5 ms·

I know a couple musicians, some of them earn enough to survive thanks to their art, most don't. I know that if I had talent I could create and distribute an al

I know a couple musicians, some of them earn enough to survive thanks to their art, most don't. I know that if I had talent I could create and distribute an album on my laptop and distribute it globally. We used to pay record labels for this. Now we pay them to stand in the way of artists and their fans. Regardless, musicians don't really make money from people listening to their music and never really have - unless you're talking about A-listers, but since we're talking about starving artists we're probably not talking about Metallica and Katy Perry. Musicians make money from playing live - even all electronic musicians like Deadmau5. Most electronic musicians give their music away on Soundcloud and then tour to make money. This is the future of the industry. The problem is it just doesn't leave a lot of room for record labels. This is something that no one will miss...

cobralibre 14y ago
"Musicians make money from playing live... This is the future of the industry." I see this sentiment repeated often. I don't buy it. It seems like a better way to put it is that if musicians are going to make money at all, then it must come from live performance. It certainly won't come from recordings, because more and more consumers don't want to pay for recordings, regardless of the practices of major labels, who have always been irrelevant to the majority of practicing musicians anyway. I have only anecdotal data to back myself up with, but of the independent musicians I know, most of them lose money or make trivial earnings from live performance. They do it because they find it rewarding, to be sure, but they're not doing it for money. And touring is usually mutually exclusive with a sustainable day job.
- joeguilmette 14y ago
  Remember - music existed before money. Selling recorded performances is relatively new - how long have records been around? I doubt the first users of the tech in the early 1900s spent enough on records to support any type of professional musician, let alone create Lady Gaga like stars. Yet, somehow, there have been professional musicians for likely thousands of years. Record companies solved the distribution problem. The Internet proved them obsolete and for the next few years they'll continue their death rattle until they blossom into something that looks like Spotify (which is replacing radio as well), or someone else will fill their shoes (as Spotify is doing today). And then no one will care about programs designed to put lipstick on my 80gb mp3 pig as iTunes does... Unless they roll out their own all you can eat service :)
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    > music existed before money ?? Before money, artists still needed food and shelter... > Yet, somehow, there have been professional musicians for likely thousands of years. But does anyone really want to go back to the patronage system?
    - oofabz 14y ago
      I want to go back to the system where musicians are not rock stars trying to sell you a product, they are ordinary people with a day job who enjoy making and sharing music for their own entertainment.
      - yardie 14y ago
        We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? I want to go back to the system where musicians were rewarded with money to put invest into their next project. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think Spotify nor Pandora are the answer. My musician friends feel like it's the new Payola. They don't like to be on there because the royalties on 1000 plays is not even worth the postage. Yet, they can't afford not to be there because so many other musicians and listeners are using it.
        icebraining 14y ago
        We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? Nobody is demanding anything of artists; it's artists (well, mostly labels, but also some artists) that are demanding monopolies from society.
        yardie 14y ago
        ¿Que? I'm not even sure how to interpret this statement. Monopolies of what exactly?
- Adirael 14y ago
  Right now, with the social media and all this stuff, I find myself buying more music than ever. I never liked physical formats, I remember having MP2 audio files of all my favorite music and hating tapes and then CDs. Last month I drop almost 40$ on a digital music compilation from an artist I like. He was selling it directly from his Facebook. It's not the first time and it wont be the last. He's selling some vinyls right now and just released the test presses on eBay. I don't even know if this guy has a record label or not, but he tours and probably edits all by himself. I don't think playing live will be the only way musicians can make money (and a lot of them make dimes playing live as the promoters -usually the labels!- take all the money too). You don't need to drop 10K month on studio anymore, you only need some equipment (that can be rented) and a computer to edit your music. Even some big bands are doing it this way nowadays.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
gurkendoktor 14y ago
> Musicians make money from playing live It might be good advice economically, but IMHO it is also a tendency worth fighting, because it is so obviously unfair and limiting. What about artists (or genres!) that suck at giving live concerts? How do I vote with my wallet if I have no time for concerts - but listen to music all day? Bizarrely, soundtracks seem to have come to my rescue (for some genres) - where artists receive a one-time payment to make solid music, but then slap it onto iTunes where I can throw in a few extra $$$.
- pseut 14y ago
  >How do I vote with my wallet if I have no time for concerts - but listen to music all day? Buy t-shirts, etc
  - KC8ZKF 14y ago
    Who the fuck would wear a Cecillia Bartoli or Yo-Yo Ma t-shirt?
    - dagw 14y ago
      Market it right and a Cecillia Bartoli t-shirt will become the must have hipster fashion item for spring 2013.
  - dagw 14y ago
    But most people have no need for dozens of over priced low quality t-shirt with some amateur graphic design scrawled all over it. Sure I could buy them to throw away simply as a round about way to donate money, but there must be a better business model out there.
    - zizee 14y ago
      How about artists with a following ask for crowdfunding for their next project.
      - 14y ago
untog 14y ago
I know that if I had talent I could create and distribute an album on my laptop and distribute it globally. We used to pay record labels for this. Now we pay them to stand in the way of artists and their fans. Not just that, though. They also do promotion. How am I going to find out about your album?
- joeguilmette 14y ago
  YouTube, Soundcloud, activity sharing on streaming services, live shows, music blogs, your friends. Do you really decide what bands you like from ads and the radio?
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    You talk as if your way is fundamentally different. In both cases someone is curating what kind of music you hear for you because there are far too many bands to hear them all. The question is just who is making the selection for you.
WildBox 14y ago
I found that a lot of punk bands will just put their music on bandcamp or release it for free with the message to buy if you enjoy. Since it's released digitally they aren't losing money on distribution, but only on time spent.

cobralibre 14y ago

"Musicians make money from playing live... This is the future of the industry." I see this sentiment repeated often. I don't buy it. It seems like a better way to put it is that if musicians are going to make money at all, then it must come from live performance. It certainly won't come from recordings, because more and more consumers don't want to pay for recordings, regardless of the practices of major labels, who have always been irrelevant to the majority of practicing musicians anyway. I have only anecdotal data to back myself up with, but of the independent musicians I know, most of them lose money or make trivial earnings from live performance. They do it because they find it rewarding, to be sure, but they're not doing it for money. And touring is usually mutually exclusive with a sustainable day job.

joeguilmette 14y ago
Remember - music existed before money. Selling recorded performances is relatively new - how long have records been around? I doubt the first users of the tech in the early 1900s spent enough on records to support any type of professional musician, let alone create Lady Gaga like stars. Yet, somehow, there have been professional musicians for likely thousands of years. Record companies solved the distribution problem. The Internet proved them obsolete and for the next few years they'll continue their death rattle until they blossom into something that looks like Spotify (which is replacing radio as well), or someone else will fill their shoes (as Spotify is doing today). And then no one will care about programs designed to put lipstick on my 80gb mp3 pig as iTunes does... Unless they roll out their own all you can eat service :)
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  > music existed before money ?? Before money, artists still needed food and shelter... > Yet, somehow, there have been professional musicians for likely thousands of years. But does anyone really want to go back to the patronage system?
  - oofabz 14y ago
    I want to go back to the system where musicians are not rock stars trying to sell you a product, they are ordinary people with a day job who enjoy making and sharing music for their own entertainment.
    - yardie 14y ago
      We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? I want to go back to the system where musicians were rewarded with money to put invest into their next project. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think Spotify nor Pandora are the answer. My musician friends feel like it's the new Payola. They don't like to be on there because the royalties on 1000 plays is not even worth the postage. Yet, they can't afford not to be there because so many other musicians and listeners are using it.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? Nobody is demanding anything of artists; it's artists (well, mostly labels, but also some artists) that are demanding monopolies from society.
        yardie 14y ago
        ¿Que? I'm not even sure how to interpret this statement. Monopolies of what exactly?
Adirael 14y ago
Right now, with the social media and all this stuff, I find myself buying more music than ever. I never liked physical formats, I remember having MP2 audio files of all my favorite music and hating tapes and then CDs. Last month I drop almost 40$ on a digital music compilation from an artist I like. He was selling it directly from his Facebook. It's not the first time and it wont be the last. He's selling some vinyls right now and just released the test presses on eBay. I don't even know if this guy has a record label or not, but he tours and probably edits all by himself. I don't think playing live will be the only way musicians can make money (and a lot of them make dimes playing live as the promoters -usually the labels!- take all the money too). You don't need to drop 10K month on studio anymore, you only need some equipment (that can be rented) and a computer to edit your music. Even some big bands are doing it this way nowadays.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

gurkendoktor 14y ago

> Musicians make money from playing live It might be good advice economically, but IMHO it is also a tendency worth fighting, because it is so obviously unfair and limiting. What about artists (or genres!) that suck at giving live concerts? How do I vote with my wallet if I have no time for concerts - but listen to music all day? Bizarrely, soundtracks seem to have come to my rescue (for some genres) - where artists receive a one-time payment to make solid music, but then slap it onto iTunes where I can throw in a few extra $$$.

pseut 14y ago
>How do I vote with my wallet if I have no time for concerts - but listen to music all day? Buy t-shirts, etc
- KC8ZKF 14y ago
  Who the fuck would wear a Cecillia Bartoli or Yo-Yo Ma t-shirt?
  - dagw 14y ago
    Market it right and a Cecillia Bartoli t-shirt will become the must have hipster fashion item for spring 2013.
- dagw 14y ago
  But most people have no need for dozens of over priced low quality t-shirt with some amateur graphic design scrawled all over it. Sure I could buy them to throw away simply as a round about way to donate money, but there must be a better business model out there.
  - zizee 14y ago
    How about artists with a following ask for crowdfunding for their next project.
    - 14y ago

untog 14y ago

I know that if I had talent I could create and distribute an album on my laptop and distribute it globally. We used to pay record labels for this. Now we pay them to stand in the way of artists and their fans. Not just that, though. They also do promotion. How am I going to find out about your album?

joeguilmette 14y ago
YouTube, Soundcloud, activity sharing on streaming services, live shows, music blogs, your friends. Do you really decide what bands you like from ads and the radio?
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  You talk as if your way is fundamentally different. In both cases someone is curating what kind of music you hear for you because there are far too many bands to hear them all. The question is just who is making the selection for you.

WildBox 14y ago

I found that a lot of punk bands will just put their music on bandcamp or release it for free with the message to buy if you enjoy. Since it's released digitally they aren't losing money on distribution, but only on time spent.