6 ms·

Utter crap. Not everybody can be a musician, at least in the genres I listen to, and the difference between the amateurs and the professionals is painfully obv

by mehwoot 13y ago

Utter crap. Not everybody can be a musician, at least in the genres I listen to, and the difference between the amateurs and the professionals is painfully obvious. I'm not being elitist here- I wish anybody could make what I like (and do it well), then there would be a lot more for me to enjoy. Maybe this is the case in rock music or whatever the author is familiar with, but it isn't in all genres. And still, the income from selling tracks is miniscule. It is not competition doing it, it is just the ease of getting it for free on the internet.

graeme 13y ago
Competition might still have something to do with it. The superstar bands of the 60s are still actively touring. People continue to listen to popular music from every decade since. I'm not sure this was the case to the same extent in the past. It's never been this easy to access the music of the past. On the other hand, it's never been easier to reach fans directly and succeed in a niche, of which there are many more. I'm not speaking from experience on this last point, but I know it's true in publishing.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  The "superband" concept of the sixties is dead and has been for a long time. The equivalent music of the times is usually done by electronic producers, who are much more plentiful, competitive, and underground; record labels prefer to invest in huge pop star acts rather the up and coming musicians. Consider that over 90% of radio is owned by Clear Channel, so the variety of music most people who are not hardcore listeners has been substantially decreased. Finally, since access to music from the past is easier than ever before (remember that in the age of vinyl records represses were rare, so people would only have what was available to purchase at their disposable), most people prefer to continue to listen to the stuff they heard in their teens rather than continue to investigate different tastes.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I'm a techno musician. It's very easy to reach fans, but succeeding financially (by which I mean being able to earn something close to the median income and pay for ordinary living expenses, as opposed to fast cars and luxury items) is extremely difficult. Of course one can 'go commercial' and make pop-dance music, aka EDM, but not everyone wants to do that, either materially or artistically. 10-15 years ago a good artist could expect to sell a few thousand copies of an album in a niche genre like psychedelic trance or drum'n'bass, which wouldn't make one rich but would keep a roof over one's head and provide a similarly reasonable return for the label. Now it's very hard to sell 1000 copies of an album and many labels are wary of even releasing in that format, preferring the lower risk of singles.
  - graeme 13y ago
    This is something I've wondered about. In my niche, if I can reach people, I can sell them stuff or make money from affiliate sales. But they're also making an investment in my niche, so they're willing to spend. When you've just got fans, to what extent can you make money via means other than sales?
pzuraq 13y ago
It is competition though. Competition directly for listening time, a person's attention. Every musician has there own pitch, there own style, with which they compete for a listeners attention. It's not that anyone who picks up a guitar or drumset or ableton can be a professional, it's that these things are more accessible than ever and, much more importantly, the means of distribution is almost completely accessible to anyone. This means that there is a huge amount of music to choose from and a huge variety. Yes, a lot of it is crap, but there is still more that isn't due to the sheer volume of content (keep in mind that what is and isn't good is subjective. Even if you and I agree that musician X is terrible, maybe there's someone who likes terrible.) What this all boils down to is that professionals are losing there competitive edge, quickly. Publishing no longer needs a guarantee of profit because setup cost has dropped to practically nothing and distribution cost IS nothing. They can offer more varied and nuanced music, but when it comes down to it most people just want something to play and don't have stringent requirements for their music. Amateur music is quickly filling in that gap, especially on the electronic front (not just EDM, there is a huge variety of music composed digitally that sounds nothing like your standard rave music). In the end, music is becoming what it used to be, a cultural phenomenon.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  Amateur music is quickly filling in that gap, especially on the electronic front (not just EDM, there is a huge variety of music composed digitally that sounds nothing like your standard rave music). No, you are completely wrong. I can't talk about genres I don't know about but for the electronic music I listen to there is a painfully obvious difference between amateur and professional stuff. To the point where I think it is harming the genre. The top artists earn almost nothing from sales of their music, but command large fees for playing 1-2 hours sets every weekend. There is a real dearth of new talent because people getting into it just don't have the sound engineering experience to make their music sound good enough for people to enjoy. What happens is the big labels find producers would could have some talent, take them on board and teach them how to make the music and have the experienced engineers tidy up their work until it sounds good. What this has resulted in is the two major labels absolutely dominating the scene with a large majority of the big names signed to them and absolutely dominating the share of music listened to. One of the labels also owns the major online store that sells music in this genre. And yet, they still make next to nothing from sales. This is why ghost producing is so widespread in electronic music- the only money to be made is in live performances. To get big there, you need good productions to get a name for yourself. So what do you do if you're only interested in making music but not performing? You make the music, put it out with someone else's name, they do the performance and bring in the $$ and you split it (or whatever your agreement is). Now, competition might be more prevalent in other genres- but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that in genres without significant competition, there is still no money to be made in sales. People listen to the top artists like crazy, they just don't pay for the music because why wouldn't you just download it all for free?
ThomPete 13y ago
Sorry but many many many so called artists cant play or compose anything to save their lives. P-diddy never played an instrument. Plenty of popular singers are mediocre to say the least. And many many many very talented musicians make no money what so ever. Musical talent have very little to do with whether you can live from your music.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  Musical talent have very little to do with whether you can live from your music. For some genres of music yes, for others, no. There are genres where sound design is of the utmost importance. I'm not saying competition isn't a factor universally- I'm saying genres without significant competition still have the same problems, so it clearly isn't the dominant factor.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    The genres where it matters are not genres where you can make a lot of money and are not the genres we normally talk about when we talk about piracy.
    - uniclaude 13y ago
      A few electronic music acts might disagree with you here. Daft Punk? Skrillex? The Prodigy? A lot of importance on sound design here, and it is major enough to be on topic on most of those debates.
      - ThomPete 13y ago
        Lets not confuse things here. It is not because of their skills around sound design that they or any other become popular. It has to do much more with timing, culture etc. Again there are many great great sound designers and and composers out there that will never see any fame at all. It's much more complex than just the music itself.
        13y ago
hnha 13y ago
so, what genres are those?
- GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
  Technical death metal
thenomad 13y ago
Which genres are you referring to here? This is a really interesting data point.

by mehwoot 13y ago

graeme 13y ago

Competition might still have something to do with it. The superstar bands of the 60s are still actively touring. People continue to listen to popular music from every decade since. I'm not sure this was the case to the same extent in the past. It's never been this easy to access the music of the past. On the other hand, it's never been easier to reach fans directly and succeed in a niche, of which there are many more. I'm not speaking from experience on this last point, but I know it's true in publishing.

Daishiman 13y ago
The "superband" concept of the sixties is dead and has been for a long time. The equivalent music of the times is usually done by electronic producers, who are much more plentiful, competitive, and underground; record labels prefer to invest in huge pop star acts rather the up and coming musicians. Consider that over 90% of radio is owned by Clear Channel, so the variety of music most people who are not hardcore listeners has been substantially decreased. Finally, since access to music from the past is easier than ever before (remember that in the age of vinyl records represses were rare, so people would only have what was available to purchase at their disposable), most people prefer to continue to listen to the stuff they heard in their teens rather than continue to investigate different tastes.
anigbrowl 13y ago
I'm a techno musician. It's very easy to reach fans, but succeeding financially (by which I mean being able to earn something close to the median income and pay for ordinary living expenses, as opposed to fast cars and luxury items) is extremely difficult. Of course one can 'go commercial' and make pop-dance music, aka EDM, but not everyone wants to do that, either materially or artistically. 10-15 years ago a good artist could expect to sell a few thousand copies of an album in a niche genre like psychedelic trance or drum'n'bass, which wouldn't make one rich but would keep a roof over one's head and provide a similarly reasonable return for the label. Now it's very hard to sell 1000 copies of an album and many labels are wary of even releasing in that format, preferring the lower risk of singles.
- graeme 13y ago
  This is something I've wondered about. In my niche, if I can reach people, I can sell them stuff or make money from affiliate sales. But they're also making an investment in my niche, so they're willing to spend. When you've just got fans, to what extent can you make money via means other than sales?

pzuraq 13y ago

It is competition though. Competition directly for listening time, a person's attention. Every musician has there own pitch, there own style, with which they compete for a listeners attention. It's not that anyone who picks up a guitar or drumset or ableton can be a professional, it's that these things are more accessible than ever and, much more importantly, the means of distribution is almost completely accessible to anyone. This means that there is a huge amount of music to choose from and a huge variety. Yes, a lot of it is crap, but there is still more that isn't due to the sheer volume of content (keep in mind that what is and isn't good is subjective. Even if you and I agree that musician X is terrible, maybe there's someone who likes terrible.) What this all boils down to is that professionals are losing there competitive edge, quickly. Publishing no longer needs a guarantee of profit because setup cost has dropped to practically nothing and distribution cost IS nothing. They can offer more varied and nuanced music, but when it comes down to it most people just want something to play and don't have stringent requirements for their music. Amateur music is quickly filling in that gap, especially on the electronic front (not just EDM, there is a huge variety of music composed digitally that sounds nothing like your standard rave music). In the end, music is becoming what it used to be, a cultural phenomenon.

mehwoot 13y ago
Amateur music is quickly filling in that gap, especially on the electronic front (not just EDM, there is a huge variety of music composed digitally that sounds nothing like your standard rave music). No, you are completely wrong. I can't talk about genres I don't know about but for the electronic music I listen to there is a painfully obvious difference between amateur and professional stuff. To the point where I think it is harming the genre. The top artists earn almost nothing from sales of their music, but command large fees for playing 1-2 hours sets every weekend. There is a real dearth of new talent because people getting into it just don't have the sound engineering experience to make their music sound good enough for people to enjoy. What happens is the big labels find producers would could have some talent, take them on board and teach them how to make the music and have the experienced engineers tidy up their work until it sounds good. What this has resulted in is the two major labels absolutely dominating the scene with a large majority of the big names signed to them and absolutely dominating the share of music listened to. One of the labels also owns the major online store that sells music in this genre. And yet, they still make next to nothing from sales. This is why ghost producing is so widespread in electronic music- the only money to be made is in live performances. To get big there, you need good productions to get a name for yourself. So what do you do if you're only interested in making music but not performing? You make the music, put it out with someone else's name, they do the performance and bring in the $$ and you split it (or whatever your agreement is). Now, competition might be more prevalent in other genres- but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that in genres without significant competition, there is still no money to be made in sales. People listen to the top artists like crazy, they just don't pay for the music because why wouldn't you just download it all for free?

ThomPete 13y ago

Sorry but many many many so called artists cant play or compose anything to save their lives. P-diddy never played an instrument. Plenty of popular singers are mediocre to say the least. And many many many very talented musicians make no money what so ever. Musical talent have very little to do with whether you can live from your music.

mehwoot 13y ago
Musical talent have very little to do with whether you can live from your music. For some genres of music yes, for others, no. There are genres where sound design is of the utmost importance. I'm not saying competition isn't a factor universally- I'm saying genres without significant competition still have the same problems, so it clearly isn't the dominant factor.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  The genres where it matters are not genres where you can make a lot of money and are not the genres we normally talk about when we talk about piracy.
  - uniclaude 13y ago
    A few electronic music acts might disagree with you here. Daft Punk? Skrillex? The Prodigy? A lot of importance on sound design here, and it is major enough to be on topic on most of those debates.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      Lets not confuse things here. It is not because of their skills around sound design that they or any other become popular. It has to do much more with timing, culture etc. Again there are many great great sound designers and and composers out there that will never see any fame at all. It's much more complex than just the music itself.
      - 13y ago

hnha 13y ago

so, what genres are those?

GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
Technical death metal

thenomad 13y ago

Which genres are you referring to here? This is a really interesting data point.