5 ms·

Is it? There's no shortage of posts arguing that for most artists, live performances are not really all they're cracked up to be [1]. [1]: e.g., like this one

Is it? There's no shortage of posts arguing that for most artists, live performances are not really all they're cracked up to be [1]. [1]: e.g., like this one from David Lowery of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven: https://thetrichordist.com/2016/02/16/the-reality-of-touring-revenue-from-someone-who-has-done-it-for-32-years/ https://thetrichordist.com/2016/02/16/the-reality-of-touring...

WalterBright 2y ago
Of course. They're in competition with all the other bands.
- uhoh-itsmaciek 2y ago
  But the system is set up so that, more and more, they're competing for scraps. Shouldn't we incentivize making good art, rather than just becoming a superstar?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > Shouldn't we incentivize making good art, rather than just becoming a superstar? The music I like is good, and the music I don't like is bad. Zero people share my opinions on which is which. Are you sure you aren't just unhappy that other people don't share your taste and prefer superstar music?
    - uhoh-itsmaciek 2y ago
      Pretty sure. Tastes vary, but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Not to mention that those superstars need to come from somewhere. If a career in music is basically like spending all your money on lottery tickets, society ends up poorer: many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is, and go sell advertising instead.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Why would you think otherwise? How do you explain people buying "bad" music with their own money? > many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is Reminds me of every person I know that was laid off was sure he was a superstar. I'm sure there are some overlooked gems, but remember Jimi Hendrix who came out of nowhere and went straight to the top. He was just that good.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Sure, however, "good" does not mean "commercial success"; a lot of "the arts" are subsidised, by e.g. governments, foundations, charities and donors, simply because it's not going to be a commercial success. Other parts of "the arts" are commissioned, like statues. They will be "good", but the problem with art is "good" is a very hazy goal. I mean. I can enjoy ambient eerie dream-themed wailing and blown brass instruments [0], but it's not for everyone. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  It doesn't appear to be competition. David is basically saying there are two tiers: the big stars and everyone else. Everyone else is making their money from selling their music, not from touring.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Isn't "everyone else" just not making money at all?
    - JKCalhoun 2y ago
      Yeah, probably not. But David was dispelling the myth that touring is where the money, if any, comes from. Apparently as a mid-tier musician the crumbs are record-sales crumbs, not touring crumbs. He definitely brought up some interesting points I had not considered about how only weekends will give a band a large draw, about over saturation of venues in the U.S., etc.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        I'm not sure that's making a strong case though. The fans go to the concert and buy what they're selling. That's albums and posters and shirts etc. But the fans have a given amount of disposable income and are inclined to support the band (if they wanted the music without paying they could just pirate it already), so what do you lose if you instead sold more posters and fewer albums? If anything you end up with more exposure on both fronts. If the fan who wants to support you buys a shirt instead of an album then people see them wearing the shirt and discover the band, meanwhile if recordings were free then people who wouldn't have paid might listen and once again discover the band. More fans mean more attendance on tours, so we're back to that, but also more fans buying merchandise, whether that's albums or something else. So there's no disproof of the argument that the band's worst enemy is obscurity, and then limiting the distribution of their music is still the threat rather than the solution.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The streaming and CDs are for advertising the band. Then you can make a success out of touring. Touring first doesn't work. And if you're not good, touring won't fix it.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > They're in competition with all the other bands. I feel like we need to break out the Housing Theory of Everything on this one. Bands have been in competition with other bands since music was invented, that's not new. What's new is that it costs $200/night for a hotel room when you're making, uh, $200/night. If everything didn't cost so much then making that amount of money would work.
sharkjacobs 2y ago
> The only place to reliably make money on merch IS BY SELLING YOUR CDS AT SHOWS. RECORDED MUSIC!!! uh oh
- hughesjj 2y ago
  *selling vinyls and tapes (yes some bands still have mix tapes) at shows And don't forget the band shirts. I still have an entire shelf full of band shirts even after getting rid of 2/3rds of mine back in 2020.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    We used to give away a swag bag at the D conferences. Eventually, we realized that what everyone liked and wanted was the t-shirt. So instead of swag, we gave out higher quality t-shirts. Better for everyone!
    - hughesjj 2y ago
      Stickers and pins too If you wanna know what sells for tech, go to the merch stands at an underground show =) Both of them could do with more beanies
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

WalterBright 2y ago

Of course. They're in competition with all the other bands.

uhoh-itsmaciek 2y ago
But the system is set up so that, more and more, they're competing for scraps. Shouldn't we incentivize making good art, rather than just becoming a superstar?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > Shouldn't we incentivize making good art, rather than just becoming a superstar? The music I like is good, and the music I don't like is bad. Zero people share my opinions on which is which. Are you sure you aren't just unhappy that other people don't share your taste and prefer superstar music?
  - uhoh-itsmaciek 2y ago
    Pretty sure. Tastes vary, but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Not to mention that those superstars need to come from somewhere. If a career in music is basically like spending all your money on lottery tickets, society ends up poorer: many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is, and go sell advertising instead.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > but you're arguing that runaway commercial success is a prerequisite for artistic success? Why would you think otherwise? How do you explain people buying "bad" music with their own money? > many hard-working young musicians are going to see it for the exploitation machine that it is Reminds me of every person I know that was laid off was sure he was a superstar. I'm sure there are some overlooked gems, but remember Jimi Hendrix who came out of nowhere and went straight to the top. He was just that good.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Sure, however, "good" does not mean "commercial success"; a lot of "the arts" are subsidised, by e.g. governments, foundations, charities and donors, simply because it's not going to be a commercial success. Other parts of "the arts" are commissioned, like statues. They will be "good", but the problem with art is "good" is a very hazy goal. I mean. I can enjoy ambient eerie dream-themed wailing and blown brass instruments [0], but it's not for everyone. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsvOcMXd0Q
JKCalhoun 2y ago
It doesn't appear to be competition. David is basically saying there are two tiers: the big stars and everyone else. Everyone else is making their money from selling their music, not from touring.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Isn't "everyone else" just not making money at all?
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    Yeah, probably not. But David was dispelling the myth that touring is where the money, if any, comes from. Apparently as a mid-tier musician the crumbs are record-sales crumbs, not touring crumbs. He definitely brought up some interesting points I had not considered about how only weekends will give a band a large draw, about over saturation of venues in the U.S., etc.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      I'm not sure that's making a strong case though. The fans go to the concert and buy what they're selling. That's albums and posters and shirts etc. But the fans have a given amount of disposable income and are inclined to support the band (if they wanted the music without paying they could just pirate it already), so what do you lose if you instead sold more posters and fewer albums? If anything you end up with more exposure on both fronts. If the fan who wants to support you buys a shirt instead of an album then people see them wearing the shirt and discover the band, meanwhile if recordings were free then people who wouldn't have paid might listen and once again discover the band. More fans mean more attendance on tours, so we're back to that, but also more fans buying merchandise, whether that's albums or something else. So there's no disproof of the argument that the band's worst enemy is obscurity, and then limiting the distribution of their music is still the threat rather than the solution.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The streaming and CDs are for advertising the band. Then you can make a success out of touring. Touring first doesn't work. And if you're not good, touring won't fix it.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> They're in competition with all the other bands. I feel like we need to break out the Housing Theory of Everything on this one. Bands have been in competition with other bands since music was invented, that's not new. What's new is that it costs $200/night for a hotel room when you're making, uh, $200/night. If everything didn't cost so much then making that amount of money would work.

sharkjacobs 2y ago

> The only place to reliably make money on merch IS BY SELLING YOUR CDS AT SHOWS. RECORDED MUSIC!!! uh oh

hughesjj 2y ago
*selling vinyls and tapes (yes some bands still have mix tapes) at shows And don't forget the band shirts. I still have an entire shelf full of band shirts even after getting rid of 2/3rds of mine back in 2020.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  We used to give away a swag bag at the D conferences. Eventually, we realized that what everyone liked and wanted was the t-shirt. So instead of swag, we gave out higher quality t-shirts. Better for everyone!
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    Stickers and pins too If you wanna know what sells for tech, go to the merch stands at an underground show =) Both of them could do with more beanies
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]