But WHYYYYYYYY is there no music on MTV?

[Doktor Howl]

You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.

I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.

I don't think anyone every said it wasn't.

Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Right. It's easy to steal music now. You can like the musician all you want but unless the musician explicitly says that this song is up for grabs, it's theft. Even if you're stealing from the label, you're indirectly stealing from the musician (and, I might add, the people who were involved in the recording. There are different kinds of royalties. One type of royalty rewards the writer(s) another rewards the performer(s) of a specific recording. Singer-songwriter? Maximum profit, and not in a creative-distributive sense.)

[tyrannosaurus vex]

You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.

I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.

I don't think anyone every said it wasn't.

Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.

I won't argue that. And I usually do buy music legally, just because they've figured out how to make that easier and more convenient than pirating it. Even if it's offered for free, I'll pay something for it if there's an option to (recent releases by NIN and Radiohead come to mind). I'm not saying that piracy is "ethical," only that it's inevitable given the state of technology now. So there's a cap on the amount of money that's going to be generated through direct music sales.

That isn't necessarily a terrible thing, even for musicians. Yeah, it makes it harder to become a mega-star, and there's going to be battles between artists and labels and producers over every dime that does get generated, but that's where I'm a fan of "let the market figure it out." Just don't block technological progress to artificially preserve an industry that itself only exists because of the technological advances in recorded music. And definitely don't use it as an excuse to stamp out freedom of information (side note: Part of SOPA is being resurrected by the Department of Commerce).

I don't think it's necessary to redefine morality here. The simple fact is that technology and the billions of people who don't even consider the ethical implications of their actions are going to dictate to the music industry what recorded music is worth. News flash: The days of paying $18 for a single copy of 10 songs are over, and they're not coming back. In broad terms, I can see the music industry splitting into two models: one where music is created and distributed freely as marketing material and rhetorical context for various subcultures (pretty much exactly as it is now, minus the paying for it part); and one where high-quality musicians are contracted by patrons to compose specific works (like in the good old days). Either way the greatest share of the money that's made by artists is going to come from performances, not the sale of licenses to listen to the music as it is now.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.

I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.

I don't think anyone every said it wasn't.

Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.

I won't argue that. And I usually do buy music legally, just because they've figured out how to make that easier and more convenient than pirating it. Even if it's offered for free, I'll pay something for it if there's an option to (recent releases by NIN and Radiohead come to mind). I'm not saying that piracy is "ethical," only that it's inevitable given the state of technology now. So there's a cap on the amount of money that's going to be generated through direct music sales.

That isn't necessarily a terrible thing, even for musicians. Yeah, it makes it harder to become a mega-star, and there's going to be battles between artists and labels and producers over every dime that does get generated, but that's where I'm a fan of "let the market figure it out." Just don't block technological progress to artificially preserve an industry that itself only exists because of the technological advances in recorded music. And definitely don't use it as an excuse to stamp out freedom of information (side note: Part of SOPA is being resurrected by the Department of Commerce).

I don't think it's necessary to redefine morality here. The simple fact is that technology and the billions of people who don't even consider the ethical implications of their actions are going to dictate to the music industry what recorded music is worth. News flash: The days of paying $18 for a single copy of 10 songs are over, and they're not coming back. In broad terms, I can see the music industry splitting into two models: one where music is created and distributed freely as marketing material and rhetorical context for various subcultures (pretty much exactly as it is now, minus the paying for it part); and one where high-quality musicians are contracted by patrons to compose specific works (like in the good old days). Either way the greatest share of the money that's made by artists is going to come from performances, not the sale of licenses to listen to the music as it is now.

Actually, my point is that it's EASIER to become a mega-star. You can become a rock star now, on your own, with no labels, and no expenditures. Matter of fact, you're probably MORE likely to make it in this day and age. I'm talking to people in Europe, the Americas and Australia, right now. You might buy my music, just because you know me and want to support what I do. Now picture me trying to do this in say, 1990. Nothing. Right now, I can do a half-assed hit song over the course of a week providing I used up my vacation time and slept little. Like right here with just me and a decent drum machine. I mean, drum program, since drum machines are obsolete. Laptop, guitar, microphone, keyboard and pitch-shifter to make my guitar sound like a bass. There.

It's just all about working it right, as a musician, and the industry evolving alongside that.

I talk to people here, from as far away as Australia and Norway. That's the reach of my music right now, just, HERE on PD. Am I ever going to play in Sidney or Oslo? Maybe. I've played as far East as Kinsale, Ireland, and as far West as Allentown, Pennsylvannia. And Kinsale was a fluke, sort of like, "Oh, you're staying in our inn and play guitar?" I was on vacation. My live performances nowhere near approach my contacts.

I would love to be a mega-star. I could, with modern technology, with $0 in my bank account, if I was savvy enough. I'm not. No one who is focused on the music is. Don't get me wrong, I'm never going to quit this. But everything needs to fall into place for this to be a viable career (even if I just tour New England for the rest of my life), and not fuck up my outside of music life. I'm lucky. My girlfriend is a musician too, and even though she is my bassist, she would tell me to go on tour immediately without her. Because she knows.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

That was a bit rambly. Sorry.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't agree that "no one who is focused on the music" is marketing-savvy enough to become a self-made star...


...but that's a whole other thread, and probably involves a lot of my own resentments as an artist who worked in a medium where anyone who became successful and famous was frequently accused (usually by people with significantly less skill/talent) of just "being good at marketing".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I don't agree that "no one who is focused on the music" is marketing-savvy enough to become a self-made star...


...but that's a whole other thread, and probably involves a lot of my own resentments as an artist who worked in a medium where anyone who became successful and famous was frequently accused (usually by people with significantly less skill/talent) of just "being good at marketing".

I may have misspoken there, since I like bands who have been accused of just being good at marketing. I like them on their own merits, even though occasionally, I really really didn't want to.

It's unfortunate that art needs to be marketed to be profitable.

Let's put it this way- I was a huge Metallica fan. I was annoyed with their playing with their genre change because it wasn't what I wanted, but I lost respect when they went back to metal. The not metal wasn't bad and showed a potentially promising progression, if done right. When they went back to metal, I lost respect for them. It felt like they were caving.

Conversely, other bands evolve gradually and pull it off, because it's not abrupt, and you can see the progression, and you know, you might be ambivalent at first, but you give them the benefit of the doubt and you end up liking it despite yourself. Iron Maiden comes to mind. Then you have others that largely stick to the formula but throw in something different each album. Rammstein comes to mind.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.

Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.

Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.

Ramen, Big Macs, and Dunkin Donuts<----musician chow

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

You are right vex but while the musician makes more money on live performance and merch in order to organize a tour to have those live performances and sell those shirts you need to book those shows each of which ought to have a contract finance the tour promote it etc. A band who does that all on their own often break even at best and have to finance out of pocket.

I am not arguing that it is right, only that it is.

I don't think anyone every said it wasn't.

Again, just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's right.

I won't touch album torrents. Pre-code movies, sure, all those people have been dead forever. Fuck Ted Turner. But fifteen dollars for a cd or a record won't kill me.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Best I ever saw was $200 and unlimited beer for a St. Patrick's Day gig. Which was damn sweet. Bear in mind it was St. Pat's at an Irish bar playing Irish music and it was just me and an accordion player. And I felt bad taking that money. Not because it wasn't a good show, but, damn, that seemed like a lot of money.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Second best was $80 playing Irish music at the bar down the street.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Second best was $80 playing Irish music at the bar down the street.

No unlimited beer?
WHAT THE HELL KIND OF IRISH BAR WAS THAT?
You need a rider. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.

Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.

Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.

So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Second best was $80 playing Irish music at the bar down the street.

No unlimited beer?
WHAT THE HELL KIND OF IRISH BAR WAS THAT?
You need a rider. 

I did get free beer to a degree at that one too. But mainly because me and the owner were friends at that point.

Also, speaking of riders, I remember my friend from high school was playing a gig at O'Brien's (I'm sure you know the place), and an out of town band was complaining that their rider was not fulfilled. Well, Bren and I started laughing. "Riders!" we said "What do you think you're playing, the Palladium?" but you know, they were right. You should never take a gig without a rider, even if it's a basic rider. You as a band are doing contract work, and the necessary equipment for both parties and the pay-out should be put into writing. It's a JOB. But, we local guys, are just happy to get a gig. We don't ask for riders even though we should.

My aunt once asked me if I was in the Musicians Union. I laughed. I don't write jingles. Though, I probably should.