6 ms·

The people who want to go back to the "glory days" of CD's are forgetting that struggling artists existed in that day and age too. A lot of indie artists presse

The people who want to go back to the "glory days" of CD's are forgetting that struggling artists existed in that day and age too. A lot of indie artists pressed a small run of CD's for a couple grand and never even broke even. Still happens today. I have multiple wannabe artists in my family. For a lot of people making music should really stay a hobby. They are not very original in their music and lyrics. Or simply not very good. Or very good for a small niche. It's still possible to succeed, but not just by putting out CD's and expecting to sell them all for a nice profit. You need to explore the other options available. Like teaching, living room concerts, blogging, vlogging, etcetera. If it's purely about producing and getting your art out to people, there has never been a better time. Just do what you like to do and get it out there. Who knows, you'll be streamed a lot somewhere, like my brother in law's songs are streamed a lot in Brazil without ever visiting that country. Many open source developers are happy working on their hobby for "free". Some artists should do the same.

andoma 6y ago
This is the correct answer
keiferski 6y ago
Most people "are not good" because our political system is centered around making money, not on mastering an art form. Many societies did this in the past, but as it's "no longer economically viable," no one cares today. Today, in order to master an art form and actually make something worthwhile, you have to be entirely self-motivated. > Many open source developers are happy working on their hobby for "free" Really not a good comparison. Open source developers tend to have no issues finding paid work, often because they worked for free on open source. The same scenario doesn't exist for artists.
- disgu 6y ago
  > Many societies did this in the past, but as it's "no longer economically viable," no one cares today. Can you name a few?
  - keiferski 6y ago
    Virtually every civilization pre-Industrial Revolution?
    - riffraff 6y ago
      I think you would need to explain why you think pre-industrial civilization preferred "mastering the art" to "making money". Painters sold their paintings or did commissions, musicians sold their compositions or wrote them on demand, glassblowers and blacksmiths worked to sell their ware.
      - keiferski 6y ago
        This is a topic that can't even begin to be summarized in a HN comment. In the past, it was far more common to subsidize the training of artisans, or at least ensure they were economically subsistent, because the culture recognized the value of aesthetic beauty toward achieving civilizational goals. Today, in 2021, this doesn't happen so much. Primarily for two reasons: aesthetic relativism ("Beauty is just an opinion and all opinions are equally valid") and cost ("Why design beautiful buildings when ugly ones are cheaper?") Rather than pay more money to ensure that the market for craftsmen is stable, we'd prefer to save $20 and buy some plastic junk. Ditto for other art forms.
        spiderfarmer 6y ago
        Who subsidised the artisans? Wealthy individuals. So essentially, they had a job and a boss.
      - comboy 6y ago
        I think it may be that you couldn't really change your status with money. It's not like today when you did something great and your wealth changes by orders of magnitude. So your status came from being a master. Somebody in very high regard because he is practically irreplaceable. He brings us great clothes. Nobody else around can do it so well. And no, that doesn't mean you could charge a lot for them, because the market is too small and people who are buying from you are the people you depend on for getting the goods that you need.
- franga2000 6y ago
  > Open source developers tend to have no issues finding paid work, often because they worked for free on open source. The same scenario doesn't exist for artists. Acknowledging the "paid in exposure" meme, having some free work to point at when potential employers/customers ask for references is still extremely useful for an artist, just like open source contributions are for a programmer. Imagine you're picking between two bands to play at some event (back when those used to happen). One has 3 references amd that's it, the other has 2 references but a million plays on Spotify. I know which one I'd go for...
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    Absolutely. That's how it works for the artists in my family. There are more analogies with Open Source developers. For example, you can't expect that you'll become famous for writing a simple Homebridge plugin. Just like your thirteen-a-dozen blues song doesn't make it to the top of the charts. Thousands or even millions of people may use it, but you're mainly doing it to scratch your own itch. The statistics are just a feel good bonus.
VBprogrammer 6y ago
> For a lot of people making music should really stay a hobby. They are not very original in their music and lyrics. Or simply not very good. Or very good for a small niche. I'm not a music buff by a long shot but on one of our first dates my partner and I went to Brighton during the Brighton festival. During a rain shower we heard some live music coming from a pub and went in. We've since followed that band whenever we get a chance. At first I was full of optimism that they were on the cusp of hitting it big. Their music is as good as anything we hear played on the radio. Live their performance is exceptional. For reasons I don't fully understand they don't seem to have moved on from where they where when we first encountered them, a small indie band with a niche but loyal following. I guess my point is that skill isn't the only factor. I suspect a big part of it is luck and connections.
- yomly 6y ago
  Most people who have gotten big on the streaming platforms will talk about endless grind - I believe a depth of content sets up a virtuous cycle on platforms like YouTube. Yes you might have an Uncle Roger moment where you go viral and get that massive step up but many other streamers will talk of putting out years of content before getting traction. Not sure how it works specifically with music because you can't really churn out endless original content. I guess part of the churn can be covers or live performances. Connections do help tho - getting someone to promote you on their channel always helps but I'm told the online content community are actually extremely supportive and friendly.
- comboy 6y ago
  Luck and connections are definitely a big part. But do you have any records from that band which you listen to at home? Some bands are just live bands and even if they did great mixing and mastering experience of just listening to them and not watching them live is not that great compared to other things out there. At least that was the experience in my local jazz bar (although lack of professional recording could be the main reason).
- iamben 6y ago
  If you only include people who are trying to "make it" (as in you remove musicians in it for the love, not to make a career, or happy to have a niche career), or who are making a career of it, generally you fall into one of three categories: - good, with terrible marketing/no connections/luck - not good, with great marketing/great connections/luck - good, with great marketing/great connections/luck I know so many and have bought so many records from amazing bands who've never had a lucky break and basically don't understand the internet. Then there's loads of dreadful music and one hit wonders in the charts where someone has been marketed incredibly or they've had some viral luck or whatever - but they fade away pretty quickly. Then you have those people who consistently write great music, with great marketing and a lucky break. Who have long, rich careers. But like unicorn startups and everything else, this is never going to be everyone.
kleiba 6y ago
They are not very original in their music and lyrics. That's obviously not a requirement for becoming a professional musician. Or simply not very good. That, of course, is a bigger issue. But at the same time, it's really not that the people who make it are orders of magnitude better than the best ones of those who don't. Like in many other areas of life, there's factors other than excellence that play an important role, and a lot of them boil down to luck. You can't get nowhere without some heavy-weight business insiders supporting you, even if you're that youtube wunderkind that then has a cinderella-like career. So much of a career is due to successful management, networking, and just being in the right place at the right time. Mind you, you gotta be good, and you gotta work, but that alone is not enough.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  Yeah, none of those punk bands succeeded because they were rubbish on their instruments!! Also, Paul McCartney didn't do very well because he had rubbish lyrics like "In this world in which we live in" - how many times can you say "in" ? or "someone's knocking at the door; do me a favour, go to it, open it and let them in" - stating the obvious...
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    The Beatles where very good in making catchy melodies though.
    - kleiba 6y ago
      Exactly. "Good" is a very context-dependent term.
  - HackedBunny 6y ago
    "In this world in which we're living"...
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      Oh I misheard/misremembered!! Thanks!
72deluxe 6y ago
This is possible but this is highlighting the music INDUSTRY, not the music HOBBY. The industry exists to make money and always has done. It doesn't exist simply for the joy of playing music, in the same way that the software industry doesn't exist simply for the joy of writing software. It exists to make money. Sure, people can write open source software or play instruments at home but it isn't enough to live on by itself (ie it pays zero). This scenario is highlighting the problems with the INDUSTRY, since the artists are effectively now volunteers and won't even make a fraction of the minimum wage for their work. There are multiple problems with the current set up: 1. In the past, record labels would promote individuals they thought could sell. People would look to the record labels and charts for "popular" music. Since there are so many ways to decide how to listen to music, so the labels have less control to "dictate" or push specific artists. 2. The availability of everyone to release their own music has diluted the market so now there is so much volume, nobody gets heard. eg. everyone shouting the news in the street instead of a newspaper. 3. The cost of streaming music is WAY WAY WAY too low. They priced an entire month of music at about £10, the same as a CD. That's 720 hours (30 days) for the same price as just over an hour of music. This works out at £0.013888888888889 per hour, or just over 1p for an hour of music. This is then SPLIT between the streaming company, the label (if one), the artist's manager, and the artist. 1p for an hour of ANY service is not sustainable, let alone if you split it again. 4. The streaming services are independent commercial entities that can charge what they want and negotiate payout fees with the record labels. Despite not being a cartel, no invididual company can charge more than their competitors or they will be seen as poor value. No record label wants to set up their own streaming service, so they are at the mercy of the streaming service for the price, to some extent. 5. Nobody values music. Maybe this is because some people have the radio on as background noise (like the noise of a fridge or household appliance), or because nobody would pay at least £40 a month for music (eg. 1 CD a week), it is now disposable, so the pricing of streaming has been a race to the bottom. Maybe it's because they think that music artists are billionnaires and don't understand the time costs of learning an instrument, buying an instrument + gear, recording a song, mixing a song, mastering a song, pressing a CD or uploading to different platforms, promoting the release and believe they are only paying for the 4 minutes of audio they've just heard. This doesn't even start to cover the costs of distribution or touring (van/truck driver, local roadies at venue, mixing engineer, monitoring engineer, sound engineer to ensure the output of the mix is appropriate for the venue since each venue is very different, equipment techs for larger bands, insurance for gear, insurance for venue, food for staff, accommodation for staff, publicity agent) so everyone thinks it's dirt cheap and a band is driving round a country and magically having equipment appear for them to play. In short, the industry is dead.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tweetle_beetle 6y ago
People also forget the stranglehold the big labels had on the industry and retail. CDs were often expensive too - I remember paying £18 for albums from a large mainstream shop in the late 90s, not obscure but not ones that would have been in the charts. Compare that to the price of seeing that artist live at a proper music venue (not stadia) in a big city at the time - £40ish, maybe less. Maybe my memory isn't great, but the market has been stretched with live music becoming substantially more expensive, while recorded music has become substantially cheaper. I feel like if you want to be a professional musician, then that's exactly what you should be expecting to do with your time - playing music to people, not recording once and expecting to live off royalties forever. Recordings should be seen as marketing for the live performance. I'm not really a fan, but Gary Numan is a case in point. He's been gigging forever and has made a point of making sure his tickets are affordable so his fans could continue to enjoy his shows, ensuring a lifelong revenue stream.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  I think your memory is correct. I have all the old order details for CDs from 20 years ago and they've definitely got cheaper. I also have my old gig tickets from back then (I kept them despite some being a bit sweaty), and gigs have definitely gone up in price, maybe even 2 or 3 times the amount. I am not sure recordings should be seen as the marketing for live performance though - what about bands in another country? They will never tour here. And I will never get to see The Beatles... Also, recorded songs can sound very different to live songs, hence the "thin" nature of some of the live recordings. The ability to create a sonic soundscape on a recording is what makes it so special. Recordings should be seen as art you are paying for. Nobody seems to mind buying a painting but objects to spending money on a CD. Baffling.
  - bcrl 6y ago
    You can't get CDs anywhere near a easily as one could 22 years ago. All the old music stores I used to go to are closed. The big chains are gone. The small indie stores are all gone. Some of the boutique websites still exist, but it has been more than 10 years since I purchased a real physical CD. One thing I do miss is that CDs are mastered far better than anything on iTunes or YouTube is these days. Modern music is compressed (not MP3 artifacts, but flattening of dynamic range) in a way that wasn't common back then. Algorithmic remastering of music by all the big websites is overdone in my opinion.
Rochus 6y ago
> They are not very original in their music and lyrics. Or simply not very good. Or very good for a small niche. Even if you're very good, it's a gamble; almost all celebrity stories contain the element that they simply met the right person or were in the right place at the right time. And fame doesn't correlate with how good you really are; there are various famous musicians who aren't technically good at all, but got their breakthrough for some other reason. So it is almost impossible to plan a successful career a priori or to estimate its chances of success. Just like in a game of chance.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  I should have added that marketing yourself as an indie is also important. As well as timing and luck.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    I don't think marketing is the decisive measure; sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it's unnecessary. As a famous example I mention Billie Eilish; I read that they uploaded their first famous song only on Soundcloud so that a friend could hear it; so not exactly an (intended) marketing measure; but as luck would have it, thousands then suddenly discovered and heard the song. The rest is history. But I know far more at least equally talented musicians who upload songs to Soundcloud without anyone taking notice.
    - spiderfarmer 6y ago
      Obviously marketing is not the dominant factor if you're as good and original as Billie Eilish.
      - Rochus 6y ago
        Unfortunately beeing "good" and "original" is not enough; and even if you make it as a musician, it doesn't mean that you can make a reasonable living from it (which is also addressed by the article).
iamben 6y ago
I see lots of people shouting about this on social media. I think it feels 'wrong' because 10 thousand plays of your song feels like a big number. I mean 10 thousand sales of your single would make you some nice money, right? Actually selling CDs was hard. Selling music is hard. Streaming is so much more passive than people credit and so much more like the radio. I'm absolutely with you - financially lots of people weren't successful before streaming and lots of people will continue to be unsuccessful today. Do it because you love it and if you can make a career (or even some extra cash) out of it be super thankful - there really hasn't been a better time to actually get people to hear your art.
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  It’s likely that the whole 10k streams came from people leaving Spotify on auto play and that no one particularly liked the song and certainly wouldn’t have found or paid for it in a CD store.
  - iamben 6y ago
    Yep. Or, because people are different and wonderful in their own way, it's entirely plausible that it's just a small group of people who really like your stuff and play it from time to time. Even if the rest of the world is completely ambivalent to it.
wolfretcrap 6y ago
The answer is simple don't do something which people are willing to do free out of passion. No one deserves reward for unloading more supplies into already oversupplied market.
rufus_foreman 6y ago
>> The people who want to go back to the "glory days" of CD's are forgetting that struggling artists existed in that day and age too Too? I'm not sure what that has to do with Gary Numan. CDs came out in 1982. Gary Numan's first hit #1 on the UK charts was in 1979. He released a 2017 album that charted at #2. He has released music consistently for over 40 years, and there are multi-volume tribute albums of people covering his songs. And he had a side career as an aerobatic flying instructor to fall back on if everything went south. That's not a struggling artist. The point I'm reading in this is, if someone like that is getting next to nothing back from his music being used to make people money, what chance does an actual struggling artist have? Although I also appreciate Mick Jagger's point about the music business where he says that prior to 1970 you didn't make any money from record sales because the record companies just simply refused to pay you.

andoma 6y ago

This is the correct answer

keiferski 6y ago

Most people "are not good" because our political system is centered around making money, not on mastering an art form. Many societies did this in the past, but as it's "no longer economically viable," no one cares today. Today, in order to master an art form and actually make something worthwhile, you have to be entirely self-motivated. > Many open source developers are happy working on their hobby for "free" Really not a good comparison. Open source developers tend to have no issues finding paid work, often because they worked for free on open source. The same scenario doesn't exist for artists.

disgu 6y ago
> Many societies did this in the past, but as it's "no longer economically viable," no one cares today. Can you name a few?
- keiferski 6y ago
  Virtually every civilization pre-Industrial Revolution?
  - riffraff 6y ago
    I think you would need to explain why you think pre-industrial civilization preferred "mastering the art" to "making money". Painters sold their paintings or did commissions, musicians sold their compositions or wrote them on demand, glassblowers and blacksmiths worked to sell their ware.
    - keiferski 6y ago
      This is a topic that can't even begin to be summarized in a HN comment. In the past, it was far more common to subsidize the training of artisans, or at least ensure they were economically subsistent, because the culture recognized the value of aesthetic beauty toward achieving civilizational goals. Today, in 2021, this doesn't happen so much. Primarily for two reasons: aesthetic relativism ("Beauty is just an opinion and all opinions are equally valid") and cost ("Why design beautiful buildings when ugly ones are cheaper?") Rather than pay more money to ensure that the market for craftsmen is stable, we'd prefer to save $20 and buy some plastic junk. Ditto for other art forms.
      - spiderfarmer 6y ago
        Who subsidised the artisans? Wealthy individuals. So essentially, they had a job and a boss.
    - comboy 6y ago
      I think it may be that you couldn't really change your status with money. It's not like today when you did something great and your wealth changes by orders of magnitude. So your status came from being a master. Somebody in very high regard because he is practically irreplaceable. He brings us great clothes. Nobody else around can do it so well. And no, that doesn't mean you could charge a lot for them, because the market is too small and people who are buying from you are the people you depend on for getting the goods that you need.
franga2000 6y ago
> Open source developers tend to have no issues finding paid work, often because they worked for free on open source. The same scenario doesn't exist for artists. Acknowledging the "paid in exposure" meme, having some free work to point at when potential employers/customers ask for references is still extremely useful for an artist, just like open source contributions are for a programmer. Imagine you're picking between two bands to play at some event (back when those used to happen). One has 3 references amd that's it, the other has 2 references but a million plays on Spotify. I know which one I'd go for...
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  Absolutely. That's how it works for the artists in my family. There are more analogies with Open Source developers. For example, you can't expect that you'll become famous for writing a simple Homebridge plugin. Just like your thirteen-a-dozen blues song doesn't make it to the top of the charts. Thousands or even millions of people may use it, but you're mainly doing it to scratch your own itch. The statistics are just a feel good bonus.

VBprogrammer 6y ago

> For a lot of people making music should really stay a hobby. They are not very original in their music and lyrics. Or simply not very good. Or very good for a small niche. I'm not a music buff by a long shot but on one of our first dates my partner and I went to Brighton during the Brighton festival. During a rain shower we heard some live music coming from a pub and went in. We've since followed that band whenever we get a chance. At first I was full of optimism that they were on the cusp of hitting it big. Their music is as good as anything we hear played on the radio. Live their performance is exceptional. For reasons I don't fully understand they don't seem to have moved on from where they where when we first encountered them, a small indie band with a niche but loyal following. I guess my point is that skill isn't the only factor. I suspect a big part of it is luck and connections.

yomly 6y ago
Most people who have gotten big on the streaming platforms will talk about endless grind - I believe a depth of content sets up a virtuous cycle on platforms like YouTube. Yes you might have an Uncle Roger moment where you go viral and get that massive step up but many other streamers will talk of putting out years of content before getting traction. Not sure how it works specifically with music because you can't really churn out endless original content. I guess part of the churn can be covers or live performances. Connections do help tho - getting someone to promote you on their channel always helps but I'm told the online content community are actually extremely supportive and friendly.
comboy 6y ago
Luck and connections are definitely a big part. But do you have any records from that band which you listen to at home? Some bands are just live bands and even if they did great mixing and mastering experience of just listening to them and not watching them live is not that great compared to other things out there. At least that was the experience in my local jazz bar (although lack of professional recording could be the main reason).
iamben 6y ago
If you only include people who are trying to "make it" (as in you remove musicians in it for the love, not to make a career, or happy to have a niche career), or who are making a career of it, generally you fall into one of three categories: - good, with terrible marketing/no connections/luck - not good, with great marketing/great connections/luck - good, with great marketing/great connections/luck I know so many and have bought so many records from amazing bands who've never had a lucky break and basically don't understand the internet. Then there's loads of dreadful music and one hit wonders in the charts where someone has been marketed incredibly or they've had some viral luck or whatever - but they fade away pretty quickly. Then you have those people who consistently write great music, with great marketing and a lucky break. Who have long, rich careers. But like unicorn startups and everything else, this is never going to be everyone.

kleiba 6y ago

They are not very original in their music and lyrics. That's obviously not a requirement for becoming a professional musician. Or simply not very good. That, of course, is a bigger issue. But at the same time, it's really not that the people who make it are orders of magnitude better than the best ones of those who don't. Like in many other areas of life, there's factors other than excellence that play an important role, and a lot of them boil down to luck. You can't get nowhere without some heavy-weight business insiders supporting you, even if you're that youtube wunderkind that then has a cinderella-like career. So much of a career is due to successful management, networking, and just being in the right place at the right time. Mind you, you gotta be good, and you gotta work, but that alone is not enough.

72deluxe 6y ago
Yeah, none of those punk bands succeeded because they were rubbish on their instruments!! Also, Paul McCartney didn't do very well because he had rubbish lyrics like "In this world in which we live in" - how many times can you say "in" ? or "someone's knocking at the door; do me a favour, go to it, open it and let them in" - stating the obvious...
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  The Beatles where very good in making catchy melodies though.
  - kleiba 6y ago
    Exactly. "Good" is a very context-dependent term.
- HackedBunny 6y ago
  "In this world in which we're living"...
  - 72deluxe 6y ago
    Oh I misheard/misremembered!! Thanks!

72deluxe 6y ago

This is possible but this is highlighting the music INDUSTRY, not the music HOBBY. The industry exists to make money and always has done. It doesn't exist simply for the joy of playing music, in the same way that the software industry doesn't exist simply for the joy of writing software. It exists to make money. Sure, people can write open source software or play instruments at home but it isn't enough to live on by itself (ie it pays zero). This scenario is highlighting the problems with the INDUSTRY, since the artists are effectively now volunteers and won't even make a fraction of the minimum wage for their work. There are multiple problems with the current set up: 1. In the past, record labels would promote individuals they thought could sell. People would look to the record labels and charts for "popular" music. Since there are so many ways to decide how to listen to music, so the labels have less control to "dictate" or push specific artists. 2. The availability of everyone to release their own music has diluted the market so now there is so much volume, nobody gets heard. eg. everyone shouting the news in the street instead of a newspaper. 3. The cost of streaming music is WAY WAY WAY too low. They priced an entire month of music at about £10, the same as a CD. That's 720 hours (30 days) for the same price as just over an hour of music. This works out at £0.013888888888889 per hour, or just over 1p for an hour of music. This is then SPLIT between the streaming company, the label (if one), the artist's manager, and the artist. 1p for an hour of ANY service is not sustainable, let alone if you split it again. 4. The streaming services are independent commercial entities that can charge what they want and negotiate payout fees with the record labels. Despite not being a cartel, no invididual company can charge more than their competitors or they will be seen as poor value. No record label wants to set up their own streaming service, so they are at the mercy of the streaming service for the price, to some extent. 5. Nobody values music. Maybe this is because some people have the radio on as background noise (like the noise of a fridge or household appliance), or because nobody would pay at least £40 a month for music (eg. 1 CD a week), it is now disposable, so the pricing of streaming has been a race to the bottom. Maybe it's because they think that music artists are billionnaires and don't understand the time costs of learning an instrument, buying an instrument + gear, recording a song, mixing a song, mastering a song, pressing a CD or uploading to different platforms, promoting the release and believe they are only paying for the 4 minutes of audio they've just heard. This doesn't even start to cover the costs of distribution or touring (van/truck driver, local roadies at venue, mixing engineer, monitoring engineer, sound engineer to ensure the output of the mix is appropriate for the venue since each venue is very different, equipment techs for larger bands, insurance for gear, insurance for venue, food for staff, accommodation for staff, publicity agent) so everyone thinks it's dirt cheap and a band is driving round a country and magically having equipment appear for them to play. In short, the industry is dead.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tweetle_beetle 6y ago

People also forget the stranglehold the big labels had on the industry and retail. CDs were often expensive too - I remember paying £18 for albums from a large mainstream shop in the late 90s, not obscure but not ones that would have been in the charts. Compare that to the price of seeing that artist live at a proper music venue (not stadia) in a big city at the time - £40ish, maybe less. Maybe my memory isn't great, but the market has been stretched with live music becoming substantially more expensive, while recorded music has become substantially cheaper. I feel like if you want to be a professional musician, then that's exactly what you should be expecting to do with your time - playing music to people, not recording once and expecting to live off royalties forever. Recordings should be seen as marketing for the live performance. I'm not really a fan, but Gary Numan is a case in point. He's been gigging forever and has made a point of making sure his tickets are affordable so his fans could continue to enjoy his shows, ensuring a lifelong revenue stream.

72deluxe 6y ago
I think your memory is correct. I have all the old order details for CDs from 20 years ago and they've definitely got cheaper. I also have my old gig tickets from back then (I kept them despite some being a bit sweaty), and gigs have definitely gone up in price, maybe even 2 or 3 times the amount. I am not sure recordings should be seen as the marketing for live performance though - what about bands in another country? They will never tour here. And I will never get to see The Beatles... Also, recorded songs can sound very different to live songs, hence the "thin" nature of some of the live recordings. The ability to create a sonic soundscape on a recording is what makes it so special. Recordings should be seen as art you are paying for. Nobody seems to mind buying a painting but objects to spending money on a CD. Baffling.
- bcrl 6y ago
  You can't get CDs anywhere near a easily as one could 22 years ago. All the old music stores I used to go to are closed. The big chains are gone. The small indie stores are all gone. Some of the boutique websites still exist, but it has been more than 10 years since I purchased a real physical CD. One thing I do miss is that CDs are mastered far better than anything on iTunes or YouTube is these days. Modern music is compressed (not MP3 artifacts, but flattening of dynamic range) in a way that wasn't common back then. Algorithmic remastering of music by all the big websites is overdone in my opinion.

Rochus 6y ago

> They are not very original in their music and lyrics. Or simply not very good. Or very good for a small niche. Even if you're very good, it's a gamble; almost all celebrity stories contain the element that they simply met the right person or were in the right place at the right time. And fame doesn't correlate with how good you really are; there are various famous musicians who aren't technically good at all, but got their breakthrough for some other reason. So it is almost impossible to plan a successful career a priori or to estimate its chances of success. Just like in a game of chance.

spiderfarmer 6y ago
I should have added that marketing yourself as an indie is also important. As well as timing and luck.
- Rochus 6y ago
  I don't think marketing is the decisive measure; sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it's unnecessary. As a famous example I mention Billie Eilish; I read that they uploaded their first famous song only on Soundcloud so that a friend could hear it; so not exactly an (intended) marketing measure; but as luck would have it, thousands then suddenly discovered and heard the song. The rest is history. But I know far more at least equally talented musicians who upload songs to Soundcloud without anyone taking notice.
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    Obviously marketing is not the dominant factor if you're as good and original as Billie Eilish.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      Unfortunately beeing "good" and "original" is not enough; and even if you make it as a musician, it doesn't mean that you can make a reasonable living from it (which is also addressed by the article).

iamben 6y ago

I see lots of people shouting about this on social media. I think it feels 'wrong' because 10 thousand plays of your song feels like a big number. I mean 10 thousand sales of your single would make you some nice money, right? Actually selling CDs was hard. Selling music is hard. Streaming is so much more passive than people credit and so much more like the radio. I'm absolutely with you - financially lots of people weren't successful before streaming and lots of people will continue to be unsuccessful today. Do it because you love it and if you can make a career (or even some extra cash) out of it be super thankful - there really hasn't been a better time to actually get people to hear your art.

PurpleFoxy 6y ago
It’s likely that the whole 10k streams came from people leaving Spotify on auto play and that no one particularly liked the song and certainly wouldn’t have found or paid for it in a CD store.
- iamben 6y ago
  Yep. Or, because people are different and wonderful in their own way, it's entirely plausible that it's just a small group of people who really like your stuff and play it from time to time. Even if the rest of the world is completely ambivalent to it.

wolfretcrap 6y ago

The answer is simple don't do something which people are willing to do free out of passion. No one deserves reward for unloading more supplies into already oversupplied market.

rufus_foreman 6y ago

>> The people who want to go back to the "glory days" of CD's are forgetting that struggling artists existed in that day and age too Too? I'm not sure what that has to do with Gary Numan. CDs came out in 1982. Gary Numan's first hit #1 on the UK charts was in 1979. He released a 2017 album that charted at #2. He has released music consistently for over 40 years, and there are multi-volume tribute albums of people covering his songs. And he had a side career as an aerobatic flying instructor to fall back on if everything went south. That's not a struggling artist. The point I'm reading in this is, if someone like that is getting next to nothing back from his music being used to make people money, what chance does an actual struggling artist have? Although I also appreciate Mick Jagger's point about the music business where he says that prior to 1970 you didn't make any money from record sales because the record companies just simply refused to pay you.