|
>I suppose I should probably apologize if my tone with you
>comes off as inappropriately familiar. I could have sworn I
>already had this exchange with you in at least one of two big
>posts on this subject.
>
>I just checked the one that's been archived and it seems not
>to have been in there... I don't know if it was in another
>post, but if you're confident that we've never discussed this
>at all, then my bad. Must be confusing your screenname and/or
>"voice" with someone else.
No worries and no it was not me, of however many fucking thousands of posts I have I'd say 90% were in the sports forum and if you cut that down to the past five years the number is closer to 99.5%.
>The problem here is that you're listing acts that came up in
>the bygone era. The Rolling Stones been on the road for half a
>century now. And all these other groups that were able to
>constantly book big shows based off of their record sales. Not
>to mention all the support many of these old acts get on the
>road by various corporations... including their record
>companies.*
What about the smaller acts like the Roots and Aimee Mann? They are not "new" exactly but they are not as old as Chicago or EWF or whatever. My point is that there are artists out there making it work. Some bands are even finding alternative models after being in the old system for a long time, Bad Religion sprinds go mind. Newer ones? Bands like Modest Mouse and the Cold War Kids made their names touring and got relatively popular.
>I'm talking about NOW though. Now in the age where record
>sales are a thing of antiquity and record labels are
>supposedly at death's door and everybody says to artists "aw
>shaddap and make your money on the road".... How many acts
>starting up now are truly able to do that?
I mean I could name several more, I don't know how recent you need but acts that have started out since the early 2000s tour all the time and sell tickets doing it. In some cases you've got to have a gimmick or an act to do it, so what? That's fine, if you want to go see Gogol Bordello because of their schtick, great, they are making cash with it.
And, again, prior to the album being a big deal, all you had were singles and shows, really low-rent shows usually. That didn't stop great music from coming out and the cream from rising to the top. It localized great music a lot more than we see today, but that has its own appeal, especially in an era where you could have your local gems live but also share them with the entire world with two clicks of a mouse.
>(I know there *are* some, by the way... just not a lot. And
>it's a lot tougher than people seem to think)
>
>*More on this: I actually run a small record label... The past
>few months I've been trying to sign some up-and-coming bands
>that have been getting notice for their electrifying live
>shows. You know what their chief concern is in signing? Not a
>huge cash advance, not being provided with phat rides and
>state-of-the-art gaming systems.... what they want is TOUR
>SUPORT.
yeah i mean if you run a label you understand the business, no start up artist is going to have an easy time funding stuff themselves even if they are successful. that's always been a problem though. these alternative means are certainly easier for an established artist to pursue, i already acknowledged that.
>Because touring is expensive as shit, and they need a label
>that can help them underwrite some of that. These are real
>bands with multiple musicians, with horns and shit... what can
>they do, trim their act? Replace the horns with a DAT? Get rid
>of the singers and can their vocals on tape too?
>
>It's a tough dilemma... and it's hard for the label to commit
>to that sort of thing too because what the label seeks to reap
>from this is increased sales. But the audience doesn't buy
>records anyway, so short of signing the band to an
>exploitative 360 deal, how do you handle it?
the same way google is going to wind up subsidizing news, apple and whatever other giants emerge in digital music will wind up subsidizing music if it comes right down to it. if it reaches a point where the profiteers are seeing profits thin, they will invest. i know this sounds like a very libertarian argument but i believe it in this case.
>Making money on the road is a much more complex proposition
>that it's often presented as.
>
>>i'm not talking about what should be (but i guess i am
>>responding to your assertions regarding standards and
>ideals),
>>i'm talking about what is. is it going to "work out?"
>well,
>>yes, at least as far as your concern that music will decline
>>in quality or cease to exist because dead business models
>are
>>dead.
>
>My concern here is not about preserving dead business models..
>far from it.
>My concern is much more with the flippant attitude towards art
>that I see accompanying the "new model" (actually, I don't
>believe there is a new model yet... we're living in a chaotic
>transitional period but I'm loathe to see the attitudes we
>develop during this period set into permanence).
well i hope you have seen by now it's not the typical, "fuck it, gimme the new lil b tape right now son!" attitude you might usually encounter. and you're right, there is not a "model" as of now. it's very much like the news industry, only the new industry took longer to catch on and did way less to protect itself.
and in both cases, there are a lot of people willing to work for free or very little that are watering down economic competition. the difference is that standards in the two industries have very different impacts, they are preferable in music, they are essential in news.
but anyway, my point is that they both need serious work but they will get it because of how much money is at stake.
>>and so am i, like i said, i work in news, it's a business
>>going through a lot of the same thing. i also run my own
>>business, something that's been affected deeply by
>>counterfeiting and intellectual theft. i'm not oblivious or
>>unsympathetic to the concerns of artists but i'm also not
>>feeling this sense of entitlement on their end or mine.
>
>I'm definitely not supporting the belief that artists are
>entitled to make money. Even under the old model, most artists
>didn't. But if nothing else, that HOPE that they would, or at
>least COULD make money was there.
>Maybe to some degree it was a false hope, like a lottery
>scheme... but shit, that's what the American Dream is, ain't
>it? And that hope, that aspiration is one of the things that
>drives creativity ambition. The odds that you *might* make it
>in this system. You take that away and replace it with a
>system in which you are almost *guaranteed* to NOT make
>money... There's a lot of people who might have made some
>valuable artistic contributions who will prefer to invest
>their effort into a field in which they are less likely to
>starve o death.
yeah i can understand that but to me there are still plenty of artists making it big to fuel that kind of ambition and probably will be into the foreseeable future. another issue that's been getting worse and worse is that the entertainment industry--music, tv, film, etc--all want bankable artists and no artists just fall off and die. it used to be in the singles era, you had some hits and you fucked off. maybe you had some albums even, then your band broke up or your singer overdosed or someone got a decent job or whatever ... and you fucked off. now NO ONE fucks off. you can see shitty bands like candlebox and one-hit emcees like young emcee ON TOUR today. no one makes room!
>And that affects the quality of art. Hell, who knows... it
>could affect it positively because fewer pretenders after fame
>and fortune will have reason to jump in the pool. But a lot of
>legitimate artists will stay away too.
yeah i think those trends could offset, from a personal standpoint it might make people more realistic (keeping day jobs) but i worry about that sort of tempered approach. i feel like a lot of the best stuff comes from risk taking and immersing oneself completely and there'd be less of that if there were a severe reduction in payouts.
>>fromm has a big schpeel on the origins of fame and its being
>>valued, we're talking a period after the middle ages.
>
>Nah, I don't buy that, really... Maybe if you look at it from
>a strictly Eurocentric viewpoint, but if you take into
>consideration an ancient civilization like China that had a
>highly developed artistic and literary culture, they had
>famous artists going way, way back.
in every civilization since the dawn of time, man has done stuff to impress women to get laid  .
>> anyway,
>>i'll go with that as being very old but since we are talking
>>more about wealth than notoriety here i think we can concur
>>that its association with art is relatively new, no?
>
>Yeah, we can agree on that. Not only is it new but it's mostly
>a western concept. In most of the world, being an artist is
>almost inseparably associated with poverty, if anything.
when i go to the arts district in LA, sometimes i wish that were the case here. starve, you pseudo-intellectual douchebags!
>>that is not what i mean at all, you are really on my ass
>about
>>this whole selfishness thing when it couldn't be further
>from
>>the truth. i don't own an iPod, i seldom download music
>from
>>the web and most of what i listen to is 1) vinyl 2) radio 3)
>>CDs in the car. i'm about as an analog and stuck as any old
>>fart you'll find twice my age lol.
>
>Fair enough. Like I said, I've been under the impression that
>we already had exchanges on this subject in which you
>aggressively proffered a "fuck artists as long as I can
>download all the music I like" perspective which I've never
>understood, and I'll admit actually angers me.
>
>But you've said that wasn't you.... So okay.
yeah like i said no big deal but yeah that was not me as i dont hold that view and dont post in the less with any frequency at all. unless someone dies, i'm not in here, just took a random foray in the other day during a period of extreme procrastination.
>>now onto your question, as i see it at least. it means a
>more
>>fluid exchange of ideas through exposure. every artist is
>>inspired by other artists. every writer was a reader, every
>>producer was a listener and every painter was an observer.
>>here you're getting a broader, more diversified, higher
>volume
>>mix of sounds out to more people more quickly. it stokes
>>interest in music, it creates new ideas, it spurs new
>>combinations ... naturally not every song and every user
>will
>>have a direct impact but aggregately, yes, it's opening up
>the
>>frontier.
>
>I understand that fully and even agree with it to a large
>degree.
>
>My problem with it is that at the same time it also
>facilitates the propagation of fads, frivolities and all kinds
>of facile, disposable shit. Which has always been around, of
>course... but one of the things that's allowed noteworthy art
>to rise above all that has been the ability of serious artists
>to produce a sustained stream of work, developing their skills
>along the way.
Fads, frivolities and disposable shit in pop music!?! RUE THE DAY, RUE THE DAY! JK, I get what you're saying here but I think achieving sustainability in your career is well below the standard of the biggest money artists and, like many things in the United States, there is a bigger and bigger gap between the rich and the poor with fewer people in the middle. I think these shifts could present an interesting opportunity for the redistribution of wealth in the music industry. It could be a total bust and only exacerbate the problems we see now, too. A lot of things could go either way, but outright repugnance or complaining is not going to push them in the right direction.
>My fear is that it's becoming harder and harder for an artist
>to create such a sustained stream.
>
>>i think the fundamental difference we have here is that you
>>think artists make music primarily for money and, extending
>>that further, that financial compensation allows them to
>make
>>better art or continue to make good art.
>>i could not disagree with any of those assertions more.
>most
>>music is made for the sake of passion and creativity and
>most
>>great music stems from those sources, too. why then would
>>artists' careers be short-lived?
>
>No, I don't think (most) artists make music primarily for
>money. But if you don't think money very quickly becomes a
>very real factor in the artist expressing his passion, then
>you are being incredibly romantic.
>
>I understand being driven by passion. I am a pretty passionate
>guy myself. But ultimately, your naked passion ain't gonna put
>groceries in the fridge and if you don't eat, you don't have
>the strength to sing.
My naked passion does, but not everybody can charge $350 an hour for it;). Nah I understand what you are saying and of course there is a balance between the goals of artistic excellence and commercial success. And that's another thing that is hard to predict, will there be a ruthless pursuit of paying gigs that results in a schlockier atmosphere or will there be a simplification of goals that leads to greater artistic aspirations? I'm not especially satisfied with what's going on now, so I welcome the change and the potential for the latter. Either way, there's going to be enough music for the listener to sift through and enjoy and there will still be money flying around the music scene. How you get it and who gets it may change, of course.
>Passion is not gonna pay the electric bill, which you probably
>are gonna have to do if you are gonna plug in your guitar, or
>your keyboard, or your computer.
>
>Your landlord is probably not gonna accept payment in passion,
>so unless you get some money, you're gonna be expressing your
>passion under a bridge somewhere.
>
>None of this is new, of course... Like we've said, most
>artists have always had to go through this anyway. And of
>course, they could always get a job to finance their passion.
>
>In the past, I've been varying degrees of skeptical about this
>and recent experiences in my own life have made me even more
>so.
Yeah I mean, again, most artists have to do that, and by most I don't mean 52%, I mean like 95% or more. And maybe that's reasonable. It's not like pro sports where there is direct competition that narrows the field of who can get paid at all significantly and who can get huge money to a field of thousands in the entire world, anyone can try, anyone can fail, anyone can break it huge and almost everyone will fall in between.
>A little bit about me: For the past month or so I've been
>working a 9-5, something I hadn't done in like two years since
>I took off to pursue some of my passions, including starting a
>record label.
>
>I released my first record earlier this year, and it's been
>selling decently. So I'm trying to get the next release out.
>But I leave for work every morning at 6:30. I get home by 9:00
>at night, totally wrecked. It's just about all I can do to
>make some dinner and crash out.
>
>I tell myself: Well, you can try to stay up, even if it means
>popping some kind of amphetamine so you can work on this
>record... but I know that if I do that, then I'll just be
>wrecked in the morning, I'll fuck up at work and lose my job.
>Which defeats the purpose of everything.
>
>And so, the record that I had initially planned to come out
>late summer falls further and further behind schedule to the
>point that I'll be lucky if I can even get it out in 2011 at
>all. (Of course, here I am on the weekend, typing some
>long-ass reply to a post on OKP and that doesn't hep either...
>but don't worry about that!)
Well first of all congratulations on the first record. I know it's a big sacrifice and an outright hindrance to have to work another gig. I've been lucky enough that I've never had an actual boss, I guess I had a couple people who could loosely have been termed that a couple previous jobs but I had contracts there that were, on one hand, essentially unbreakable, and, on the other, had no option for either party to renew. So that alone must be shitty, you're used to seeing something through from start to finish, your own creation, now you're putting that on the backburner for something that might be OK but seems dull by comparison, right?
>I'm not saying that I think artists should have this
>entitlement and be supported to be able to just wake up at
>noon to make their music and party on someone else's dime...
>I'm just saying that folks really seem not to realize how hard
>it is to produce art, and at the same time work fulltime to
>support yourself. And when the profit motive for creating
>art--and I'm just talking about the *motive* not the profit
>itself--is removed, a lot of people have to ask themselves why
>they're killing themselves for this... investing money into
>this shit that could have been used to feed their kids and
>what not.
they should probably be asking those questions already and i think a lot of them would realize that they do it because they love it. there are some people who are really obsessed with hitting it big but i doubt they even thought about failure seriously. but yeah, i mean i'm not saying there are easy answers or any lack of frustration here, i'm just saying the industry is moving in new directions and it's time to get in where you fit in as opposed to distancing oneself and being critical. of course it's easy for me to say since even though i'm in a somewhat similar situation, i don't have all my eggs in that basket and never have.
>That's why I think making money is important for the artist
>and always has been. Before the commercialized music industry,
>there was patronage whether private or from church or state.
>But Michelangelo could not have painted the Sistine Chapel if
>he had to work all day at some other job to pay the bills.
>
>I'm sure you already understand this, of course. I just think
>it's occasionally necessary to spell this out because a lot of
>people seem not to get it.
There have been some pretty crazy artistic feats under all sorts of odd circumstances though. It's strange, it's one of those things that you can't really apply a formula, too. I even think that messes with many brilliant artists, they tend to feel like they did nothing to earn their success because their talents seem God-given. Anyway I hope things work out for you, two gigs or one.
> and lets not ignore the
>>multitude of money making options there are for those who
>>invest heavily (time, money, training) in their craft, there
>>is still money in film scores, all sorts of composition,
>stuff
>>for TV, ads, larger productions featuring live performances
>>... increasingly i doubt the big money is even in recording
>>sales although you can feel free to correct me on that.
>
>Nah, I agree with you there.
So get to writing that Smurfs 2 Score, son!
>>to me neither the inspiration nor the perseverance of an
>>artist is inherently damaged by these shifts. i can see the
>>repugnance toward them, but is there much wisdom in it?
>
>My repugnance is primarily for the *attitude,* increasingly
>popular amongst consumers, that artists are bums looking for a
>"handout" just for entertaining even the desire for the barest
>remuneration for their work.
Yeah I mean it's astonishing who's filthy rich and who's not in entertainment, if you had some shitty TV that hit syndication in the past ten years you've probably made more money than Clifford Brown has in life or death. I am hoping against hope that the near future brings a little more even spread of whatever money is kicking around.
>That's my main problem. I feel almost embarrassed to admit
>that because it's such an... emotionally(?)-based concern, but
>I think it ends up shaping our entire value system where art
>is concerned.
Nah I understand that, how the consumer perceives the producer is a big deal, especially in entertainment, luxury, etc. You're not selling milk at Wal Mart and just competing for price, there's way more to it than that, much of which is emotional, image-oriented, etc.
>I said before that I see us heading down a road where
>musicians are considered sophisticated beggars. I truly
>believe it. And it's made even worse the the sense of
>entitlement on the part of music "fans."
hmmmm, it seems a little extreme to me but even if it's moving in that direction i could see where that could be alarming.
>>yet there are offsetting benefits that i think you are
>>ignoring as well. if english kids didn't hear the blues,
>>would we have had zeppelin, the clash, etc? if southern
>music
>>didn't find its way to canada, would we have heard the band?
>
>>zapp inspired so much of the west coast sound despite being
>>from a whole other part of the country. today, that kind of
>>exposure is magnified and expedited greatly by digital
>access
>>to so much music.
>
>Yeah, but like you said, that kind of dispersion already
>existed. It's magnified now, but magnified into what?
We don't know yet. Right now we've managed to export a lot of fluffy U.S. culture all over the world (it's kind of embarrassing). I also think there will be legitimate cross-cultural forms of music at a time when there is so much stale shit going around. We are starting to see some of that with the Latino countries taking on a more North American model and also more Latinos being in North America. So, again, I wish I had a bunch of answers and predictions, but for now I just see potential. Yes that dispersion was there before, but you had to get everything in bits and pieces, to be dedicated and, beyond that, to be lucky to be a part of it.
>I'm not arguing for keeping music away from people.
>
>
>>You honestly think the western system will deteriorate to
>that
>>level? In the industrialized world, we've already reached
>the
>>point where music has been monetized, it's not going to head
>>into sort of financial dark age. In Africa (among many
>other
>>developing regions as close as the Caribbean even),
>>absolutely, a hither-and-thither setup for recording,
>>distribution and compensation has hurt the history and
>future
>>of music.
>
>Yes, I can see it happening here... less in terms of the
>industrial infrastructure than in terms of the *attitudes* I
>talked about.
>
>Look for example... These days, what is touted as the Golden
>Ticket is live shows and "monetizing your brand" through
>merch. Give away your art for free but try to make money by
>selling tshirts.
>
>My problem with this model is the fact that, truthfully, most
>of your audience really doesn't give a shit about your tshirt.
>So you're giving away the thing that has real value and hoping
>that they stay around and buy some shit that they don't really
>want or need.
>
>And most of the people who DO buy your tshirt are doing so out
>of a sense of duty to "support" you... Essentially out of a
>sense of charity. Like when you buy $4 chocolate bars from
>those kids who are trying to raise money for a community
>center. It's not that you "need" that chocolate, and if you
>did, you could probably find it for a lot cheaper. But you buy
>it essentially to preserve those kids' dignity, so we don't
>have to look at them as beggars.
yeah and as in that model i wish there were a way to support both causes more directly. that kid is seeing maybe a buck off the $4 bar and it's going to support a school with 1500 kids. so you've giving them some fraction of a cent in reality. the t shirt is not that much of a screw job for the artist, but it's close enough. there has to be a way to charge for the performance or take greater ownership of concessions and merchandise to things to move in the right direction. same thing with news, they want to give away the big stuff and charge for little crap, it will never work.
something like the eReader format for news and maybe even music might work, it's tough to say. the smartphone app has opened the minds of consumers to spending small amounts of money at all hours of the day. someone has to seize that opportunity, to take advantage of other inroads to people's pockets.
>It's not an inherently negative thing in itself, but I've seen
>it go badly a lot of times... where fans develop this attitude
>that the artist *owes* them because they "supported" him by
>buying a tshirt when they didn't have to.
>
>It does place the artist in the position of charity case.
that is lame, i've never felt like i owed anyone shit other than to keep listening and talk about them in conversations about music or put other people onto them if i liked them. if you haven't guessed, i look at music, literature, art, etc as something communal but i don't mind someone getting paid off of it if their means are not too obnoxious.
>>I don't think I ignored that, I've reiterated several times
>>that I don't see a strong correlation between compensation
>and
>>quality. Further, you're telling me that this reduction in
>>quality is "already happening." Relative to what time
>period?
>> It's quite possible that the recording industry peaked in
>>terms of its financial viability, but there is still WAY
>more
>>money in it now than there was, say, 40 years ago, when the
>>many greatest records of Western music history were being
>>recorded.
>
>ummmm.... I think I'd say there is more money in the industry,
>but at the same time less money being *made*... if that makes
>any sense?
>
>I have to think of how I want to explain this
i could guess at what you're getting at but it would be a guess for sure
>
>> And I wouldn't say that the 1990s/early 2000s were
>>any grand period in popular music, so, again, while I like
>to
>>see artists live comfortably and feel free to devote
>>themselves to their music, I don't think financial
>>compensation is really that strong of an indicator of
>>musicianship.
>
>Which does not make it follow that the inverse situation would
>produce better quality musicianship either.
no, if they are not correlated strongly, that means if they are not correlated positively or negatively. neil young has probably made a lot of money, it doesn't own him. plenty of shitty bands have done a bad job of selling out and made no money doing it.
>>When the Isley Brothers are spending 100K a track for music
>>that is nauseating compared with their T-Neck years, you can
>>make the argument either way. Production got bloated as
>hell
>>for a while there and produced plenty of stinkers.
>
>I agree.
>
>
>>If not for prostitution you mean, which was exactly my point.
>
>>Shut down the brothels, it goes to private houses, shut
>those
>>down, it goes to the street. There is going to be people
>>fucking and there will be hoes ho'ing, it's just matter of
>>where it happens, how it's advertised and how the money's
>>collected.
>
>Good point. Okay... I feel you there.
>
>
>>right i mean all bullshit, disagreement, snark and low level
>>insults aside, we are really concerned with the exact same
>>things. it's just a matter of concentrating on worries and
>>short-term negative consequence or looking at it as more of
>a
>>situation in flux.
>
>Yes, like I said I believe this is a transitional period, not
>a new era in itself.
>
> it is what it is, it isn't what it ain't
>>and it's just going to keep on changing as the song says.
>>like you said, the model is changing, so there's no point in
>>clinging to the past. trust that big business is masterful
>in
>>allowing things to change in order to stay the same and that
>>people are hungry for a buck. there will be money in
>>entertainment, there might be less for a while and more
>later,
>>it might shake out many different ways, but as far as
>>long-term decay comparable with African nations or Cuba or
>>something like that, no, that simply will not happen.
>
>I think big business will always find a way to make a buck.
>They already have a century's worth of back catalog that can
>be exploited in any number of ways. (See: Spotify)
yeah that is one thing that i worry about with music, there is SO much of it that it might be a good while before lack of content comes to an impasse. you look at old-is-new and repopularization efforts in television and fashion, they fall victims to limitations. only so many channels can run the same re runs before even the biggest fans are sick of them. nike can only whore out their popular releases so hard before they need new designs. the music industry could popularize old shit if they felt like it and there is sooooo much content. that's even more true as the country becomes increasingly multilingual. so yeah, who sees that buck, definitely, that would worry me looking at the collective picture. for the artist, you're one person trying to make one living, i'm confident it's still there to be made.
>My concern remains with the new musicians starting up now...
>everybody says that this is such a golden age because nobody
>needs a label anymore, anybody can put out music... but as
>things are *right now* I am not so convinced that the age is
>as gilded as people want to believe it is.
it seems like the middle steps are tougher than ever now. the startup is easy as hell, gaining limited exposure is easier but to really blow up, it might be tougher. less of a streamlined system for sure, there are many routes to the inside and a lot more that lead nowhere.
>>Yeah no worries, likewise, if you have made it this far, I'm
>>not trying to be a dick to you. Like I said, we have
>different
>>perspectives but the same concerns and goals here. I am
>just
>>saying that the change is here, more is coming and it might
>>not ultimately wind up being nearly as bad as you might
>fear.
>
>
>It's all good.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
