[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy

$10 for an album is expensive? For something which will give you pleasure for years?

If albums cost $10, I wouldn’t be nearly as bitter. Unfortunately, they don’t. They cost $35. I believe they’re about the same price in the UK as they are here, no (or a bit cheaper)?

$10 would be what I would call a reasonable price for an average album. For major releases (which are what you’re talking about), $35 is disproportionate to the cost of making the CD (including making the album) and reasonable profit margins.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

If albums cost $10, I wouldn’t be nearly as bitter. Unfortunately, they don’t. They cost $35. I believe they’re about the same price in the UK as they are here, no (or a bit cheaper)?

About £10 for a new release. Sometimes a touch more.
But looking at Amazon US, $10 seems about right.

But then the colonials also whine about petrol being $2.80 a gallon.

[Oisín]

About £10 for a new release. Sometimes a touch more.

Really? I seem to recall most new releases being £14.99 back when I was a music store-explorer in the UK (that would be about ten years ago, so maybe there’s been some deflation since?).

I’m not much of a regular in the music stores here anymore (mainly due to the prices), but anywhere between 150 and 180 DKK ($30 to $35) is regular pricing for new releases.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Really? I seem to recall most new releases being £14.99 back when I was a music store-explorer in the UK (that would be about ten years ago, so maybe there’s been some deflation since?).

I confess that I haven't been in a music store for nigh on 15 years - I'm going on online prices, from places which obviously don't have store overheads (as an aside, it's strange how nobody ever blames the councils for ridiculous business property tax pushing the store prices up).

Also, there was a big steam-up about CD prices a few years back (actual official consumer bodies getting involved), which must have contributed at least something to a lowering of prices.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

It's a bit of a moral dilemma and I hope the system doesn't get too abused, we shall see I guess...

It's going to get abused, but it's going to do Radiohead a lot of good in the process. People who wouldn't otherwise bother with their music might get take the chance and download it, then decide they like it and buy the album, and their older albums.

Besides, they really have nothing to lose: people who don't want to pay for the music in the first place won't, it's that simple. Doing it this way, they get more cash from the hardcore (the full £40 instead of £10-minus-the-label's-cut), and they haven't lost anything to the people who won't pay for it.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

With a band like radio-head, this could work.

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

But if there was a band out there that could take this chance its Radiohead. More power to em!

Don't forget Trent Reznor. He's basically spent the last year turning the music industry upside down in preparation for Year Zero. He 'leaked' songs on flash drives, trickled out information about it to build awareness and hype, released a bunch of them as multitrack files to remix. I think he's doing at least as much good as Radiohead.

Also, he's actually speaking out directly about it--look at his recent posts about how Universal has been screwing his fans Down Under.

Originally Posted by scaught 

The very definition of how we consume media is changing. The labels have little control of what and how we consume it. Terrestrial radio is dead in the water and turning into one giant sports discussion. MTV stopped being relevant when it comes to music years ago. Musicians/artists are getting a frightening amount of exposure with no assistance from who used to provide said things.

The way we consume media is definitely changing, and I'm not sure it's an entirely good thing. I'm three-and-a-half years older than my sister, and we consume media in a totally different way. I tend to buy albums; if she buys at all, it's songs off iTunes. I tend to buy CDs; again, if she buys, it's digital. I tend to really like the music I buy; she buys stuff she "quite likes". I have albums I've owned for years, and still listen to; she only listens to stuff that's relatively recent, and the rest just sits there, gathering cyber dust. I value the music as an artform; she treats it as a backing-track.

We've gone from genuinely valuing the music we listen to and own to treating it like a Big Mac: we eat it, it fills us for a little while, then it's gone and we don't think about it again. I really don't think that's a positive development. Most of the people on this thread probably treat music more like I do than my sister does, but it doesn't change the fact that my sister is entirely typical of her age group.

Her friends and her have no concept of music as having any real implicit value; they don't have the slightest guilt about downloading what they want and not paying the artist anything for it. Granted, the artist gets shafted by their major label, but they still get some recompense for their work.

I'm not trying to appear as some moral crusader or music industry stooge, because I do download music. When I do, though, it's either because I want to see if I like the artist or not, or it's obscure, hard-to-find remixes. If I don't like the artist enough to buy their CD, then I delete it. I don't see the point in having a hard-disk full of stuff I don't like. And I don't want to spend the time (or incur the at-times excessive expense) of tracking down one rare remix that I really want to get my hands on.

As I say, this is in the space of three-and-a-half years. It happened because I was at the ass-end of the CD-buying group, and she was at the head of the P2P group. As I said, I don't think this is a positive change. Whilst the music industry is in need of radical overhauling, and many people take a principled stand against its unfair business practices, most people don't download music as demonstration of some moral principle: they do it because it's free.

It's hard to really admit it, but people download music for the same reason the labels rip people off: greed. The labels have had it too good, and got away with unchallenged greed for so long that they've become accustomed to it. People download music because they're greedy: they want the music, but they don't want to pay for it. I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't share it. If a piece of music is genuinely worth owning, it's worth paying something for. Granted that it's perhaps not worth paying what the labels want us to pay for it.

And really, when you don't pay for something, do you really value it as much? If you didn't pay $X for your Mac, but instead got it for free, would you be as careful with it? I doubt it. In my experience (and I've done it myself) when a person doesn't pay for something, they don't tend to value it as much, because they've invested nothing in it.

While we wait, I'll post this link yet again. The Problem With Music

Quite an interesting read; much appreciated. One question, though: I take it 'points' are percentage points of the profits?

On the subject of Radiohead, I doubt I'll bother buying the album in any form, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, OK Computer was their magnus opus, and Kid A and everything after that, whilst still good, were shadows compared to that album. On top of that, I really dislike the conceptual cop-out of their later works; I always got the feeling that Kid A was the album it was not because they genuinely wanted to experiment or push boundaries, but because the only way they felt they could escape making an album perceived as a massive let-down in comparison to OK Computer was to make one so radically different as to be impossible to carry out a direct comparison.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But then the colonials also whine about petrol being $2.80 a gallon.

I didn't realise you were a Brit, Doofy! It's always good to bump into someone else from this 'green and pleasant' island.

The Colonials complain about the cost of a lot of things, but they really don't know how good they've got it. I think if they lived here for a year, they'd go home with an appreciation of just how cheap everything is in the US.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Really? I seem to recall most new releases being £14.99 back when I was a music store-explorer in the UK (that would be about ten years ago, so maybe there’s been some deflation since?).

I’m not much of a regular in the music stores here anymore (mainly due to the prices), but anywhere between 150 and 180 DKK ($30 to $35) is regular pricing for new releases.

Yeah, prices did drop a few years back. Most albums are released at around £10, as Doofy said and for the reasons he said. I don't blame you for avoiding music shops if they charge between $30 and $35 for a CD. And I thought Brits got ripped off...

I forgot to mention in my previou (torturously long) post that Radiohead can afford to do this because they've had success in the past, and don't really need to make money on this to live. They're made as it is; artists just starting out aren't as lucky, and wouldn't benefit from adopting a similar system. It's easy to take a moral stance when you have no chance of starving.

[Oisín]

The way we consume media is definitely changing, and I'm not sure it's an entirely good thing. I'm three-and-a-half years older than my sister, and we consume media in a totally different way. I tend to buy albums; if she buys at all, it's songs off iTunes. I tend to buy CDs; again, if she buys, it's digital. I tend to really like the music I buy; she buys stuff she "quite likes". I have albums I've owned for years, and still listen to; she only listens to stuff that's relatively recent, and the rest just sits there, gathering cyber dust. I value the music as an artform; she treats it as a backing-track.

To be honest, at least a part of the music I bought when I was 18/19 (which is what my abyssmal maths allow me to gauge your sister as) was of that kind, too: things I didn’t particularly value, but liked just at the time. And at that time (I’m 25 today, so a good year older than you), they were definitely all CDs, as well, not downloads. I don’t even think I’d downloaded my first MP3 when I was 18.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

The Colonials complain about the cost of a lot of things, but they really don't know how good they've got it.

Yeah, some of us do. We could have to live somewhere else.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

Quite an interesting read; much appreciated. One question, though: I take it 'points' are percentage points of the profits?

Ya. It's something like that, percentage points of gross profits instead of a flat dollar rate. If a producer thought it was going to be huge, he might bargain for points rather than cash.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

To be honest, at least a part of the music I bought when I was 18/19 (which is what my abyssmal maths allow me to gauge your sister as) was of that kind, too: things I didn’t particularly value, but liked just at the time. And at that time (I’m 25 today, so a good year older than you), they were definitely all CDs, as well, not downloads. I don’t even think I’d downloaded my first MP3 when I was 18.

You'd be right--she just turned twenty about two months ago. Whilst I realise age does have something to do with it, I still can't see her attitudes to music changing. When your first exposure to music is free, and you get used to getting it for free, you're unlikely to want to start paying for it. I remember coming out of HMV clutching Mogwai's Young Team to my chest like it was the Holy Grail. I still enjoy the allbum to this day--"Mogwai Fear Satan" is a song rarely matched. Sadly, I don't think my sister will ever have a similar experience.

I think I was twenty before I downloaded my first MP3, and I didn't really think much of the experience. It lacked the thrill of actually getting the CD home, putting it in the player and reading the booklet; all very ritualistic, but infinitely more satisfying than downloading a song.

Originally Posted by design219 

Yeah, some of us do. We could have to live somewhere else.

I'm glad some of you appreciate it!

Originally Posted by scaught 

Ya. It's something like that, percentage points of gross profits instead of a flat dollar rate. If a producer thought it was going to be huge, he might bargain for points rather than cash.

Yeah, if I had a feeling that an album was going to be big, I'd take the points over the flat dollar rate. You could make some serious cash that way.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

On the subject of Radiohead, I doubt I'll bother buying the album in any form, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, OK Computer was their magnus opus, and Kid A and everything after that, whilst still good, were shadows compared to that album. On top of that, I really dislike the conceptual cop-out of their later works; I always got the feeling that Kid A was the album it was not because they genuinely wanted to experiment or push boundaries, but because the only way they felt they could escape making an album perceived as a massive let-down in comparison to OK Computer was to make one so radically different as to be impossible to carry out a direct comparison.

Can't stand "OK Computer".

"Kid A" was where they started to get interesting - IMO.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by scaught 

Everyone does everything in ProTools. The same ProTools that can be acquired by anyone for far less than whatever 28000 dollar sum you're talking about. Wait until someone releases something free that can compete with protools. Then you'll see the ass fall out of it all.

ProTools is HARDWARE, and you'll find that a decent *real* ProTools system runs considerably closer (and above) to those $28,000 dollars - entry level - than you'd care to think about.

Not including studio acoustics and break-out boxes, patch bays, external mixer, controllers, and any sound sources or external processing boxes.

I'll agree that Doofy's approach *seems* like an anachronism in a world where one preferred modus of "listening" to music is to have 2pac blaring over a ****ing cell-phone speaker.

But the talk about the quality of the music being more important than the sound quality is *just* as anachronistic, because it's just as wrong - or correct.

[zerock]

discbox is mighty tempting. if only it didnt have an extra disc . then i would jump to the download only.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'll give them about 7 bucks... which is what I believe albums are worth.

What is your belief based on?

Albums can be produced very cheaply, or can cost a band literally tens of thousands of dollars. Many people expect high quality recordings when they buy an album, so in order for a band to compete with these standards they need to shell out some serious cash, and many of them do not have the popularity or fan base to recoup these costs.

Saying that $7 across the board is what albums are worth is dumb, if I may be blunt. The value of albums is a big fat "it depends".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Do they now?! Better go tell Otari, Studer, SSL and AMS-Neve to stop bothering to make their recorders.



$28,000 = studio time. Eight weeks in a cheap studio running ProTools and some crappy hardware (analogika: Yam O2r, no master clock, no Apogee, no Focusrite, no Lexicon.).

And it's not ProTools which is expensive - it's the input/output hardware. For example, I've just spent $10,000-odd on two input channels for my home studio - because you simply cannot get that sound without spending that kind of money. Don't kid yourselves people - world class recordings do not come cheap. Period.

Oh, and we haven't even started on the promotion yet. How do you break a band without the machine? While there may be the odd few who get up there (Lily Allen, Arctic Monkeys, etc.), the other zillion are doomed to be hobbyists on FaceBook while they work the day shift at the realtor office.

Doofy, you are absolutely right. I wish more people knew what it actually costs to make a decent recording.

- studio time
- paying for the musicians
- engineering
- marketing/liner notes
- CD production

There are a *ton* of costs involved in making a CD that is the quality that people expect these days. It is insulting to these musicians for them to spend tens of thousands of dollars knowing full well that they may not recoup their costs, only to have some know-it-alls assert that the album is only worth $7.

The artist would need to sell 1,428 albums to reach $10,000 at $7, and they would need to compete with everybody else who also has a CD for sale. They would have to sell 1,867 albums at $15 to reach $28,000 in sales...

Selling 1,867 of *anything* is nothing to be taken for granted.

[brassplayersrock²]

Radiohead website crashes as fans rush to order album - Independent Online Edition > Science & Tech

[natnabour]

Whoa. After that grueling 1.5 pages worth of machine this, how we perceive the media now, etc... I'm compelled to wonder what you'd think if any other artist did this? Don't hate on a band who's made enough money to try to give something back to their audience (for an ''optional'' fee).

This day in age musicians know that their songs are illegally downloaded - how much of it, they don't know. Maybe this is a very very big experiment to see how many people would a) download the album for free vs b) how many people would actually pay for it. If I were in a band, I'd want to know.

As for Radiohead themselves, I think they've surpassed the ''money making'' factor. This is them having fun and being extremely smart business men at the same time.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doofy, you are absolutely right. I wish more people knew what it actually costs to make a decent recording.

- studio time
- paying for the musicians
- engineering
- marketing/liner notes
- CD production

There are a *ton* of costs involved in making a CD that is the quality that people expect these days. It is insulting to these musicians for them to spend tens of thousands of dollars knowing full well that they may not recoup their costs, only to have some know-it-alls assert that the album is only worth $7.

The artist would need to sell 1,428 albums to reach $10,000 at $7, and they would need to compete with everybody else who also has a CD for sale. They would have to sell 1,867 albums at $15 to reach $28,000 in sales...

Selling 1,867 of *anything* is nothing to be taken for granted.

How much of that actually gets to the artist anyway?

I get 90 tracks a month from eMusic for $20. That usually amounts to about 6-7 albums. That's about $3 an album. 100% legal.

We'll see how many $15 CDs people are willing to buy 10 years from now. Whether it's fair or not... whether you like it or not,, whether it's good or bad... the whole system is changing and will continue to change. The big music studios need to wake up and embrace it before they wake up and realize the whole thing slipped out from under them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

How much of that actually gets to the artist anyway?

I get 90 tracks a month from eMusic for $20. That usually amounts to about 6-7 albums. That's about $3 an album. 100% legal.

We'll see how many $15 CDs people are willing to buy 10 years from now. Whether it's fair or not... whether you like it or not,, whether it's good or bad... the whole system is changing and will continue to change. The big music studios need to wake up and embrace it before they wake up and realize the whole thing slipped out from under them.

It all depends on the artist, their label, and their agreements...

All of my arguments are focused on smaller, independent bands, since most of us seem to be in agreement that top 40 sucks - so I'm not addressing them. Many great bands are now going with smaller labels that give them more control over their music (big name and small name bands). What I'm saying relates to musicians basically selling their own music, or smaller record labels selling music, or both... I don't know too much about how Britney Spears and the like work their labels, but since I work with a lot of smaller bands this is there my heart is - I pretty much ignore musicians like Britney, she is not a part of my musical universe.

With many of hese smaller labels, the artist does see this money. Piracy and poor sales do affect them, these sorts of relationships are not like record deals with one of the big three labels where they subsidize the artist and control every aspect of the artist's business, sales, and marketing. Many of the negative things you have heard about the big labels do not apply to the smaller labels, that is the niche that they are filling, and that is what is driving many passionate and dedicated successful artists away from these labels in growing numbers.

eMusic is all about these smaller labels. The service you are paying for is basically a radio station like Pandora. What is in it for the artists with eMusic is market penetration. They are getting their music out there and hopefully getting people to ultimately buy their music. Not every artist is interested in putting their music out there like that, this sort of thing varies, but this does not mean that the music you are listening to has no value.

[ort888]

Ultimately buy their music? Most of the people I like have their entire catalogs on there...

I've always wondered how that money gets back to them. Does it all get thrown in a pot and split up or do the actually get a tiny cut of every song downloaded? Anyone know?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I've always wondered how that money gets back to them. Does it all get thrown in a pot and split up or do the actually get a tiny cut of every song downloaded? Anyone know?

They get a cut of all profit (note: PROFIT, i.e. what's left AFTER studio/production/promotion/manufacturing/shipping costs are paid off) generated by sales of the music.

Unless they have a fixed-sum agreement, or a maximum sum (in exchange for better points), or some other weird agreement - like, say, 3% of profits up to a certain fixed sum, and then less (or more) above that.

Because costs almost always have to be recouped before any money is generated that will be give a cut to the artists, it is very rare for any musician to make any money off an album at all, these days.

Apart from that, there are royalties payable to those who actually own the copyright, i.e. the song authors. Those go directly to ASCAP or equivalents (from airplay, clubs, and record sales), and from there to the authors.

Then there's a sort of musicians' guild to ensure that the people who played on the albums but don't get a cut because they didn't write the material get a little portion of the pot, as well. In Germany, this is the GVL (I don't know if there's a U.S. equivalent). The cut a musician gets is determined as a fixed percentage of how much money he received for his album-related services that year. A little confusing: The way this works is that a small fee is payable for each album sold (similar to royalties, but less), which all flows into a big pot. The money that lands in this fund for a given year, is divided into much money the member musicians have declared as income for that year, so that every musician gets an extra 25% or so of what he's made that year on top. Meaning that if he's made $4000 in fees, he gets an extra $1000, and if he's made $400, he gets $100.
This is nice, because instrumentalists usually don't get points.

Even for so-called "indie" productions, figure in costs of equipment, computer, software, mixer, a couple of outboard effects, and the time and expertise required to record that (even at a local "amateur" studio), and the only way anybody's gonna make money off it is because the equipment has already been paid for over the last ten years.

[Kevin]

If the music is good, people will buy it. I remember when Metallica started sucking, and then blaming their poor music sales on Napster.

If the music of choice you decide to play is outside of the mainstream, don't be surprised if you can't make a living doing it.

Most musicians have two jobs... their music job, and the job they have to actually support them. Some get lucky and can quit the second, some aren't so lucky.

Thems just the breaks.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If the music is good, people will buy it.

If a fantastic album is dropped in the middle of a dark forest, and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

If a fantastic album is dropped in the middle of a dark forest, and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound?

No, because whoever made the album dropped it in the middle of the freakin forest!1 How do you expect anyone to hear it?

The person should have instead been giving his music out to people to listen to. Eventually if he has something "sellable" people will buy it.

In every store around here, esp music stores, have a catalogue of JUST local artists. I've bought a few myself. A lot of it is crap, and very little of it was worth buying. But I did find a few gems in the rough.

I also found out that those CDs sold the fastest. Why? Word of mouth.

[analogika]

Try to find out just how many CDs those bands are selling by word of mouth.

I have a good hunch the store will have sold on the order of several dozen, with *total* sales of the albums in the couple of hundred.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Try to find out just how many CDs those bands are selling by word of mouth.

How else are they selling them?

I have a good hunch the store will have sold on the order of several dozen, with *total* sales of the albums in the couple of hundred.

Heck, if I made an album here in my house, and put it on CD, and a couple hundred people bought it cause they liked it, etc. I'd be thrilled.

Then again, I was never looking to be a superstaah.

Fact is, only few real TOP HIT musicians that are making lots of money at first have little creative control. I've seen decent songs turned into turd polish once certain producers get their hands on it. You the know over-compression game they are playing now-a-days to get a "Louder" sound but losing dynamics. But them making it "big" is more important to them retaining creative control. This is why a lot of bands "sound" the same on the radio.

I'd rather have creative control, and less fame and do it for the fun of it. And rely on something else for my living.

Once you start mixing the two, you might start hating doing what got you into it in the first place.

[analogika]

You talk about "fame" and about "fun".

And a bunch of irrelevant stuff.

I'm talking about bread on the table. And a place to have the table in.

[Oisín]

Try to find out just how many CDs those bands are selling by word of mouth.

These days, with the proliferation of MySpace band sites and Internet advertising, the number of albums a band can sell by ‘word of cables’ is a lot higher than what it used to be, though.

A good example is efterklang. They made their first album completely by themselves, without a record deal. They even did all the packaging themselves, by hand, in the basement of one of the band members’ house. They only made 500 copies of it, and put it on their website and MySpace profile (they figured 500 would be the maximum amount of copies they’d ever be able to sell).

It sold out in less than a week. And this was a completely new, local band going purely by word of mouth, via the Internet, and without any prior reputation to lean on. Obviously, they didn’t make much money off this—500 copies is barely enough to cover their own costs, and that’s without taking into account all the time they spent working on it. But over the Internet, word of mouth can indeed sell lots of records.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You talk about "fame" and about "fun".

And a bunch of irrelevant stuff.

I'm talking about bread on the table. And a place to have the table in.

Right. And what I am saying is, very few people get to be able to play and just play and make a living at it. That it probably more than likely takes alot of sacrifices for maybe along time at first.

Some people are willing to make those sacrifices, some are not.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

These days, with the proliferation of MySpace band sites and Internet advertising, the number of albums a band can sell by ‘word of cables’ is a lot higher than what it used to be, though.

A good example is efterklang. They made their first album completely by themselves, without a record deal. They even did all the packaging themselves, by hand, in the basement of one of the band members’ house. They only made 500 copies of it, and put it on their website and MySpace profile (they figured 500 would be the maximum amount of copies they’d ever be able to sell).

It sold out in less than a week. And this was a completely new, local band going purely by word of mouth, via the Internet, and without any prior reputation to lean on. Obviously, they didn’t make much money off this—500 copies is barely enough to cover their own costs, and that’s without taking into account all the time they spent working on it. But over the Internet, word of mouth can indeed sell lots of records.

And I am sure they have some sort of talent to boot too. I see this as maybe the way of the future.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And I am sure they have some sort of talent to boot too. I see this as maybe the way of the future.

That's exactly right. And if you build awareness yourself then you can employ the machine when you need it - on your own terms rather than being at the mercy of it.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

These days, with the proliferation of MySpace band sites and Internet advertising, the number of albums a band can sell by ‘word of cables’ is a lot higher than what it used to be, though.

The MySpace effect is rapidly wearing off through oversaturation, though.

[Kevin]

Depends.. I've gotten a lot of music just recently from myspace. How did I get to hear them? "Word of mouth"

I will often look up people that have similar interests in music as I do, and look at the myspace music they are into.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The MySpace effect is rapidly wearing off through oversaturation, though.

The MySpace effect itself, perhaps. But the fact that any small, relatively unknown band that you hear about on some Internet forum or from a friend will almost certainly have a MySpace profile and/or a website where you can download or purchase their music still holds true without the MySpace effect itself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

The MySpace effect itself, perhaps. But the fact that any small, relatively unknown band that you hear about on some Internet forum or from a friend will almost certainly have a MySpace profile and/or a website where you can download or purchase their music still holds true without the MySpace effect itself.

The point is that everybody and their dog also has these same opportunities. While new opportunities are welcome, MySpacers still have to compete for attention, thus while we are adding more signal we are also adding to the noise.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The point is that everybody and their dog also has these same opportunities. While new opportunities are welcome, MySpacers still have to compete for attention, thus while we are adding more signal we are also adding to the noise.

So your point is…what? That musicians have to prove themselves just like everybody else on the planet?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So your point is…what? That musicians have to prove themselves just like everybody else on the planet?

My point is that MySpace is not a magic bullet for musicians to get their name and brand out there.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

The MySpace effect itself, perhaps. But the fact that any small, relatively unknown band that you hear about on some Internet forum or from a friend will almost certainly have a MySpace profile and/or a website where you can download or purchase their music still holds true without the MySpace effect itself.

True. The possibility to reach a much wider audience is there.

However, actually *reaching* that audience is still a matter of publicity, which costs money (unless you really, really luck out).

[Oisín]

Reaching an audience of the magnitudes associated with ‘big names’, yes, that requires publicity. Reaching and developing an audience big enough to make a living doesn’t require that much publicity anymore. These days, getting a few mentions on the right websites is worth just as much (and is much cheaper than) a whole slew of old-fashioned publicity.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My point is that MySpace is not a magic bullet for musicians to get their name and brand out there.

Of course not. They have to have talent, desire for people to listen to them, and of course codpieces.

Codpieces is the key. Chicks dig them.

Ask Doofy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Reaching an audience of the magnitudes associated with ‘big names’, yes, that requires publicity. Reaching and developing an audience big enough to make a living doesn’t require that much publicity anymore. These days, getting a few mentions on the right websites is worth just as much (and is much cheaper than) a whole slew of old-fashioned publicity.

You do have to have an audience that WANTS to hear your music. The guitar really has a nice sized instrumental fanbase that a lot of other "solo" like instruments simply don't posses now a days. You don't see many people buying Tuba solo albums or the like.

Even though I dig me some violin and saxophone. I wouldn't call my tastes the norm though.

Some people might just be a musician in the wrong time.

Thems the breaks.

[Oisín]

You do have to have an audience that WANTS to hear your music.

Well, okay, that is obviously a necessity, yes. But that goes for bands that get lots of publicity, too. I don’t think The Vegetable Orchestra, for instance, would become millionaires off their music however much publicity they got, and likewise for höömiiists and such peripheral artists.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Of course not. They have to have talent, desire for people to listen to them, and of course codpieces.

Codpieces is the key. Chicks dig them.

Ask Doofy.

Armadillos in your pants. Affirmative.

There's actually a lot of truth somewhere behind that statement. Seriously. The artiste is not just selling music.

[Oisín]

I’m not putting anything that has a beak in my pants.

[Doofy]

You have to bite the head off first.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Reaching an audience of the magnitudes associated with ‘big names’, yes, that requires publicity. Reaching and developing an audience big enough to make a living doesn’t require that much publicity anymore. These days, getting a few mentions on the right websites is worth just as much (and is much cheaper than) a whole slew of old-fashioned publicity.

Getting some mentions on the websites is still publicity though, all that has changed is the medium. This website also has to appeal to your demographic and either have the readership in your locale, or widely available in places where people can hear your band or at least find your CDs.

Otherwise, being known in a few select circles is not necessarily making a living.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Armadillos in your pants. Affirmative.

It's quite frightening. BTW Back in the day before "The Machine" that made people super-stars, ,musicians made money by traveling in wagons to place to place to entertain people. Barely making money to get by. But they did not care. It was music that led them, not money, or "a decent living"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BTW Back in the day before "The Machine" that made people super-stars, ,musicians made money by traveling in wagons to place to place to entertain people. Barely making money to get by. But they did not care. It was music that led them, not money, or "a decent living"

Maybe it was the hot groupie wenches which interested them?

Those guys had it good. No stacks or PA to cart around, legal to bed down under a tree at the side of the road, yadda yadda yadda.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It's quite frightening. BTW Back in the day before "The Machine" that made people super-stars, ,musicians made money by traveling in wagons to place to place to entertain people. Barely making money to get by. But they did not care.

WTF?

You're telling me that the travelling hobos that would play juke joints for food and drink wouldn't have cared if they hadn't managed to make a living?

Oh, right - they just would have gone back to their day jobs.

Romanticizing, indeed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Those guys had it good. No stacks or PA to cart around, legal to bed down under a tree at the side of the road, yadda yadda yadda.

I am sure no one in this forum would be willing to lead said life for the thrill of music was my point. I could very well be wrong however.

It's the people that WOULD that usually make it.

Originally Posted by analogika 

You're telling me that the travelling hobos that would play juke joints for food and drink wouldn't have cared if they hadn't managed to make a living?

They got food and drink. Yes. They didn't have health insurance, and a nice home, and a decent car, or any real luxuries. They got by going from town to town. Living on money made from point to point. No savings, no luxury. Just playing music and having the BASIC necessities to survive. And even then they would run into rough times. But they didn't care. As long as they had their music...

Anyone that has talent can do this RIGHT NOW if you have enough determination. You'll make very little like then. Sure you'll have somewhere to sleep, and food to eat. But thats where it stops for the most part.

Even in the 50s and 60s, only BIG NAME acts got a lot of dough. Everyone else was still struggling barely making a dime.