Modern music

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

A significantly better living then they'd make working menial labor jobs, which would be the alternative for most of these kids.

 

That is really, really relative. I worked the inde circuit, and we survived, and that was about it. And, at least here, does not hold true, I guess because the guys who were good enough players when I started out wanted to make a lot of money in music; and now the same type of guy can make more money elsewhere, so music becomes a hobby. Few new local/regional bands make enough to live on (if any... I honesttly can't think of any right now...), while the guys who started with me or shortly after me... Norman Nardini, the Clarks, Grushecky, etc... those guys still manage to get by.

 

So heres the kicker: How many of these great inde bands or labels are poised to make $1 million this year? That is not much, as grosses go in entertainment. If it is a band, and they split with an agent and other support personnel, and subtract expenses, pay their insurance, will each member finally see $100k? Probably not. But it is not hard to a college graduate in any of the technical disciplines to make $100k in just a couple of years, and end up with benefits too, like a 401k and health care and paid vacations.

 

 

[Griffinator]

A significantly better living then they'd make working menial labor jobs, which would be the alternative for most of these kids.

 

That is really, really relative. I worked the inde circuit, and we survived, and that was about it. And, at least here, does not hold true, I guess because the guys who were good enough players when I started out wanted to make a lot of money in music; and now the same type of guy can make more money elsewhere, so music becomes a hobby. Few new local/regional bands make enough to live on (if any... I honesttly can't think of any right now...), while the guys who started with me or shortly after me... Norman Nardini, the Clarks, Grushecky, etc... those guys still manage to get by.

 

Completely missed the point. 20-odd years ago, you didn't have access to the distribution models that brand new up-and-coming bands do now.

 

So heres the kicker: How many of these great inde bands or labels are poised to make $1 million this year? That is not much, as grosses go in entertainment. If it is a band, and they split with an agent and other support personnel, and subtract expenses, pay their insurance, will each member finally see $100k? Probably not. But it is not hard to a college graduate in any of the technical disciplines to make $100k in just a couple of years, and end up with benefits too, like a 401k and health care and paid vacations.

 

As we all know, making a career out of music is not a choice one makes with the intention of making a big pile of cash. It's a tough row to hoe, and the financial rewards are secondary to the spiritual ones, making a decent living out on the road playing music, because you love to do it.

 

Out of all the bands that used to sign with major labels in the hope of making big bundles of money (and still do), how many do you think are clearing $100K a year?

 

Let's not forget that the average band who moves half a million units (fairly decent sales numbers) under a standard major label contract will be lucky to clear $30K per member by the time they get done paying back studio time, paying producer points, and taking care of their own expenses touring as well.

 

The difference is, while the indie artist has less "support" from the label, the indie artist also gets to pocket all their net profit from record sales and all of the profit from their digital sales.

 

Meanwhile, the major label artist gets 10 points if they're lucky, and that's on the net, after chargebacks, production costs, advertising, etc, plus they have to pay back whatever advance they received to make the record in the first place before they get one thin dime.

 

It takes a lot fewer units sold to make a decent amount of money when you're self-producing. And many, many bands are succeeding far beyond what you or I dreamed we could back in the days of home recording being confined to a 4-track cassette recorder or a 2-track reel-to-reel, and costs of cutting vinyl or mass-producing tapes were impossibly high.

[webe123]

Well the way you worded your post it sounded like you condemned anyone talking bad about the music industry. Here's a quote....

 

That old tired saw about the record companies and their 'greed' as being an excuse has raised its head again. I can only say that anyone who thinks this 1. doesn't understand how the entertainment industry works and 2 doesn't understand how businesses work.

 

It sounds kind of condecending to me. You don't have to be a business major to understand the greed of the industry, but you can be blind if you turn your head and walk away from it.

 

And as far as THIS POST:

 

But the 'greed' excuse was used, not by signed bands who might have a reason to feel that way, but by college kids as an excuse for poor behavior. "I can steal from the record companies because they are greedy." Yeah. Explain that moral stand to your mom.

 

 

Why don't you put the blame ON BOTH SIDES? Again, the industry is not spotless either! Because "both sides" is exactly WHERE THE BLAME BELONGS! You can spout all the crap you want about piracy, but if Napster was handled right a long time ago and people were given a fair shake, the industry could have did away with piracy in one fell swoop! But did they? NO! They WERE greedy..... weather or not you want to admit it.

 

Instead of embracing the technology, they repulsed it. Too bad for them, because now they are a dinosaur! But it was THEIR fault to begin with! You can't blame all of that on college kids downloading music!

 

And as far as "pissing in the well" Bill, the industry did that FIRST!

 

Here's a thought......Why doesn't the music industry explain to THEIR BUYING PUBLIC how they rip off artists and dozens of them have taken them to court over it...how about that?

 

It goes BOTH ways!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"Why doesn't the music industry explain to THEIR BUYING PUBLIC how they rip off artists and dozens of them have taken them to court over it...how about that? "

 

You seem to have really strong feelings about this, why don't you explain it to us as you see it?

[Griffinator]

You seem to have really strong feelings about this, why don't you explain it to us as you see it?

 

I kinda did the post above.

 

Major labels have always rigged the game in such a way to make it impossible for a band to succeed without becoming superstars.

 

If you go multiplatinum on consecutive records, then you have negotiating power, and can demand a fair deal from the label. Anything less, and they hold all the cards, and can continue to not only rape you for what you do sell, but also demand that you conform to their idea of what you should sound like, and your only choice is to break up the band or start producing shitty music.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"If you go multiplatinum on consecutive records, then you have negotiating power, and can demand a fair deal from the label. Anything less, and they hold all the cards, and can continue to not only rape you for what you do sell, but also demand that you conform to their idea of what you should sound like, and your only choice is to break up the band or start producing shitty music."

 

I kinda thought that this would be the gist of it. What it shows is a missunderstanding of business in general and the recording industry in particular. It is a popular myth, really gets cheers in certain circles, but it is not true. Like most myths, there is a grain of truth in it, but it does not begin to tell the whole story, and is based on a couple of false premises.

 

[rocknrollstar]

I understand and on a certain level totally agree with what you say.

 

BUT, let's not forget:

Music has always been a medium for generations of kids to identify themselves AND also to separate themselves from their parents and the establishment.

When my parents were teenagers in the early sixties, their parents said exactly what you say, Bill:

"If you ain't producing artists of that caliber in your generation, don't look to trash mine."

And of course my parents thought Elvis, The Beatles, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were the coolest thing since sliced bread. And they HATED and dissed everything their parents were admiring... (Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, etc)

The old folks on the contrary thought that Elvis, the Beatles and Eric Clapton were HORRIBLE singers and could not play guitar at all!!!! They actually called them "monkeys"... but not musicians.

 

I guess Bill, truth is: we are getting old - that's why we can't find any good new musicians... And our grandkids will say the very same thing you have said in about twenty five years.

 

I am sure that every generation produces musicians that "make major changes in the way people approach and think about music... changes that still resonate in the future"!

 

Will the older generations admire these changes? Probably not. I am sure, Bill:

we would have been tortured and burned in the dark middle-ages for admiring "todays great guitar players."

 

[Griffinator]

I kinda thought that this would be the gist of it. What it shows is a missunderstanding of business in general and the recording industry in particular. It is a popular myth, really gets cheers in certain circles, but it is not true. Like most myths, there is a grain of truth in it, but it does not begin to tell the whole story, and is based on a couple of false premises.

 

Bill, I've seen the contracts. I was offered one back in 2000, and turned it down flat.

[A String]

I kinda thought that this would be the gist of it. What it shows is a missunderstanding of business in general and the recording industry in particular. It is a popular myth, really gets cheers in certain circles, but it is not true. Like most myths, there is a grain of truth in it, but it does not begin to tell the whole story, and is based on a couple of false premises.

 

Bill, I've seen the contracts. I was offered one back in 2000, and turned it down flat.

 

I have to agree with Griff here.

 

Back in the 80's, our band leader was offered a recording contract with the band he was in at the time. Amongst other things, they wanted a percentage of all income generated by each band member, for the life of the band member. When their lawyer looked it over, he said to turn it down as it meant, if they broke up and dropped out of the music business and started up...selling cars for example, they would still have to provide a percentage of their pay checks to the record company.

 

Freakin' ridiculous.

[A String]

Also, regarding income. It is relative. But some of you will be surprised to know that not everyone is out there, striving to make millions. Some of us are happy to have the bills paid, work at a job we love and spend a lot of time with our families.

 

I'd rather make a lot less money and be happy then make a ton of money and be sad.

[Griffinator]

I kinda thought that this would be the gist of it. What it shows is a missunderstanding of business in general and the recording industry in particular. It is a popular myth, really gets cheers in certain circles, but it is not true. Like most myths, there is a grain of truth in it, but it does not begin to tell the whole story, and is based on a couple of false premises.

 

Bill, I've seen the contracts. I was offered one back in 2000, and turned it down flat.

 

I have to agree with Griff here.

 

Back in the 80's, our band leader was offered a recording contract with the band he was in at the time. Amongst other things, they wanted a percentage of all income generated by each band member, for the life of the band member. When their lawyer looked it over, he said to turn it down as it meant, if they broke up and dropped out of the music business and started up...selling cars for example, they would still have to provide a percentage of their pay checks to the record company.

 

Freakin' ridiculous.

 

Yeah, that was the language they tried to slip in to make sure that even if the band broke up, they'd get a piece if one of the members put together a successful solo career.

[Johan Larson]

Back in the 80's, our band leader was offered a recording contract with the band he was in at the time. Amongst other things, they wanted a percentage of all income generated by each band member, for the life of the band member. When their lawyer looked it over, he said to turn it down as it meant, if they broke up and dropped out of the music business and started up...selling cars for example, they would still have to provide a percentage of their pay checks to the record company.

 

Freakin' ridiculous.

 

Oddly enough, the state of relations between publishers and artists is rather better just a steps down the road, over in book publishing. Authors, like musicians, work on contracts gving them royalties as a fixed percentage of sales, with an initial advance. But musicians have to return the advance if royalties fall short, but authors don't. Similarly, record companies charge expenses against royalties, but book publishers don't.

 

Granted, the authors do pay a price for this. Their gross royalty rates are lower than musicians'; eight to ten percent is pretty standard. But they seem to be a lot happier, since their advances are theirs to spend, making personal finances a lot more predictable.

 

It's strange that two so similar industries have so different standard terms.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

" my parents thought Elvis, The Beatles, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were the coolest thing since sliced bread. And they HATED and dissed everything their parents were admiring... (Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, etc)

The old folks on the contrary thought that Elvis, the Beatles and Eric Clapton were HORRIBLE singers and could not play guitar at all!!!! They actually called them "monkeys"... but not musicians."

 

 

I know what you mean, but I'm kinda in between. My mom and dad were between the big band and Elvis, they liked both, and there was always music in the house.. even jazz and classical.

 

When I was brought up, I didn't HATE their music, I just had my own, as each generation should. This is a diffrent kind of discussion, as we're not talking about what we as youth liked. We're talking about musicians who have had a lasting impact over several generations, and how some younger players are asking us to find someone else to talk about. Okay. Who?

 

I guess Bill, truth is: we are getting old -"

 

I seek out good music all the time, and have listened to many of the recommendations made here, as well as other places. It is really hard for an over-30 adult to find new music.

[The Bear Jew]

If you can't find something enjoyable in modern music, you're either not looking hard enough, not listening or are too jaded to be moved.

[Griffinator]

" my parents thought Elvis, The Beatles, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were the coolest thing since sliced bread. And they HATED and dissed everything their parents were admiring... (Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, etc)

The old folks on the contrary thought that Elvis, the Beatles and Eric Clapton were HORRIBLE singers and could not play guitar at all!!!! They actually called them "monkeys"... but not musicians."

 

 

I know what you mean, but I'm kinda in between. My mom and dad were between the big band and Elvis, they liked both, and there was always music in the house.. even jazz and classical.

 

When I was brought up, I didn't HATE their music, I just had my own, as each generation should. This is a diffrent kind of discussion, as we're not talking about what we as youth liked. We're talking about musicians who have had a lasting impact over several generations, and how some younger players are asking us to find someone else to talk about. Okay. Who?

 

I guess Bill, truth is: we are getting old -"

 

I seek out good music all the time, and have listened to many of the recommendations made here, as well as other places. It is really hard for an over-30 adult to find new music.

 

I'm an over-30 adult and don't have much difficulty finding new music that I like.

 

It's all a matter of looking in the right places.

 

First hint: Pop radio ain't one of those places. Ever since the rise of Clear Channel and corporate-dominated radio, this has ceased to be a legitimate outlet for new music.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I'd rather make a lot less money and be happy then make a ton of money and be sad.

 

This is a side issue, but I doubt that having millions in and of itself would make you sad. WORKING in any industry is a job, and we each love it or hate it on different days in different ways, but it is still work. You have to go, you have to be there, you have to produce. It is harder for a musician to fake his way through a miserable day than most others.

 

If you are going to be a waitress, would you prefer to work at the local nickel beer joint where you might get $20 a night in tips; or at the more trendy upscale place with snooty people, where you'll work a little harder, put up with a different kind of crap, and make $150 a night or more? Maximizing your income is not a bad thing.

 

 

[A String]

I'd rather make a lot less money and be happy then make a ton of money and be sad.

 

This is a side issue, but I doubt that having millions in and of itself would make you sad. WORKING in any industry is a job, and we each love it or hate it on different days in different ways, but it is still work. You have to go, you have to be there, you have to produce. It is harder for a musician to fake his way through a miserable day than most others.

 

If you are going to be a waitress, would you prefer to work at the local nickel beer joint where you might get $20 a night in tips; or at the more trendy upscale place with snooty people, where you'll work a little harder, put up with a different kind of crap, and make $150 a night or more? Maximizing your income is not a bad thing.

 

 

Maximizing your income is certainly something I agree with. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to make a lot of money. I'm just saying that, for me, it's way down low on my list of priorities.

 

I'd rather make $30,000 a year as a musician, on the road, then make $60,000 a year as a pencil pusher in a 9-5 office. That sort of thing.

 

If I had the choice between making $10,000 a year playing in small pubs or $30,000 a year playing in large venues, of course I'd go with the larger venues.

[rocknrollstar]

It is really hard for an over-30 adult to find new music.

I agree. But I have to admit, that sometimes I am just too lazy or busy to really start looking in the first place.

 

And, I guess there is nothing wrong with it. The variety of music available nowadays is bigger than ever. I guess the main problem is, it's like a huge buffet. The number of choices are so overwhelming that we usually stick with what we know... (And that's not a critique...)

[Griffinator]

The number of choices are so overwhelming that we usually stick with what we know...

 

BINGO!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"If you go multiplatinum on consecutive records, then you have negotiating power, and can demand a fair deal from the label. Anything less, and they hold all the cards, and can continue to not only rape you for what you do sell, but also demand that you conform to their idea of what you should sound like, and your only choice is to break up the band or start producing shitty music."

 

I kinda thought that this would be the gist of it. What it shows is a missunderstanding of business in general and the recording industry in particular. It is a popular myth, really gets cheers in certain circles, but it is not true. Like most myths, there is a grain of truth in it, but it does not begin to tell the whole story, and is based on a couple of false premises.

 

Okay, false premise number one: you get raped.

 

You sign the deal or you walk away. How is the deal constructed? It is ALWAYS going to be constructed to the advantage of the guy with the money. This is a universal truth, covering any money deals in any industry. The guy with the money has leverage.

 

False premise 2: You had one shot, and because you refused to 'get raped', you didn't hit the big time.

 

If you had a desirable product, more than one label would have been interested, and the conditions of the contracts would have been more favorable to you. Your lawyer would have played them against each other to get better terms and a bigger advance. I would suggest that in your case they were willing to take a chance, but wanted a bigger reward for taking that chance. You passed. Smart man.

 

In terms of all the horror clauses in the contracts, yeah, they are trying to get and keep as big of a piece of the pie as they can. No surprise. no RAPE going on here. If you sell yourself at those rates, who gets raped? Nobody.

 

Just to put this into perspective, Pete Townsend of The Who gets 25% of the gross. This is on top of what he makes as a writer and producer and whatever else. Not bad.

 

What does a major record label offer its roster? Well, we have to look back before Napster, don't we. But in their time they had:

 

national (or international) distribution to record stores.

 

A large regional promotional staff hawking their artists to radio stations and TV stations.

 

A large in-house promo staff creating new ways to market the artists, making posters, standups, billboards, and other attention-getting devices; planning national and regional concerted promotional blitzes to focus attention at a particular moment on a given artist when it will do the most good, getting national radio and TV interviews and guest appearances.

 

A&R staff to provide music to their artists who did not have it already.

 

Fully staffed and equipped recording studios.

 

Pressing plants or contracts with pressing plants, trucking, etc.

 

Image people. Photographers. Hair dressers and costumers.

 

The ability to pair up and coming artists with hot flight artists on their label to gain national exposure for the new talent.

 

Contacts. thousands and thousands of contacts.

 

Leverage. Leverage with promoters, radio stations, what have you.

 

And I'm sure there is much more that I'm forgetting right now.

 

That industry was very socialistic in nature, in that the label would sign hundreds of bands. Most bands never recouped their costs. The few that did, a portion of their income was profit tot he label, a portion was expenses, and a portion went to signing new bands... again, few of whom would ever recoup their costs. Bands were recorded. CDs were pressed. And returned from stores to sit in warehouses. Bands were sent out on tour, hotels and food, travel, crews, expenses...

 

Now, BANDS got greedy. Areosmith, for example, signed a stupid deal with Sony. If Sony saw any profit from it, I'll be surprised. But there was definitely nothing left over for signing new bands.

 

But now, now that we DON'T have the labels to kick around anymore, where do we get anything to replace what we've lost. It would be similar to suddenly losing all petrol transport. Yeah, we can ride bikes, and get around. Walk. Run maybe. Some even have electric cars. Not the same.

 

Someone earlier mentioned that "if Napster had been handled properly..." Napster was an offense unbelievable. They took stuff that wasn't theirs and used it to generate income by selling ads to their site. In their minds they were not doing anything wrong, as they were not selling the songs. But you cannot use someone elses work without their permission, period; and it is additionally onerous if you profit from it. The labels expected someone to enforce the existing laws on the books, which DO NOT specify or limit the medium used, so the cry "But its the INTERNET!!!" holds no legal watert. Didn't happen. And when it finally did, the hue and cry was, "but these are just college students!" fuck. If I'd known that being a bright student at a prominent university was an excuse, I'd have been rich a long time ago. Even now, "shes a mother! why are you ptosecuting her!" Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law? Whatever happend to "if you ca't do the time, don;t do the crime"? Oh, I forgot. We're all special,and the rules do not apply to ME. (If you wantto know what I'm talking about, just look around the next time you leave your house.)

[rocknrollstar]

I'd rather make a lot less money and be happy then make a ton of money and be sad.

 

I'd rather make $30,000 a year as a musician, on the road, then make $60,000 a year as a pencil pusher in a 9-5 office. That sort of thing.

 

I guess I did it all. I taught guitar for a living just to survive as a musician.

I was on the road for several years and made little money - and I had the best time of my life. I got tired of being on the road, got lucky, got into songwriting and made bunches of money. I sincerely had a great time, and my girlfriend highly appreciated me being around more...

 

After 8 years of (at times) writing 16 hours a day, 7 days a week (no kidding!) you understand that it was HARD work for the money and the gold and platinum awards I had received. Yes, I probably maximized my income, but I got totally burned out - and it had become: a job.

 

Then the music business went down the drain between 2003-2005

 

Here I am again. Should I get a daytime job? Or be happy with little money...

I guess the choices don't get easier with age and growing kids...

 

 

[rocknrollstar]

Bill, THANK YOU!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

If you can't find something enjoyable in modern music, you're either not looking hard enough, not listening or are too jaded to be moved.

 

This is again a side issue to the premise of the thread, but let us talk about it for a minute.

 

I like a LOT of music. I am open to many, many styles.

 

But in terms of LOOKING, I have a life that requires that I spend a large amount of time living it. I have a lot of time right now to write here, because I am recovering from multiple surgeries and cannot work.

 

The idea of having to SEARCH through hundreds of sites of absolute dreck to try to find the odd gem, ,that is too stupid for words. I used to turn on the radio, and listen. Now I turn on Pandoras Box, set up some parameters, and hope that they don't start repeating the same music over and over again too soon. (oddly enough, within the fingerstyle definition, I have recieved the most new artists with whom i was not familiar.) I tried LastFM, but they only seeme dto play what I asked them to play, nothing new.

 

So I'm open, wadayagot? I'd really prefer that it was not a whiny mid to slow tempo by or girl telling me about the angst of life. Or that cutesy 'my boyfriend is a drug addict' stuff.

 

[Griffinator]

Okay, false premise number one: you get raped.

 

If you sign, you get raped unless you move at least 750,000 units.

 

Especially these days, when the contracts are "work for hire", meaning you don't even own your songs once you record them for the label - and that is standard language in every contract.

 

You sign the deal or you walk away. How is the deal constructed? It is ALWAYS going to be constructed to the advantage of the guy with the money. This is a universal truth, covering any money deals in any industry. The guy with the money has leverage.

 

In most other industries, the person with the valuable product has just as much leverage. In the music industry, the guy with the product has no leverage, because the guy with the money has come to a point where he believes he can "manufacture" talent, by assembling a band out of a bunch of bright eyed talentless chodes, teach them to sing and dance, and then use in-house songwriters to churn out hits for them. So the band with the highly creative product basically either signs the contract or gets left in the dust.

 

False premise 2: You had one shot, and because you refused to 'get raped', you didn't hit the big time.

 

Straw man. I never said this.

 

If you had a desirable product, more than one label would have been interested, and the conditions of the contracts would have been more favorable to you. Your lawyer would have played them against each other to get better terms and a bigger advance. I would suggest that in your case they were willing to take a chance, but wanted a bigger reward for taking that chance. You passed. Smart man.

 

Again, the contract offered to me was pretty much a standard one. There wasn't any bigger reward, it was the garden variety 8 points, and since we had already produced our first record independently with no label affiliation, there was no up front advance. The "work for hire" clause was the dealbreaker for me. It ended up destroying the band, too, because a couple of the guys were mightily pissed off that I refused to sign it. Not surprisingly, they had only contributed to a total of two songs on our record, where I had written or co-written the other 8. I actually had a vested interest to protect, they did not.

 

In terms of all the horror clauses in the contracts, yeah, they are trying to get and keep as big of a piece of the pie as they can. No surprise. no RAPE going on here. If you sell yourself at those rates, who gets raped? Nobody.

 

The point is that the horror clauses are what have driven creative bands who offer unique and creative products away from major labels, and with the distribution channels available to the self-made band, they don't need the labels anymore.

 

Just to put this into perspective, Pete Townsend of The Who gets 25% of the gross. This is on top of what he makes as a writer and producer and whatever else. Not bad.

 

Of course, because The Who, like many other highly successful acts, were able to leverage better deals as they completed their contracts.

 

I'm talking about the bands that are more niche market in nature, who aren't going to get the full support from the label despite signing the same contract as the band the label crowns "the next big thing".

 

What does a major record label offer its roster? Well, we have to look back before Napster, don't we. But in their time they had...A large regional promotional staff hawking their artists to radio stations and TV stations.

 

Only if they decide that your band is who they want to push. Otherwise, you might get a cursory (and brief) spot on MTV, no radio play, and little in the way of buzz. If your product is really, really outstanding, you might catch a break (see Radiohead) despite the under-exposure. It's noteworthy that the song that broke that band ("Creep") is one their singer assessed once as "It bought my house. That's all I have to say about it"

 

A large in-house promo staff creating new ways to market the artists, making posters, standups, billboards, and other attention-getting devices; planning national and regional concerted promotional blitzes to focus attention at a particular moment on a given artist when it will do the most good, getting national radio and TV interviews and guest appearances.

 

Again, only for the bands they decide are "the next big thing".

 

Signing the contract doesn't guarantee that you'll get full support. Record labels back then and now routinely sign thousands of bands and don't put their full resources into "breaking" them. How do you know if you're going to be one of the lucky ones? You don't before you ink that piece of paper. You don't until you actually do it and find out, and if you're not one of the lucky ones, you're screwed.

 

A&R staff to provide music to their artists who did not have it already.

 

Part of the problem.

 

Fully staffed and equipped recording studios.

 

The labels don't own the studios. Anyone can access those studios if they have the dosh. The labels just front you enough money to pay for those services (which comes out of your meager 8-10 points later).

 

Pressing plants or contracts with pressing plants, trucking, etc.

 

See above.

 

Image people. Photographers. Hair dressers and costumers.

 

All of which come out of your royalties, per the contract. Again, anyone with the money can access these resources. Smart people can access them without the money.

 

The ability to pair up and coming artists with hot flight artists on their label to gain national exposure for the new talent.

 

Opening acts? The last band I can think of that really made headway by opening on a big tour was Soundgarden opening for G'n'R for the Illusion tour - however, one could build a strong case that Soundgarden was already breaking big anyway, and when MTV dug back through their vaults and putting Temple of the Dog back into rotation, it was a matter of time, especially since "Outshined" was already gaining momentum as a single.

 

Contacts. thousands and thousands of contacts.

 

Leverage. Leverage with promoters, radio stations, what have you.

 

Payola?

 

And, as I've said many times before, only if they actually decide you're worth promoting, something many acts never get, despite inking that contract.

 

That industry was very socialistic in nature, in that the label would sign hundreds of bands. Most bands never recouped their costs. The few that did, a portion of their income was profit tot he label, a portion was expenses, and a portion went to signing new bands... again, few of whom would ever recoup their costs. Bands were recorded. CDs were pressed. And returned from stores to sit in warehouses. Bands were sent out on tour, hotels and food, travel, crews, expenses...

 

Bands had to foot their own expenses for tours. The label never paid for those. That was one of the few places the band had a fighting chance to make some money for themselves if they weren't blessed by the label as "the next big thing".

 

Now, BANDS got greedy. Areosmith, for example, signed a stupid deal with Sony. If Sony saw any profit from it, I'll be surprised. But there was definitely nothing left over for signing new bands.

 

Ahhhhh, now the shoe is on the other foot, right? What happened to the responsibility you're talking about above? Isn't it the label's responsibility to not sign stupid contracts with big artists just as much as it's the small artist's responsibility to not sign a stupid contract with the label?

 

But now, now that we DON'T have the labels to kick around anymore, where do we get anything to replace what we've lost. It would be similar to suddenly losing all petrol transport. Yeah, we can ride bikes, and get around. Walk. Run maybe. Some even have electric cars. Not the same.

 

It's only not the same in a bad way to the talentless chodes who were signed late in the feeding frenzies. You know, bands like Trixter and Enuff'Z'Nuff on the back end of the hair metal craze. Bands like Silverchair on the back end of grunge.

 

It's not the same in a good way for all the bands that have the freedom to carve their own niche, make the music they want to make, and go out and build their own audience for it using free internet promotion, super-cheap bulk pressing, and all manner of other guerilla marketing tactics that were never available to people like you and me when we were that young and trying to break a new band.

 

Just because the music world changed, doesn't mean piracy ruined it. Piracy is a problem, I'll grant you, but it's not the only source of lost record sales for major labels.

 

Kids are still buying music, just not the crap the labels are trying to force down everyone's throats.

 

Don't forget, the "music industry sales reports" that come out every year give zero consideration to self-distributed and indie label-distributed bands. Those reports only reflect what the Big 5 sell.

 

I submit that the paradigm shifted a while ago, and that paradigm shift is what took the biggest bite out of Big 5 sales than any college kids stealing music.

[A String]

I'd rather make a lot less money and be happy then make a ton of money and be sad.

 

I'd rather make $30,000 a year as a musician, on the road, then make $60,000 a year as a pencil pusher in a 9-5 office. That sort of thing.

 

I guess I did it all. I taught guitar for a living just to survive as a musician.

I was on the road for several years and made little money - and I had the best time of my life. I got tired of being on the road, got lucky, got into songwriting and made bunches of money. I sincerely had a great time, and my girlfriend highly appreciated me being around more...

 

After 8 years of (at times) writing 16 hours a day, 7 days a week (no kidding!) you understand that it was HARD work for the money and the gold and platinum awards I had received. Yes, I probably maximized my income, but I got totally burned out - and it had become: a job.

 

Then the music business went down the drain between 2003-2005

 

Here I am again. Should I get a daytime job? Or be happy with little money...

I guess the choices don't get easier with age and growing kids...

 

 

I have the same story as you. I started teaching at the local music school and doing studio work, when I came off the road.

 

Now, not much work out there and with a wife and kid...what do I do?

 

For now, i make enough to get by and get to spend hours a day with my wife and kid. I'll never be rich, but I am happy.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"Of course, because The Who, like many other highly successful acts, were able to leverage better deals as they completed their contracts. "

 

No, that deal has to do with his relationship with the rest of the band. They bear that expense.

 

As to the rest of what you've written, some is right, some is not, and some of the differences may be due to time factors. Example: in the 90s and prior, the labels did support (many of)the tours. You say your deal was after 2000, I can't speak to that. By that time it was a sinking ship anyway. Just like owning the music... John Fogerty apparently didn't, the Stones always did (until they traded the first few albums off to get out from under abco.. the agency that was 'saving' bands from the labels...) Dylan owns his stuff, others don't. When Dylan started out, he was no more powerful than anyone else, he just had very savy management.

 

For a fun view of bad management, there is a bonus track on the Turtles DVD wherein they explain management and how they got screwed there... much more common, I think.

 

In my city, MCA used to ride in, sign a bunch of bands, ride out, and never do anything (or not much) for them. They were indeed 'signed' but it didn't seem to mean anything. On the other hand, bands that got signed to WEA labels (Warner, Electra, Atlantic, Crysallis, and some others..>) seemed to get a fair shot.

 

It used to crack me up to see a band who had gotten a decent advance blowing money all over town. They never seemed to understand that this was -their- money, and they would be expected to earn it, and the advance would be deducted from future earnings.

 

[The Bear Jew]

If you can't find something enjoyable in modern music, you're either not looking hard enough, not listening or are too jaded to be moved.

 

This is again a side issue to the premise of the thread, but let us talk about it for a minute.

 

I like a LOT of music. I am open to many, many styles.

 

But in terms of LOOKING, I have a life that requires that I spend a large amount of time living it. I have a lot of time right now to write here, because I am recovering from multiple surgeries and cannot work.

 

The idea of having to SEARCH through hundreds of sites of absolute dreck to try to find the odd gem, ,that is too stupid for words. I used to turn on the radio, and listen. Now I turn on Pandoras Box, set up some parameters, and hope that they don't start repeating the same music over and over again too soon. (oddly enough, within the fingerstyle definition, I have recieved the most new artists with whom i was not familiar.) I tried LastFM, but they only seeme dto play what I asked them to play, nothing new.

 

So I'm open, wadayagot? I'd really prefer that it was not a whiny mid to slow tempo by or girl telling me about the angst of life. Or that cutesy 'my boyfriend is a drug addict' stuff.

 

OK, what do you like? I'm not gonna throw you death metal recommendations if that's not yer flavor. Gimme some parameters, and I'll see if I can't help you out a little.

 

BTW, I, too, am generally pretty busy (note the smaller person in my pic), but I also find myself in front of the computer for most of the work day, as my job requires it... so we're kind of in the same position. Having said that, I also look into Web sites revolving around the kind of music I dig. I've encountered a TON of bands/artists I would have never discovered without these sites.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I'm pretty fond of Dave Mathews, Micheal Hedges, Ed Gerhard, Stones, Beatles, Yardbirds, Areosmith, Strawbs, Yes, Graham Parker, Bare Naked Ladies, Vinyl Kings, Counting Crows, Chris Whitley, Bruce Cochburn, the Damnwells, Alice in Chains, Train, Motown and Staxs, Philly soul, most of the modern acts that I like I can't name because I only hear them on the local public radio station. Basically, anything that is original and unique might catch my ear. The SOS will bore me. Quirky is okay in small doses. Guns N Roses was cool, Velvet Revolver less so. Van Halen was cool. Chickenfoot has yet to thrill me, but we'll see. Rusted Root had its moments. (familiarity breeds contempt. Micheal is a great writer, much of the rest of the band is questionable) October Project and Mary Fahl did great stuff. Raconteurs? Maybe, not yet. Maroon Five started out great, then wandered off somewhere that i did not follow.

[p90jr]

"I insist that the almost non-existent record industry plays a part in this."

 

Yes, and that falls under the guise of the 90s computer kid 'if I can steal it and not get caught, why should I pay for it' mentality. If you ran a business that was selling millions and millions of pieces of product, and your infrastructure and distribution was set up to handle this type of product production; and within a couple of years you found that your biggest selling lines were lucky to sell 100,000 units you would soon find yourself out of business, too; or at least, unable to sustain your business in the fashion that kept it successful and able to introduce and promote new product.

 

That old tired saw about the record companies and their 'greed' as being an excuse has raised its head again. I can only say that anyone who thinks this 1. doesn't understand how the entertainment industry works and 2 doesn't understand how businesses work.

 

I have that opinion of the music industry based on:

 

1) the experiences of friends who got big record deals.

 

2) the experiences of friends who worked at major labels.

[p90jr]

No one said the industry was "spotless" and of course they rip off bands, that's part of the reason why it feel apart. However, it's a necessary evil that provides immense financial support in so many different ways. Ever wonder why people are complaining about expensive concert ticket prices? Money has to be made somehow if people won't buy CD's.

 

hmmmm... bands have always made MUCH MUCH MUCH more money from live dates as opposed to royalties from record sales (most bands made about 60¢ per unit on sales, after the tally sheet of everything spent on the release and promotion and "administrative costs" were paid off first).

 

Concert ticket prices have risen so ridiculously because people will pay them. If the public didn't show up they'd come down... the productions might be scaled down but the ticket prices would come down.