overlooked. Examples of these realities include the following facts: most of the artists/bands who are complaining about clutter in the market haven't even monopolized the town, city, or region they're in; the majority of these so called artists haven't yet worked hard enough on their craft, product, or survival long enough for anyone to truly care; the previous averments against contemporary artists are only partially their fault because instead of meaningfully discussing the past and developing working theory the talking heads, academics, and executives in the industry have shirked the responsibility and dismissed conventional wisdom in industry crafts such as artist development as conjecture. I digress. Editorials so conspicuously slanted or poorly researched only tell SOME of the hard truths, resulting in a very potent half-truth, which in turn causes those not given to profound independent thinking on these matters to find themselves misled.
Many brilliant points have been made in the article and it's replies and I'm thankful to all of the writers who have been kind enough to share their thoughts. However the fact remains if we want to make American music sustainable and profitable for its practitioners we're going to need to become a bit more detached from our egos, passions, and opinions concerning it, and be far more objective and fastidious in finding solutions to the problems we face now and those we will face later.
Jason Parker Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Look out, Robert, here comes some more ideology...
The music industry is a construct. Musicians are the reality. The music industry has been around only for a blink of an eye. Musicians have been around since the dawn of time. For the majority of civilization, musicians didn't need an "industry" to prop them up. They relied on either their fans or their patrons to keep them going. The music industry saw that there was money to be made (most of it NOT by the musicians, btw) and jumped in to capitalize on the situation. I do not think that was for the better of music or musicians, only those who controlled the music, i.e. the labels and publishers, and the very few they chose to prop up.
The music industry is a contruct, and constructs change over time. We are not in a period of such change. And it's times of change and upheaval that produce the greatest art.
Musicains will continue to make music, writers will continue to write, painters will continue to paint. And the fans of these will continue to search out what they love and support it. No one needs to sell 14 million records or do stadium tours to make a living.
So, call me selfish if you want, but I'm not at all concerned with the music industry. I'm concerned with making a living doing what I want to do the way I want to do it. And as I've said before, there's never been a time when that's been easier and I've never been more successful than I am now. And I'm not the only one. Artists all around the world are doing what artists have done throughout history. Creating great work and finding people who will support it. If you can do that, "piracy" (which is a term that excites emotions but has no real bearing on the situation it is curretly being applied to) cannot harm you.
I will continue to be vocal about this, because I believe the best thing that can happen for the music and the musicians is for us to take back the control of our own destinies.We just don't need the music "industry" any more.
Robert Levine Wednesday, May 25, 2011
>>>I will continue to be vocal about this, because I believe the best thing that can happen for the music and the musicians is for us to take back the control of our own destinies.
I couldn't agree more! The question is, how to make this happen. To me, the potential of the Internet was that it would allow anyone to distribute media, thus eliminating the gatekeeper role traditionally played by a small number of media companies. Artists would get more negotiating leverage in their dealings with labels, and they could choose what kind of deal they wanted to pursue, or if they wanted to pursue one.
The situation we have now is very different. What's being destroyed isn't only companies but copyright, the legal structure that gives you control over your destiny. With all its numerous flaws, copyright is the legal mechamism that gives you control over your destiny. That doesn't mean you have to pursue a traditional deal: Copyright lets you give away control of your music, offer it for free, charge what you like, or even borrow against your work. Right now, if you look at what's really happening online, Google and a few other companies control your destiny - with a virtual monopoly over search, online video, and other important tools.
If you want control over your destiny, you need to have a practical way to assert it. Right now, you don't. And at least some of the people working with the Future of Music Coalition don't want you to have one.
Jason Parker Thursday, May 26, 2011
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Robert. I understand that copyright, as we know it, is being violated in our current situation. However, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it's bad for the "industry". But for musicians who spend time cultivating fans, it's the best marketing we could ever hope for.
Fans will buy music. Fans will support artists they develop a relationship with. Fans understand the value of the music TO THEM.
The "industry" stopped cultivating fans long ago, instead trying for the biggest buck in the fastest way possible, and telling people who they should like and buy. That's why very few artists these days make it past 1 or 2 records. No one gives a shit. But, to use your analogy from earlier, people do give a shit about Springsteen. He would've had fans and been success in any era because his music resonates with people. Bieber...he's a marketing phenomenon, not a musician. At least at this point.
And don't get me started on the RIAA. What other industry would ever sue their best customers for consuming their product? I can guarantee that did more harm than good to the "industry".
I don't know much about the Future of Music Coalition, although I have been asked to participate in their survey, which I just might do.
Jim Knodle Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Jason is a friend of mine, and I can testify that what he says is true-to my knowledge, he does not have a secret, non-musical source of income. What he does have is an indefatigable capacity for doing the job.
wonder Tuesday, May 24, 2011
as for part of your stats--how much revenue is generated via teaching? (rhetorical, don't actually need numbers.) if a fair amount, i'd venture to say, in the context of this article that you are a good example of a smart musician prospering... but not necessarily from creating and generating revenue from original music... which is what this article is about.
@amaccardo Monday, May 23, 2011
Anthony Accardo
anyone really think "music has never been better?"
@JerseyGirlM Monday, May 23, 2011
Jersey Girl Music
This article sadly resonates
@GeorgeDearing Monday, May 23, 2011
George Dearing
music's digital revolution hasn't closed the gap between the haves & the have-nots
@arthur_rocha Monday, May 23, 2011
arthur_rocha
Excelente artigo sobre o atual estado da indústria da música
@robkaay Monday, May 23, 2011
Rob Kaay
This is why artist self-distribution is the only way to go, the old system NEEDS to be killed
@carmelinamusic Monday, May 23, 2011
Carmelina Vargas
Oh oh
@pocket808 Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Sameer Sengupta
The Music Biz.... what a great place to be right now!
jbedbus Tuesday, May 24, 2011
I'm talking about extreme gaps between the rich and poor, a depressingly large group in poverty, endemic corruption, extended decline, and the presence of pervasive, religious ideas that have little connection to reality.
And... how does this differ from America in general?
@Music_We_Like Tuesday, May 24, 2011
CELAS
Another great article by Paul Resnikoff - and the comments are a great read too!
@themarkhicks Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Mark Hicks
Detroit What?
@rekha6 Tuesday, May 24, 2011
rekha6
On Tunecore and CD Baby, "the average yearly payout is about $175 per artist"
@sheezybeatz Tuesday, May 24, 2011
SHeed aka Sheezy
great article.
Kyle M. B. Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Smaller bands make a living from shows, not CD sales. These would be impossible statistics to compile, and are largely under the table.
Anyway, the highest profit margin for CD sales for any band are CD's sold at shows. CDBaby and other online sites are great for promotion of smaller artists, but will not replace hard work, great gigs, and real promotion. The money is out there, but its not easy.
Sincerely,
Kyle (who works a 40hr a week to pay his bills despite being in 3 active gigging bands, but still holds faith).
@Double0KiDz Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Double0kidz
Jeez it's hard out here for artists
@LeonAlexnder Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Leon Alexander
Fascinating!
Smitty Tuesday, May 24, 2011
You tell it like it is, Paul!
After listening to people "armchair quarterback" like Lefsetz endlessly (all the time snuggling up to the few that have been pillaging the industry for years), it's nice to just hear it said as it should be. The answers aren't there yet, and anyone who claims to know is just full of sh*t!
In the meantime, those of us with passion for what we do languish in the background, trying to break through.
Off with their heads, I say!
Tom "Smitty" Smith
@MargoDrakos Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Margo Drakos
Thoughtful discussion responses to read.
@stsn Tuesday, May 24, 2011
stinson
Wow. Why publish something like this? Something that has no constructive benefit at all. There's no positive take-away. And it seems the only commenter who's got a bit of sense is One Working Musician.
Rock N' Roll Buddha Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Some people are slamming Paul as being too negative - but that's YOUR perception.
I personally (MY perception) find Paul's take refreshing - because he's not sugar coating reality or lying about a mythical turnaround in this business.
If you've been in this business for more than 5 years - if you are being honest - the vast majority of us have seen our incomes decline drastically (and in some cases Catastrophically).
The hard cold facts are that the "cloud" isn't going to save us, and subscriptions aren't going to save us... That system will just continue to perpetuate the currently skewed system where the very few at the top take the vast majority of the revenue and the rest of us will go begging. Music is a unique business, and the subscription model (like Netflix, fro example) that people keep trying to say will work - simply WON'T for recorded music.
Until and unless people are willing to PAY for digital music, the recorded music industry will continue to decline. When you can get virtually any new release within 3-5 clicks of a mouse and download it in a few minutes for free, with no penalty even though its illegal - things will not get better. Without revenue, you can't hire and maintain a team of people to work the music. And without a team of people to help promote, market, publicize and sel the music - you will not rise above the ever increasing noise in the marketplace that all these wonderful new tools have opened the floodgates for. **While it may seem counter-intuitive, I think the Amazon sale of Lady Gaga for .99 cents is a brilliant move. The vast majority of bittorrent activity on a new release happens in the first 60 days after release - so this is a way to counter that. Its better to get SOME revenue rather than lose it all to the bittorrents.
I see so many people that spout off about how Music Biz execs are luddites, and refuse to embrace new systems and technology. For the most part, that's complete Horseshit! Most people that I know that are still in this business use these new tools, and would absolutely embrace a viable new model. So far - no one has come up with a model that works.
No business can compete with free. Sure, there will be a few people that are able to stay in the business and squeeze out a living. If you can make $40,000.00 a year and be Middle Class - God Bless! Try living in a major metropolitan area on that kind of dough...
Unless we can find a way to monetize digital music in a more sustainable fashion - its going to be a business that shrinks unabated. Lack of sustainable revenue will mean less warm bodies working on projects which will mean declining overall revenues - its a downward tailspin that amplifies itself. There will continue to be a talent and brain-drain from the business, and that's a damn shame - because it doesn't have to be this way.
@FreeLoaderCR Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Chris Ruen
The music industry as a failed state...
@HugeAu Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Huge
Great read, including comments
@shadowmelody1 Tuesday, May 24, 2011
@dsmusicpr Wednesday, May 25, 2011
i agree with jason parker, to add to his comments there are so many resources that can help acts better their careers (music biz books, blogs, seminars) but some acts are either too lazy to put in the work or have the "waiting for a label deal" mentality
@FreeMusicR3vltn Wednesday, May 25, 2011
F.R.E.E. Records
The music industry is becoming more & more like the current economy: The richest 1% control everything!...
@dsmusicpr Wednesday, May 25, 2011
DS Music PR
Damn!!
@artzbridge Wednesday, May 25, 2011
ArtzBridge
Interesting analogy & honest observation here
@Shocklee Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Shocklee
Good read
@ronproulx Wednesday, May 25, 2011
ronproulx
Agreed
@stevenjwhite Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Steven White
yes, music biz is not what digital life prophecy said it would be but most people still like crap, that'll never change
@wreckedangle Wednesday, May 25, 2011
wreckedangle
this paints a bleak picture.. labels will firmly resist until their hand is absolutely forced
RFlynn Wednesday, May 25, 2011
From the new guy...
I believe that the piece is well-written and researched, however, it is more of a well-done reminder of how the industry has become "bipolar" (great analogy Paul!) because the big $$ players were not pro-active and, frankly, still don't get "it."
For Jason Parker - You are not the norm by any stretch...simplistically? you are on here commenting with a link attached to every comment..how many musicians do you know who are as resourceful...and yes I did click on your link (~:
Robert - heck, I have been reading your work for so long...which is a good thing... however, we'll have to wait for another time so I can take another view...
There are some great sites out there, with really good and sincere people owning, managing and working at them...but the internet is way to crowded - to the point that artists are a "needle in a haystack."
I have also read a lot of hyperbole regarding the industry these days because all of us are looking for that silver lining...a good example is vinyl...in 2010 less than 3Mil units sold - folks, that's a pimple on an elephants butt - and I am a huge analog-supporter and put my money where my mouth is.
Illegal downloading - I have never done it because I have heard too many horror stories about viruses..not sure if I would if not for that but tend to believe that my values would win out. However, the younger generation is being brought up on "free" music. A bad analogy is my generation being brought up on "free" TV.
The answer will forever revolve because technology moves at the speed of light...however, the picture will be less muddied once the thousands of sites that promise riches and fame get pared down to the few that do it really well. The leaders of the "next best thing" need to have a forward thinking vision and pro-active in their models - remember MySpace? Many musicians ask me to check out their MySpace pages - the last time I did (about 4 months ago) a Trojan virus clamped on and wiped out my hard-drive...most likely a bad coincidence but...plus, I have discussed with the younger musicians - there opinion is that it is so yesterday...
Sorry about the long long post ~rf
Bruno Mars Wednesday, May 25, 2011
You sound like a poor person. Most music sucks and its about sperating the wheat from the chafe. Major labels are great!
@HBSmktg Wednesday, May 25, 2011
John Deighton
10 years into a digitized music industry -- has it become a 3rd world country or has a musical middle class emerged?
@jaysylva Wednesday, May 25, 2011
jaysylva
disenfranchised rock harder
Marc S Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Interesting debates all.
Here's what I see. Large established acts have had to switch paradigm. They can't sit back and be creative because the sale of the music doesn't net much for them (cds don't sell. downloads don't pay much, stolen downloads pay zero). It forces them into a constant touring and sell, sell, sell merch cycle. For some, this may explain the lack of quality new rock music (which I yearn for) vs the ever changing world of pop (Is there anyone here that thinks next year Justin Bieber will be anything more than last years news?).
I was delighted to hear the comments of the poster who feels that working hard and making what he needs in his life is "making it". It absolutely is. The satisfaction to the artist is the most important thing. I also agree there are so many ways in which an artist can promote themselves independently and reap the benefits of it. There are countless artists making livings without bowing to the industry, which when you think about it, wasn't that what RnR, Punk Rock, Heavy Metal and other genres urged us to do?
Now to the gentleman who was rubutting him(apologies I don't have the names down). I agree also that it's sad that there are less jobs out there for musicians. Much of the reason may be that live music, once replaced by DJs can now be replaced with an Ipod. The other reason is, for an original band, it's toooooo expensive to perform.
I have a rock band with my son (age 14, he writes and plays all instruments, I'm very proud of him). Our genre would be closest to Classic Rock. Since performing his original tunes, we've played over 50 shows since Jan of 2010 in and out of the NY area. It's amazing...in the context of the venue owner, the agent, the band etc, usually the most broke person in that equation is the band but, yet they have the brunt of all the costs. When I toured with my band in the early 80s, every club guaranteed us money, no door polls, no minimums, no production costs. Now it's ridiculous. They take the first 10-25 admissions and then start splitting money. What happens? The clubs get bands not of quality, but who can network and get a bunch of their freinds/family down. I get it, the clubs need to make money.
The thing that's missing from the (lower level) live scene seems to be venue owners who believe enough in the groups to give them a shot to open for a national act who can draw. Instead, they make the bands do a "ticket buy". Guarantee ticket sales to be put on the bill. Very frustrating. We won't perform anymore unless a touring group asks us (because it's the right thing to do) or it's a legit event...local festival or similar.
If I was advising a young rock band, I would tell them..record old school (analog. it has the warmth and yes it's easily available) and promote new school (instead of losing money touring, get a keg, invite a hall full of rowdies, film it, and throw it up on youtube). It'll be cost effective, and you'll get more attention.
Just my long two two cents. Thanks to those who read. Ciritics welcome, my skin is as thick as it get
@DuchessJM Thursday, May 26, 2011
Nellie
Good read
@adambeas Thursday, May 26, 2011
Adam Beasley
I've been reading the newsletter for years but it's starting to sound like opinion. I read Lefsetz for opinion. Please stick with the news.
@pc_wines Thursday, May 26, 2011
Pacta Connect
Interesting read.
@skin_trader Thursday, May 26, 2011
Isabel
extreme gaps between the rich and poor.... Very appropiate
Dave Cool Thursday, May 26, 2011
Nice article Paul. You might enjoy a blog post I wrote last month discussing
this same issue in response to the survey that you did with ReverbNation, as
well as your interview with Panos Panay:
Enough theory, where's the evidence of the Indie Music Revolution?
http://davecool.ca/2011/04/enough-theory-wheres-the-evidence-of-the-indie-music-revolution/
@st1ck3r Friday, May 27, 2011
Chris Seidensticker
Interesting analogy
@McGregorSam Friday, May 27, 2011
Sam McGregor
Bang On!
@Sonics60 Friday, May 27, 2011
Sonics60
Good debate going on here.
El Caton Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Here's a link to a great piece from Jeff Pollack @ the Huntington Post - he sums up things very succinctly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-pollack/sympathy-for-the-devil-wh_b_865887.html
Jason Parker Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Jeff makes some good points, but this argument always falls apart for me upon this premise:
"doesn't the primary financial fallout come primarily because fans simply do not want to pay for music? "
In my experience
@jusdave31st Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Jus Dave
Thought it already was....
Greg Friday, June 17, 2011
Why does anyone think artists *deserve* to be paid? Technology has brought music making to everyone and their dog. Music has been restored to its rightful place as a folk art.
Jak Bardot Friday, June 17, 2011
There's far more talented musicians in the world than there are job openings.
The super fans of Lady Gaga are unlikely to be super fans of anyone else or spend 100s or 1000s on one more.
Look at The Voice. The most popular on itunes are not even the best technical singers, e.g. where are Xtina's girls on itunes compared to Dia Frampton or Xenia.
I don't even think Frenchie charted in the top 100.
So sorry not everyone and not even the best will have popularity, a career, or even a job forever.
Visitor Wednesday, June 22, 2011
This is taken from a link further up this comment thread and I think adds wieght to the original article (which I thought was excellent). It seems that without a record deal musicians are going to struggle - yet so many musicians seem to think they can do it themselves now-a-days?
@MoistyAtsushi Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Moisty Atsushi
Awful truth.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us