I don't believe in music for music's sake either but similarly I don't believe in music for profit's sake which is what we mostly get from the major labels in recent years.
I believe in music as an expression of creativity and emotion because that is what music (all art really) is. The amount of brilliant music I have discovered just in the last 2 years totally eclipses what I discovered in the previous 15.
I don't believe in music for music's sake either but similarly I don't believe in music for profit's sake which is what we mostly get from the major labels in recent years.
I believe in music as an expression of creativity and emotion because that is what music (all art really) is. The amount of brilliant music I have discovered just in the last 2 years totally eclipses what I discovered in the previous 15.
So what's the problem then? There's more music available than ever before, it's affordable, accessible, of every genre, musical equipment is available to many, training courses, venues of all sizes, a supportive government, an industry looking for talent.....there are many people like yourself finding all this wonderful music...you are saying there is plenty of money...what's the problem, then?
So what's the problem then? There's more music available than ever before, it's affordable, accessible, of every genre, musical equipment is available to many, training courses, venues of all sizes, a supportive government, an industry looking for talent.....there are many people like yourself finding all this wonderful music...you are saying there is plenty of money...what's the problem, then?
The music industry are the problem, corporate **** in suits who would not know great music if it punched them in the face. For decades they have fought every single disruptive technology that comes along pissing and moaning about how it will kill music. It has not happened yet and it will not happen.
Even today, they cling to a monopoly on music distribution that is long gone and will never come back. I would like to see a bit of forward, long term thinking from the music industry but I won't hold my breath.
The music industry are the problem, corporate **** in suits who would not know great music if it punched them in the face. For decades they have fought every single disruptive technology that comes along pissing and moaning about how it will kill music. It has not happened yet and it will not happen.
Even today, they cling to a monopoly on music distribution that is long gone and will never come back. I would like to see a bit of forward, long term thinking from the music industry but I won't hold my breath.
That's more or less the same as it ever was with sections of the biz.
To be fair that same biz has actually given some great music along the way. There just aren't any true stories of pop or rock left.
I'm suggesting to you that the means are there, it's just that the musicians don't have the imagination or the creative urge to change things. It's a world of shoegazing artists and personal playlists full of 'brilliant' music.
You take the spirit of the age as you get it. It's not technologies that are disruptive it's people who are disruptive or in this case, they aren't.
This isn't just a new thing. There's stories of bands from decades ago that naively signed bad record contracts because they were desperate, and when said bands blew up and became huge, there were nowhere as rich as they should have been.
It's sad with cases like streaming, but I don't think it's easy for sites like Spotify to pay higher royalty rates if they want to keep their prices down for their customers, and if they want to be advert-free for their suscribers.
That said, I don't think a lot of artists care that much. There's underground MCs and DJs that can get paid a few hundred pound just to perform at a club.
This isn't just a new thing. There's stories of bands from decades ago that naively signed bad record contracts because they were desperate, and when said bands blew up and became huge, there were nowhere as rich as they should have been.
It's sad with cases like streaming, but I don't think it's easy for sites like Spotify to pay higher royalty rates if they want to keep their prices down for their customers, and if they want to be advert-free for their suscribers.
That said, I don't think a lot of artists care that much. There's underground MCs and DJs that can get paid a few hundred pound just to perform at a club.
Without being too grandiose, that is the nature of the unreformed capitalist system we choose to live in and preserve.
Rock and Pop have pretensions to rebel and liberate but as I said way back earlier really all they do nowadays is conform. Rock just seems to do it more earnestly!
'You and me we're going nowhere slowly
And we gotta get away from the past
There's nothing wrong with going nowhere baby
But we should be going nowhere fast'
Steinman, J.
Steinman gets it right...it's all bu**shit with a sense of urgency.
Without being too grandiose, that is the nature of the unreformed capitalist system we choose to live in and preserve.
Rock and Pop have pretensions to rebel and liberate but as I said way back earlier really all they do nowadays is conform. Rock just seems to do it more earnestly!
'You and me we're going nowhere slowly
And we gotta get away from the past
There's nothing wrong with going nowhere baby
But we should be going nowhere fast'
Steinman, J.
Steinman gets it right...it's all bu**shit with a sense of urgency.
Unreformed capitalist system? We don't have that at all. What we have is a system of cronyism between government and corporations designed to protect monopolies and keep wealth moving up, all the while stifling all competition and innovation.
If the album is dying (not convinced it is) it is not because of itunes. It is because of years of albums with 2/3 great songs and 10 mediocre ones. Why buy an album full of filler when you can buy the songs you love?
As for there not being money in the music industry, bollocks. What we are seeing is greater distribution of sales and thus greater distribution of the money because there is so much choice now.
The music listener is becoming more discerning about what they will pay for and that is a good thing for music overall.
It is because of iTunes. Read what I typed.
There is not as much money in the music industry. Again, read what I said.
There is not as much money in the music industry. Again, read what I said.
What itunes has done is give music fans the ability to only buy the songs they like and leave the filler behind.
Again I ask the question, why should anyone have to buy a full album when there are only 2 or 3 great songs and 10 mediocre ones?
If artists want to sell more albums they should try to write all songs to the same standard. There is a reason albums sell better than singles in Rock, because many rock bands focus on the album.
It does stagger me how droves of folks still sign up to ludicrously one sided and restrictive deals, contracts and publishing. I would have thought that in this day and age it would be a lot simpler to disseminate your product and not be beholden to publishers/distributors.... Still,maybe musical talent and entrepreneurial flair are incompatible......
It does stagger me how droves of folks still sign up to ludicrously one sided and restrictive deals, contracts and publishing. I would have thought that in this day and age it would be a lot simpler to disseminate your product and not be beholden to publishers/distributors.... Still,maybe musical talent and entrepreneurial flair are incompatible......
Agreed. Artists have all the power in negotiations these days. Record labels are not the only places to secure funding and marketing.
Musicians need to realise that and enter negotiations with open eyes and their wits about them.
You can still make money off of music. Adele has proven that and while she may only be 1 example, she's proof that if you go about it the right way (not just relying on your looks or taking your clothes off), build up a fanbase, and release decent music that people can relate to, it'll sell.
The main problem with the industry is that there's so many other ways to listen to music these days.
It is basically useless to spend money on music now. You can go on YouTube and listen to it for free, subscribe to Spotify, etc.
You can still make money off of music. Adele has proven that and while she may only be 1 example, she's proof that if you go about it the right way (not just relying on your looks or taking your clothes off), build up a fanbase, and release decent music that people can relate to, it'll sell.
The main problem with the industry is that there's so many other ways to listen to music these days.
It is basically useless to spend money on music now. You can go on YouTube and listen to it for free, subscribe to Spotify, etc.
There is very little that you can extrapolate from the success of Adele. Her success derives from huge critical acclaim (not something particularly valued by DS contributors) and recognition alongside some key media appearances. Those things are outside most artists control.
The problem is with the consumer anyway. As I have mentioned before, in a world of infinite choice we all tend to limit our choices.
There is very little that you can extrapolate from the success of Adele. Her success derives from huge critical acclaim (not something particularly valued by DS contributors) and recognition alongside some key media appearances. Those things are outside most artists control.
The problem is with the consumer anyway. As I have mentioned before, in a world of infinite choice we all tend to limit our choices.
The only way to make money as an artist/band is to tour. There is no money in music sales.
In my opinion, that's how it should be. The actual music is just advertising to get people to the gig and advertising should be free. Clearly there's a problem if a musician sees the music as being the product, when the music is a limitless resource that can be replicated infinitely. The performance is a scarce resource which can't be replicated. Unless robots or cloning really take off, then I can see the music industry having a real problem.
In my opinion, that's how it should be. The actual music is just advertising to get people to the gig and advertising should be free. Clearly there's a problem if a musician sees the music as being the product, when the music is a limitless resource that can be replicated infinitely. The performance is a scarce resource which can't be replicated. Unless robots or cloning really take off, then I can see the music industry having a real problem.
Interesting, what you are describing is the situation prior to recorded music. Pop music was transformed in the 'age of mechanical reproduction' (Walter Benjamin) which was the big development of 20th century music. Benjamin thought music would lose some of its aura if it was mechanically reproduced. Maybe he was right?
Of course, there is much music which simply can't be reproduced live..i.e. the recording studio makes it possible. Live musicianship isn't the only musicianship but it does have some unique value.
What itunes has done is give music fans the ability to only buy the songs they like and leave the filler behind.
Again I ask the question, why should anyone have to buy a full album when there are only 2 or 3 great songs and 10 mediocre ones?
If artists want to sell more albums they should try to write all songs to the same standard. There is a reason albums sell better than singles in Rock, because many rock bands focus on the album.
Exactly, I mainly only buy Rock / Symphonic metal music for which I have a vast collection of CD's that I have purchased from either direct from the artist or from HMV in a sale. In the extremely rare occasions when I do like something in the Top 40, then I will buy the single track from iTunes for a few quid. I refuse to pay x amount out on the latest Now Album which has 38 tracks of pure sh!t & only 2 tracks that I would actually listen to. Hell I wouldn't even download a Now album illegally as the amount of sh!t on there is a waste of HDD / Memory card space.
To the people suggesting artist can go it alone without a label that's a nice dream. I watch unsigned bands in my town's pubs and I doubt any of them make any money, indeed they probably lose money. I would have thought they are all on band camp etc flogging their tunes and I doubt many people buy them. Shame as some acts I see have good songs.
The simple brutal truth is without a label to promote you TV, radio and the mainstream media take no interest in you. Even all those supposedly cool indie websites/blogs on the web take no interest.
If I went and put a link to some obscure band I'd heard on the pub circuit on here would anybody give a sh*t? Of course they wouldn't! It would just flop off the boards. Hell sometimes people do put links like that and maybe one person says "that's nice" and then that's it. Hype is what gets people interested and whether they stay interested is dependent on whether the act was worth the hype.
To the people suggesting artist can go it alone without a label that's a nice dream. I watch unsigned bands in my town's pubs and I doubt any of them make any money, indeed they probably lose money. I would have thought they are all on band camp etc flogging their tunes and I doubt many people buy them. Shame as some acts I see have good songs.
The simple brutal truth is without a label to promote you TV, radio and the mainstream media take no interest in you. Even all those supposedly cool indie websites/blogs on the web take no interest.
If I went and put a link to some obscure band I'd heard on the pub circuit on here would anybody give a sh*t? Of course they wouldn't! It would just flop off the boards. Hell sometimes people do put links like that and maybe one person says "that's nice" and then that's it. Hype is what gets people interested and whether they stay interested is dependent on whether the act was worth the hype.
Comments
The first step is to kill off X Factor and similar shows.
I believe in music as an expression of creativity and emotion because that is what music (all art really) is. The amount of brilliant music I have discovered just in the last 2 years totally eclipses what I discovered in the previous 15.
I would agree with that. These shows are nothing more than get famous quick schemes that produce safe, soulless music.
People need to get out to their local pubs and clubs and see just how much talent is actually out there.
So what's the problem then? There's more music available than ever before, it's affordable, accessible, of every genre, musical equipment is available to many, training courses, venues of all sizes, a supportive government, an industry looking for talent.....there are many people like yourself finding all this wonderful music...you are saying there is plenty of money...what's the problem, then?
The music industry are the problem, corporate **** in suits who would not know great music if it punched them in the face. For decades they have fought every single disruptive technology that comes along pissing and moaning about how it will kill music. It has not happened yet and it will not happen.
Even today, they cling to a monopoly on music distribution that is long gone and will never come back. I would like to see a bit of forward, long term thinking from the music industry but I won't hold my breath.
That's more or less the same as it ever was with sections of the biz.
To be fair that same biz has actually given some great music along the way. There just aren't any true stories of pop or rock left.
I'm suggesting to you that the means are there, it's just that the musicians don't have the imagination or the creative urge to change things. It's a world of shoegazing artists and personal playlists full of 'brilliant' music.
You take the spirit of the age as you get it. It's not technologies that are disruptive it's people who are disruptive or in this case, they aren't.
It's sad with cases like streaming, but I don't think it's easy for sites like Spotify to pay higher royalty rates if they want to keep their prices down for their customers, and if they want to be advert-free for their suscribers.
That said, I don't think a lot of artists care that much. There's underground MCs and DJs that can get paid a few hundred pound just to perform at a club.
Without being too grandiose, that is the nature of the unreformed capitalist system we choose to live in and preserve.
Rock and Pop have pretensions to rebel and liberate but as I said way back earlier really all they do nowadays is conform. Rock just seems to do it more earnestly!
'You and me we're going nowhere slowly
And we gotta get away from the past
There's nothing wrong with going nowhere baby
But we should be going nowhere fast'
Steinman, J.
Steinman gets it right...it's all bu**shit with a sense of urgency.
Unreformed capitalist system? We don't have that at all. What we have is a system of cronyism between government and corporations designed to protect monopolies and keep wealth moving up, all the while stifling all competition and innovation.
Off topic but it had to be said.
There is not as much money in the music industry. Again, read what I said.
What itunes has done is give music fans the ability to only buy the songs they like and leave the filler behind.
Again I ask the question, why should anyone have to buy a full album when there are only 2 or 3 great songs and 10 mediocre ones?
If artists want to sell more albums they should try to write all songs to the same standard. There is a reason albums sell better than singles in Rock, because many rock bands focus on the album.
Wow, some unknown bands dont make much from royalties. how shocking.
It is the fate of most unknown bands to remain unknown, then.
Agreed. Artists have all the power in negotiations these days. Record labels are not the only places to secure funding and marketing.
Musicians need to realise that and enter negotiations with open eyes and their wits about them.
Just follow the money...power is always where the money is!
The main problem with the industry is that there's so many other ways to listen to music these days.
It is basically useless to spend money on music now. You can go on YouTube and listen to it for free, subscribe to Spotify, etc.
There is very little that you can extrapolate from the success of Adele. Her success derives from huge critical acclaim (not something particularly valued by DS contributors) and recognition alongside some key media appearances. Those things are outside most artists control.
The problem is with the consumer anyway. As I have mentioned before, in a world of infinite choice we all tend to limit our choices.
Bollocks
In my opinion, that's how it should be. The actual music is just advertising to get people to the gig and advertising should be free. Clearly there's a problem if a musician sees the music as being the product, when the music is a limitless resource that can be replicated infinitely. The performance is a scarce resource which can't be replicated. Unless robots or cloning really take off, then I can see the music industry having a real problem.
Interesting, what you are describing is the situation prior to recorded music. Pop music was transformed in the 'age of mechanical reproduction' (Walter Benjamin) which was the big development of 20th century music. Benjamin thought music would lose some of its aura if it was mechanically reproduced. Maybe he was right?
Of course, there is much music which simply can't be reproduced live..i.e. the recording studio makes it possible. Live musicianship isn't the only musicianship but it does have some unique value.
Exactly, I mainly only buy Rock / Symphonic metal music for which I have a vast collection of CD's that I have purchased from either direct from the artist or from HMV in a sale. In the extremely rare occasions when I do like something in the Top 40, then I will buy the single track from iTunes for a few quid. I refuse to pay x amount out on the latest Now Album which has 38 tracks of pure sh!t & only 2 tracks that I would actually listen to. Hell I wouldn't even download a Now album illegally as the amount of sh!t on there is a waste of HDD / Memory card space.
The simple brutal truth is without a label to promote you TV, radio and the mainstream media take no interest in you. Even all those supposedly cool indie websites/blogs on the web take no interest.
If I went and put a link to some obscure band I'd heard on the pub circuit on here would anybody give a sh*t? Of course they wouldn't! It would just flop off the boards. Hell sometimes people do put links like that and maybe one person says "that's nice" and then that's it. Hype is what gets people interested and whether they stay interested is dependent on whether the act was worth the hype.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130529/15560423243/massive-growth-independent-musicians-singers-over-past-decade.shtml