Might have been posted already but a response from David Lowery of Cracker and Camper Von Beethoven to an essay written by a 21 year old NPR intern. Apparently the girl owns 11,000 songs but has only paid for 100 of them and claims her generation will never pay for music again.

[thetrichordist.wordpress.com]

So sad about Mark's suicide. I don't know if it's fair to attribute causation to illegal downloads. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I still buy cd's, so I guess I'm a sucker.

Apparently she's got most of her songs from friends and from promo CD's sent to the radio station she's working at, which means she has free access to a lot of music.
Here's her original post : [www.npr.org]

This is why we now have to pay $200 for a concert ticket and a t-shirt. They're the musicians only remaining source of income.

Aside from the main topic -- I have compassion for anyone suffering unduly; from depression, financially, and so forth. That the writer even slightly intimates that illegal downloading is the cause of two suicides is ridiculous and bad business in my opinion.

Quote
tatters
This is why we now have to pay $200 for a concert ticket and a t-shirt. They're the musicians only remaining source of income.

You are quite right tatters! Touring and live shows is about it these days. a few residuals from film and TV useage where the industry standard is still pay to play.

The business was way too fat at one time , the bubble burst and nothing is going to blow it up like it was before. I hope for some sort of compromise that allows songwriters and recording artists a decent income stream in the near future.

The future of good original music is at stake here. I hate the whole give it away for free mentality taken by established artists who have already banked their fortunes and now are taking the lead in allowing the music to be distributed for free. I belive in creative property rights and know people who work very hard to deliver a product worth alot more than what they are receiving for it. I know there are alot of folks on this board who own and have great interest in obtaining loads of bootleg recorded material for free. I'm not sure what to say to them except it is a process which is killing the very music they cherish so much. I have a hard time jumping on that bandwagon personally but I understand the lure. peace

Musicians getting screwed

.....What a let down!!! ...thought there'd be photos

ROCKMAN

If you want to read about musicians getting screwed...by management, read Ken Scott's (Beatles engineer) new book:
P.S. Scott worked with the Stones—that he relates in the book—but only to record an orchestra for SWAY and MOONLIGHT MILE.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-24 06:44 by Title5Take1.

It's a sticky subject, sure, but I usually don't go for charts material that is easily available everywhere for a decent price. Downloading could be an option, but I'm not interested in mp3. If I pay for a download, I want at least CD quality and that means lossless formats like flac and the like.

Thing is - having 10.000 "free" (=illegal) files does not equal 10.000 losses for the artists and record companies. In my youth, I could only afford to buy 1 album plus one or two singles every month. With so much great stuff already out there and new great stuff released each and every month (it was the 60's, you know!) it would have been impossible to keep up with all the good stuff. So I did what nearly everyone else did: Borrow albums, record them on cassette and reel-to-reel tapes, record from the radio - whatever.

Nowadays, kids and teens are not exactly richer. Plus, there's strong competitors like games and stuff.

I think it's time to realize that the cultural importance of music is not what it used to be in the past decades and that it most probably won't ever be the same again.

Quote
alimente
It's a sticky subject, sure, but I usually don't go for charts material that is easily available everywhere for a decent price. Downloading could be an option, but I'm not interested in mp3. If I pay for a download, I want at least CD quality and that means lossless formats like flac and the like.

Thing is - having 10.000 "free" (=illegal) files does not equal 10.000 losses for the artists and record companies. In my youth, I could only afford to buy 1 album plus one or two singles every month. With so much great stuff already out there and new great stuff released each and every month (it was the 60's, you know!) it would have been impossible to keep up with all the good stuff. So I did what nearly everyone else did: Borrow albums, record them on cassette and reel-to-reel tapes, record from the radio - whatever.

Nowadays, kids and teens are not exactly richer. Plus, there's strong competitors like games and stuff.

I think it's time to realize that the cultural importance of music is not what it used to be in the past decades and that it most probably won't ever be the same again.

Excellent counter argument alimente. I remember taping off the radio, holding my tape recorder up to one of my parents stereo speakers. Lucky it was am radio so it was mono!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
alimente
It's a sticky subject, sure, but I usually don't go for charts material that is easily available everywhere for a decent price. Downloading could be an option, but I'm not interested in mp3. If I pay for a download, I want at least CD quality and that means lossless formats like flac and the like.

Thing is - having 10.000 "free" (=illegal) files does not equal 10.000 losses for the artists and record companies. In my youth, I could only afford to buy 1 album plus one or two singles every month. With so much great stuff already out there and new great stuff released each and every month (it was the 60's, you know!) it would have been impossible to keep up with all the good stuff. So I did what nearly everyone else did: Borrow albums, record them on cassette and reel-to-reel tapes, record from the radio - whatever.

Nowadays, kids and teens are not exactly richer. Plus, there's strong competitors like games and stuff.

I think it's time to realize that the cultural importance of music is not what it used to be in the past decades and that it most probably won't ever be the same again.

Excellent counter argument alimente. I remember taping off the radio, holding my tape recorder up to one of my parents stereo speakers. Lucky it was am radio so it was mono!

I think it was Metallica's original release of the Garage EP or whatever it was called where Lars, I believe, scribbled the notes out on the back. In the middle of it all was his revealing that they would copy LPs to cassette and had a massive amount of bootlegged LPs they carried around with them because, and this may be completely off base, cassettes were easier to take on the road.

Something to that effect anyway.

I'm not sure if it is actual irony but I found it highly amusing that there was Lars, in a courtroom, shooting down the digital form of recording albums onto cassettes in the form of Napster, the very exact same thing (other than the loss of income from cassette sales for the industry - oh wait, that's right, they are probably all invested in hard drives etc anyway). Nobody has ever talked about how many cassettes were ever bought, just how many songs have been illegally downloaded. It's a subject that has a lot of convenience built up in it only in the theatre of digital music. Damn the past, it must've never happened at all.

This is the first time I have heard rock musicians complaining about being screwed.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
tatters
This is why we now have to pay $200 for a concert ticket and a t-shirt. They're the musicians only remaining source of income.

You are quite right tatters! Touring and live shows is about it these days. a few residuals from film and TV useage where the industry standard is still pay to play.

The business was way too fat at one time , the bubble burst and nothing is going to blow it up like it was before. I hope for some sort of compromise that allows songwriters and recording artists a decent income stream in the near future.

The future of good original music is at stake here. I hate the whole give it away for free mentality taken by established artists who have already banked their fortunes and now are taking the lead in allowing the music to be distributed for free. I belive in creative property rights and know people who work very hard to deliver a product worth alot more than what they are receiving for it. I know there are alot of folks on this board who own and have great interest in obtaining loads of bootleg recorded material for free. I'm not sure what to say to them except it is a process which is killing the very music they cherish so much. I have a hard time jumping on that bandwagon personally but I understand the lure. peace

The business is changing for sure, and it's more difficult to make money on record sales these days. But there are also new ways in which creators can get payed. Myself, for example, I just received $700 for about 20 rock tracks I've recorded at home, a reward which was funded through Kickstarter, a site where people pay (donate) a voluntary fee and receive a product sized depending on the amount they payed (e.g. a download code for $5 or maybe a download code + vinyl record for $20).

I don't agree for a second that pirating or copying or streaming is killing music. That's a lie as old as cassette tapes. People made music long before recording technology or concert tickets were invented and I'm convinced they will still do for the rest of humanity. Same goes for movies. Some people think we need Hollywood to have movies, but we don't. There are thousands of talented people making movies on their own terms, or at least not on Hollywood's terms. Do they deserve more money than they're receiving? Yes. Does that stop them from making movies or music? No, not the really talented and dedicated ones.

Bootlegs (such as those traded on this site) are an even smaller threat to music. Twenty years ago, the people making and selling the records made a profit from other people's music, but no more. Nobody (or almost nobody) makes money off of boots anymore -- they're all up there for free on trading sites, and the record companies don't even care, they're busy fighting Google, Youtube and the Pirate Bay. Besides, almost everyone who have an interest in boots have already bought most of the official albums at one time.

Remember, we are the people who -- by buying records, today or back in the '70s -- are funding the record companies' efforts to suppress our freedoms by closing web sites and monitor our internet activity (our lives!).

Freddy Mercury.

Talking about rock groups and money, the Rolling Stones really hit the jackpot. They were big at the very height of musicians' profits, before there was anything like the internet. They also were in the unique position where they could create their own record label (an idea borrowed from the Beatles and Frank Sinatra).

Never again will groups make so much money from recording contracts. Too many freeloaders. I have mog.com so I listen to all music legally but it only is $5 a month .. The last time I bought a CD or mp3 download was about 6 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-24 19:18 by mitchflorida1.

Quote
LieB

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
tatters
This is why we now have to pay $200 for a concert ticket and a t-shirt. They're the musicians only remaining source of income.

You are quite right tatters! Touring and live shows is about it these days. a few residuals from film and TV useage where the industry standard is still pay to play.

The business was way too fat at one time , the bubble burst and nothing is going to blow it up like it was before. I hope for some sort of compromise that allows songwriters and recording artists a decent income stream in the near future.

The future of good original music is at stake here. I hate the whole give it away for free mentality taken by established artists who have already banked their fortunes and now are taking the lead in allowing the music to be distributed for free. I belive in creative property rights and know people who work very hard to deliver a product worth alot more than what they are receiving for it. I know there are alot of folks on this board who own and have great interest in obtaining loads of bootleg recorded material for free. I'm not sure what to say to them except it is a process which is killing the very music they cherish so much. I have a hard time jumping on that bandwagon personally but I understand the lure. peace

The business is changing for sure, and it's more difficult to make money on record sales these days. But there are also new ways in which creators can get payed. Myself, for example, I just received $700 for about 20 rock tracks I've recorded at home, a reward which was funded through Kickstarter, a site where people pay (donate) a voluntary fee and receive a product sized depending on the amount they payed (e.g. a download code for $5 or maybe a download code + vinyl record for $20).

I don't agree for a second that pirating or copying or streaming is killing music. That's a lie as old as cassette tapes. People made music long before recording technology or concert tickets were invented and I'm convinced they will still do for the rest of humanity. Same goes for movies. Some people think we need Hollywood to have movies, but we don't. There are thousands of talented people making movies on their own terms, or at least not on Hollywood's terms. Do they deserve more money than they're receiving? Yes. Does that stop them from making movies or music? No, not the really talented and dedicated ones.

Bootlegs (such as those traded on this site) are an even smaller threat to music. Twenty years ago, the people making and selling the records made a profit from other people's music, but no more. Nobody (or almost nobody) makes money off of boots anymore -- they're all up there for free on trading sites, and the record companies don't even care, they're busy fighting Google, Youtube and the Pirate Bay. Besides, almost everyone who have an interest in boots have already bought most of the official albums at one time.

Remember, we are the people who -- by buying records, today or back in the '70s -- are funding the record companies' efforts to suppress our freedoms by closing web sites and monitor our internet activity (our lives!).

Oh great , that $700 probably didn't begin to cover your costs for making a TWENTY complete rock songs. No question ameteur musicians are happy to make anything from the songs they make but you've got to me fair here. The typical payback on investment in corporate America is probably 140% or so. If you are writing original music the time and energy involved can be enormous. If you are producing standard elevator music maybe not. Lets have a system that a least pays the bills and costs and buys a little time to creat the next record. I'm not talking 1970's fluff and gross excess but the state of things today is dismal. Anyone who is committed to it will tell you that.

I say somethings got to give or we will all be stuck with ameteur level production on songs which don't deliver like the classics we all love so much. Of course money and possibly fame are not the only real draws to devoting your life to music and music production, but they sure go a long way in producing the best of it. We deserve to have that best of it. Something has to change.

Music is not the cultural force it was when we were growing up? I say bullshit, go ask any teenager these days how important it is to them. No, the importance hasn't gone away , never will imho. Just the methods of delivery and the ways its is marketed and received have changed. Music is now just a computer file, not a tangible item we can hold and caresss and roll joints on the packaging. Maybe the answer is to turn it back into a tangible iten somehow. I wish I knew the answer cause the baby needs new shoes. peace

Quote
Naturalust
Music is not the cultural force it was when we were growing up? I say bullshit, go ask any teenager these days how important it is to them. No, the importance hasn't gone away , never will imho. Just the methods of delivery and the ways its is marketed and received have changed. Music is now just a computer file, not a tangible item we can hold and caresss and roll joints on the packaging. Maybe the answer is to turn it back into a tangible iten somehow. I wish I knew the answer cause the baby needs new shoes. peace

Yeah, but the same teenagers will confirm that they are only keen on a handful of hit songs per artists because the other songs on the albums are filler or even shit, at least not really "necessary". In my youth, we were sitting together with friends, actually listening to music, freakening out to music, discussing lyrics, trying to understand whatever artists wanted to say with their music and lyrics. Music had a meaning. Nowadays, it's judged more or less solely if it's danceable and whether it has a nice, mostly computer-generated hook. Aside from dance parties, when young people meet, music runs in the background while they're discussing or playing with their latest handys/cellphones, games,whatever - if they meet at all, because they not necessarily have to because of Facebook chatting and stuff. Music still a significant force? Gimme a break!

The time it meant something to own the actual vinyl albums of Blonde On Blonde, Sgt. Peppers, Ummagumma, Sticky Fingers - in contrast to owning just cassette tape copies - are over. Nobody cares a shit anymore!

It was not the consumers who turned pieces of art that those vinyl albums with their great sleeves represented into cheap small looking plastic boxes and, yes, a computer file is not exactly sexy - sexy like the actual Sticky Fingers vinyl pressing with the infamous zip sleeve!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 03:00 by alimente.

Well the vinyl buffs will surely buy your original Sticky Fingers LP for a bit more than you paid for it.....

Sad , sad thread, I'm out. peace

Of course it's sad - but let's face it: For some decades, the worldwide music scene developed into a huge industry that was able to feed thousands of artists, songwriters, studio musicians, record labels and their employees, studios and their employees, graphic designers, promotion companies - and now it shrinks and is able to feed lesser hungry mouths than some years ago. Other industries have suffered the very same fate, with millions of people affected. Who cared for them?

It got so bad that they even had to lay off the Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 05:04 by mitchflorida1.

Quote
Naturalust
Oh great , that $700 probably didn't begin to cover your costs for making a TWENTY complete rock songs. No question ameteur musicians are happy to make anything from the songs they make but you've got to me fair here. The typical payback on investment in corporate America is probably 140% or so. If you are writing original music the time and energy involved can be enormous. If you are producing standard elevator music maybe not. Lets have a system that a least pays the bills and costs and buys a little time to creat the next record. I'm not talking 1970's fluff and gross excess but the state of things today is dismal. Anyone who is committed to it will tell you that.

Yeah, you're right there. My example wasn't great. I have worked my butt off on my music (both gigging and recording), and I easily should get payed a lot more than I do for it, even though it's not my "job". But I was trying to put fourth the fact that there are alternative ways to get payed for cultural creativity. As a matter of fact, more money than ever is actually getting to artists as a whole. It's just not coming from record companies or record sales (I'll find the source for this fact if you want.)

Quote
Naturalust
I say somethings got to give or we will all be stuck with ameteur level production on songs which don't deliver like the classics we all love so much. Of course money and possibly fame are not the only real draws to devoting your life to music and music production, but they sure go a long way in producing the best of it. We deserve to have that best of it. Something has to change.

Things are changing. It's debatable, but I'm not really worried that we won't have new music that's professional enough. If people get payed for the professionalism, that's another question. But it's easier than ever to make professional sounding and "real" music and people still do it even if the cash flow isn't really happening.

This has probably been discussed before so pardon me - but does anyone know what kind of salary players like D. Jones, the background singers, horns, and all get paid when they go on a Stones tour? I've always heard Mick is a penny pincher. Just curious.

Quote
alimente
Yeah, but the same teenagers will confirm that they are only keen on a handful of hit songs per artists because the other songs on the albums are filler or even shit, at least not really "necessary". In my youth, we were sitting together with friends, actually listening to music, freakening out to music, discussing lyrics, trying to understand whatever artists wanted to say with their music and lyrics. Music had a meaning. Nowadays, it's judged more or less solely if it's danceable and whether it has a nice, mostly computer-generated hook. Aside from dance parties, when young people meet, music runs in the background while they're discussing or playing with their latest handys/cellphones, games,whatever - if they meet at all, because they not necessarily have to because of Facebook chatting and stuff. Music still a significant force? Gimme a break!

The time it meant something to own the actual vinyl albums of Blonde On Blonde, Sgt. Peppers, Ummagumma, Sticky Fingers - in contrast to owning just cassette tape copies - are over. Nobody cares a shit anymore!

It was not the consumers who turned pieces of art that those vinyl albums with their great sleeves represented into cheap small looking plastic boxes and, yes, a computer file is not exactly sexy - sexy like the actual Sticky Fingers vinyl pressing with the infamous zip sleeve!

God I hate it when people go on about how you all took music so seriously and listened to it so passionately back in the 60s, as if we didn't do that now. Just look at this web forum for proof. Or Youtube -- it's full of people discussing lyrics and devouring in every little fact about their favourite artists. It's also full of shitty 60s tv shows of babyboomers dancing to playback performances of dumb top 40 songs with meaningless lyrics... Ooops, I forgot Youtube didn't matter to you.

Seriously ... Yes, pop music had a huge cultural impact in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Amazing stuff was made back then, and the evolution isn't the same any more. But we're still as serious about the music we have. We just don't take acid and "freak out" over the gatefold sleeves in our laps.

40 years ago everybody bought records because it was the only way (apart from the radio) to access music. Today the die-hards buy records, the rest get it on Youtube and Itunes. But I'm convinced that, if you had had the internet in 1971, you would easily be able to tell the diehards from the casual listeners. And a lot of plastic would have been saved for the environment. That said, I love vinyl and I buy it regularly.

End of rant.

My guess is Daryl makes $4000 a show. How much is he worth?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 16:20 by mitchflorida1.

Quote
LieB

Quote
alimente
Yeah, but the same teenagers will confirm that they are only keen on a handful of hit songs per artists because the other songs on the albums are filler or even shit, at least not really "necessary". In my youth, we were sitting together with friends, actually listening to music, freakening out to music, discussing lyrics, trying to understand whatever artists wanted to say with their music and lyrics. Music had a meaning. Nowadays, it's judged more or less solely if it's danceable and whether it has a nice, mostly computer-generated hook. Aside from dance parties, when young people meet, music runs in the background while they're discussing or playing with their latest handys/cellphones, games,whatever - if they meet at all, because they not necessarily have to because of Facebook chatting and stuff. Music still a significant force? Gimme a break!

The time it meant something to own the actual vinyl albums of Blonde On Blonde, Sgt. Peppers, Ummagumma, Sticky Fingers - in contrast to owning just cassette tape copies - are over. Nobody cares a shit anymore!

It was not the consumers who turned pieces of art that those vinyl albums with their great sleeves represented into cheap small looking plastic boxes and, yes, a computer file is not exactly sexy - sexy like the actual Sticky Fingers vinyl pressing with the infamous zip sleeve!

God I hate it when people go on about how you all took music so seriously and listened to it so passionately back in the 60s, as if we didn't do that now. Just look at this web forum for proof. Or Youtube -- it's full of people discussing lyrics and devouring in every little fact about their favourite artists. It's also full of shitty 60s tv shows of babyboomers dancing to playback performances of dumb top 40 songs with meaningless lyrics... Ooops, I forgot Youtube didn't matter to you.

Seriously ... Yes, pop music had a huge cultural impact in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Amazing stuff was made back then, and the evolution isn't the same any more. But we're still as serious about the music we have. We just don't take acid and "freak out" over the gatefold sleeves in our laps.

40 years ago everybody bought records because it was the only way (apart from the radio) to access music. Today the die-hards buy records, the rest get it on Youtube and Itunes. But I'm convinced that, if you had had the internet in 1971, you would easily be able to tell the diehards from the casual listeners. And a lot of plastic would have been saved for the environment. That said, I love vinyl and I buy it regularly.

End of rant.

Good points. I know that generalizations can't cover all aspects, and there's always exceptions from the "rule", but just a look at my school class of, let's say '66, '67' or '68 tells me that about 50-60% were music "freaks", buying music, discussing music, following the developments, while the rest had other hobbies, namely football/soccer or other sports. "Music freaks" means "music as the first hobby". From everything I hear nowadays there's a totally different picture. While sports of any kind have survived the times, games, handys/cellphones, buying trendy clothes have nearly completely taken over from music. That does not mean that young people don't listen to music anymore, it just does not come first or even second anymore. Money is spent elsewhere.

Money is spent elsewhere BECAUSE music is available for FREE. I don't doubt for one red hot minute that if the same market for music was in place as was in say 1977, that the kids would be pouring their money into the record store tills just like you and all your friends did.

The is also the fact that SINCE they would be spending money on music they would APPRECIATE it alot more and revel in the details just like you and I did. The availabilty of music at pennies per song really cheapens the whole gig.

The process of making good music may have become a bit easier with the new technology but not nearly in proportion to the loss of income for the artists. I'm not complaining too much, I have a great deal of venues which hire me at a very decent wage, I make a couiple thousand dollars on a good night which entails about 3 hours of actual playing. Furthermore I spend zero time promoting myself as an artist, not because it wouldn't do my business any good but because I believe it is counter productive to creating genuinly good music.

The booking agents are in control of the NEW music business, not the record company executives of the past. Guys like Frank Riley of High Road Touring in Sausilto, CA are developing HUGE stables of artists which even people like you can bid on to perform in your backyard or your local theater or arena. If you don't belive me check out his website at www.highroadtouring.com and see for yourself. Record companies are increasingly dependent on guys like Frank to pull off decent tours for the band that they have spent a minimal investment on to produce a decent record.

The typical first record deal these days is about $50,000 as opposed to 5x that much just a few years ago. That is money for studio time, food, rent, instrument rentals, and travel. It goes pretty quickly in 2012. Keith probably spent that much personally on drugs alone while making Exile. For the few who actually break to become international artists the amounts get bigger but the smart ones are using the money to invest in their own studios to keep the profits high enough to get by, feed the family and still have a smile on their faces.

The bottom line these days is you have to really love love love the whole ugly process or at least the few hours on stage a few nights a week to survive in todays music business. I have few regrets mostly because I am recharged every time I pick up an instrument a play, for , me, for them, it doesn't matter, the vibrations and the singing are enough to reinforce that I am at the right place in the right time.

Here is a quick tune for me and you, just hint of the BLUES that goes along with this business along with some photos of the place I have been lucky enough to land and call home, the Central California coast. TURN IT UP. peace to all

Thanks to His Majesty for finding the Andrew Loog Oldham interview which turned out these gems of wisdom on the subject of this thread, I repeat them below because they are so damn good. peace


in France and Italy etc, that once there existed a local lyric the sub-publisher could take forever 50% of the copyright as opposed to the 15% we had appropriated him. So the crooks who published us in Europe, Essex Music, had a little recording studio in the basement turning out cheesy covers of everything The Stones; The Move; The Mamas & Papas; Procol Harum etc recorded so that they could have 50% of the work and a cut of the composers share for a lyric that was not even heard. As I have said if you cannot get over the first @#$%& find another game. Bye the way all this data is in my first book STONED, published in 2000, and it has never been disputed by the thieves that did us. Abrazos, ALO

Today is obviously a different world and the road is King; the record business is a wounded beast giddy from the headlights that lives off it's regurgitated past. Very best, ALO

Quote
tatters
This is why we now have to pay $200 for a concert ticket and a t-shirt. They're the musicians only remaining source of income.

In principle, you're right in that its driven ticket prices up.

However, the only acts who charge that kind of money for a ticket are the wealthiest ones who wont be exactly losing any sleep over poor CD sales.

If it was struggling bands who are asking $100 for a concert ticket, let alone $200, then fair enough. When its the likes of the Stones, The Who, The Eagles or U2, then the argument doesn't really hold up.

I do feel sorry for any up and coming musician these days. Its almost impossible to sell your music and just as impossible to get it played on the radio or TV, unless you're willing to sell your soul to some Simon Cowell-related public vomitfest.

Time waits for no one. I guess silent movie producers were screwed when talkies were introduced and carriage owners when the car was made common. And what happened with all those record stores? Musicians will have to adjust to the market, that's all. Or succumb, if that's an option. The environment will benefit from the development, that's for sure.