Can we make a living from prog?

Dean wrote: AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: This is where it gets frustrating for a band I believe. Theres no money in it so you cant make a living unless you are super popular like Rush. All the reunion bands are making money off their old material - I speak of those who were once popular and have rejoined the circuit to tour their old albums and songs. They are living off the success of the past glories. I have no problem with that. But many are doing it now like some kind of bandwagon. They are filling stadiums but not needing to produce new albums or promote heavily. Those bands fill stadiums because people want to see them, and people want to hear the old stuff that made them famous, If Jon Bon Jovi can gross $130,000,000 as his own tribute band then good for him. The people paying to see him are the same ones who bought 'Slippery When Wet' - they are not the same people who will buy Gazpacho's 'Missa Atropos' or attended the festival where 'A Night at Loreley' was recorded.

Bands do become their own tribute band I agree, good point. Kiss are doing it all the time. reforming, reuniting, touring, splitting, reuniting, even with members pretending to be Ace (Thayer) - but that's kisstory. Prog bands do it too. At one stage there were 2 Pink Floyds going around, as we know from Waters and Gilmour's bands. Focus are still touring but are they just playing old favourites? Space Ritual the ex members of Hawkwind would probably fill a stadium but it is not Hawkwind. The Moody Blues played at O2 Arena in London, on old material only, Curved Air played the 100 Club in London but no new albums on the way, Asia are still playing their debut album, UFO are still touring.... its all old bands etching out an existence on old material. Yes are playing old Yes material without Jon Anderson, but they have a tribute band singer, Benoit, replacing him! It astounds me how this recent reunion band trend has overtaken the music scene. The first time I noticed it was when the Eagles reunited, but then they released a smash hit new album soon after. Gong are still going and proved it with a new album too as we know, but are they playing their Flying Teapot trilogy? I would bet they are. Its just an observation that older arists are existing on the past, newer artists are struggling to even stay together.   

Dean wrote: AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:   The internet makes a huge difference and there were heaps of artists last year who were thanking us for their reviews as they were gaining more recognition then their own promotional tools! It is free pretty much and people do take the reviews seriously - if 50 people love an album it has to be worth something! Yes, and we must be careful of that we don't become puppets in that game. AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:    I saw on ET today that Bieber is touring a huge concert and it is sickening. Manufactured teeny pop is the death of the industry. Sorry, but no. This just simply doesn't hold water. Manufacturted teeny pop has been around since forever and has a rightful place in the music industry. If those manufactured artists didn't tour the promotors wouldn't fill the vacant spot with a more deserving non-Manufactured artist - it simply isn't going to happen. The audiences for those gigs are two completely different groups of people - one is willing to spend a small fortune seeing their idol play some stadium gig while the other can't be motivated to get off their plump backsides.   The same is true of the record labels - they put cash into teeny artists because they know the teeny audience will give them a return on their investment. That audience isn't going to switch from Bieber to Phideaux just because some record label exec invests in heavy promotion for Xavier and his band. AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:    Prog artists cannot survive on CDs due to the download phase, but the touring of shows has to make money. The famous prog bands make money but how did they get to that point? They have been around for years and have etched out a legendary backlog of albums that are highly revered, such as Rush, Yes, Spock's Beard... This is the big problem and the real kicker for unknown bands is "pay to play" - not only do they not make money touring, in some case it costs them money to get onto a tour. AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:    But do Gazpacho make money? what about Glass Hammer? More locally for me, what about Karnivool? One would suspect there is money coming in but it must be a slog trying to continue. The Anthrax guitarist said in an interview, I will never forget, it takes a lot of work to actually continue a band let alone make CDs, tour and promote, the actual act of trying to stay together as a band is more difficult than anyone could imagine.   I'll wager that none of those bands make money. From their cut of the door money they have to pay the soundman, roadies & security, then there is the cost of transport (truck hire and fuel) and food & drink, then maybe hotel rooms for something like 10 people.

Ok I admit the Bieber comment is just an angry retort of what I saw on ET today. It just gets me hot under the collar that the cheesy music of artists like Bieber is being heavily promoted when all the great prog rock is pushed under the radar. Thats always been the case with Prog but I never have liked that.

A sad & personal story of mine has to do with Starcastle, who evolved out of the local music scene of Champaign, Illinois USA (University of Illinois campus).  

Vibrationbaby wrote: cstack3 wrote: [QUOTE=Theriver]I think prog won a lot with the success of internet. I would have never heard of some bands without websites like PA, youtube, myspace and would have of course never bought their cds. Mainstream bands suffered a lot more of illegal downloading. Prog fans are much more loyal.     The internet makes a huge difference and there were heaps of artists last year who were thanking us for their reviews as they were gaining more recognition then their own promotional tools! It is free pretty much and people do take the reviews seriously - if 50 people love an album it has to be worth something!     [QUOTE]I remember buying new albums particularily jazz albums there was a sticker on the plastic saying that home recording was killing music. Back in the seventies I absolutely HAD to have the album. If I couldn't find it I would settle for a cassette recording off a friend but would keep hunting for the album. I had to have alternate covers as well. I would even buy compilations just to have a different cover even though I had all the music on other albums.  I think a lot of guys and girls who play in prog bands nowadays have a sideline that capitalizes on their involvement with their respective bands in or out of the industry but are a greater source of stable income. I might be wrong but I can't see some of these new " prog " bands etching out a living soley from being a member of a particular band. Unless you're  Bieber.

Prog artists cannot survive on CDs due to the download phase, but the touring of shows has to make money. The famous prog bands make money but how did they get to that point? They have been around for years and have etched out a legendary backlog of albums that are highly revered, such as Rush, Yes, Spock's Beard...

Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - February 15 2011 at 17:09

cstack3 wrote: I try to show loyalty by attending as many shows as I can afford.  I tend to buy a lot of used CDs from Ebay or used stores, so the artists don't make anything on that traffic.   Music is a tough career, I took a pass on it years ago and don't regret it (much!!!  )

Only if we confine it into CAFOs...  Oops so, sorry, that's pigs not progs.

cstack3 wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: The 1970s were freaking amazing. Glad I lived it even though I was young I was  tuned in to bands like Focus, Yes, King Crimson & Gentle Giant by the age of 14 after my Elvis phase. What I don't understand either is the kid's who do play want to immitate the latest metal guitar shred. Few are into or want to learn about guys like Django Reinhardt, Wes Mongomery, Talo Farrow, Joe Pass, Charlie Christian and take it from there just like guys like McLaughlin, Coryell, Holdsworth or Jan Akkerman did and developed their own unique styles. These days you go into the music store and just hear kids shredding away and it sounds redundant. They're all trying to be the next Zak Wylde. Yeah, it's freakin' awful!  At least they don't butcher "Stairway to Heaven" in the guitar stores like they did in my era! It has to do with time invested & difficulty.  It's HARD to get through all that music theory, but it's the only way.  I struggle with it, and wish I had piano lessons when very small!   Modern artists don't even mess with lead guitar anymore, it's all stylized rap vocals with sound effects.  Instruments are just along for the ride.  Who is the modern day equivalent of Bob Fripp?  No one!  You named the right guys, VB!  Those jazz cats started it all!  Guys like Fripp were "classical jazz" guys, and could earn a few quid in the 60's playing dance band stuff in England.  Not so much anymore.

The 1970s were freaking amazing. Glad I lived it even though I was young I was  tuned in to bands like Focus, Yes, King Crimson & Gentle Giant by the age of 14 after my Elvis phase.

What I don't understand either is the kid's who do play want to immitate the latest metal guitar shred. Few are into or want to learn about guys like Django Reinhardt, Wes Mongomery, Talo Farrow, Joe Pass, Charlie Christian and take it from there just like guys like McLaughlin, Coryell, Holdsworth or Jan Akkerman did and developed their own unique styles. These days you go into the music store and just hear kids shredding away and it sounds redundant. They're all trying to be the next Zak Wylde.

moshkito wrote: AllP0werToSlaves wrote:   Thank you for making one of the most genuine and thought provoking posts that I've read on these forums. Too many people argue about what's wrong and what's better, but very few take the time (hmmm...I wonder why that is...?) to find the root cause and work their way down from there. I agree, and in a sense since the media controls the perception of a people, they can thus directly bias said people. All you need to do is look around you; people can't make decisions on their own. Everything from the best car, TV, sports, video games, technology etc is all preached through the media. You are given the illusion of choice because all choices are controlled by those who run the media. Choices independent of the system are rarely if ever spoken about, because said choices usually have no benefit for the system itself. It's not really that bad here, but the tendency to always be on the side of the biggest and greatest and most known, gets to me now and then, and I tend to give the guys here a hard time on it. The biggest problem is that many of them are a bit on the side of the "media" already ... know it all, understand it all, keeper of the definitions and the sub-genre's ... and in the end, they are doing the same thing.   I'm not anti-social per se, but sometimes the "group thinking", just isn't for me. In the end, what we get is people going around saying that one is not politically correct, which is another way of saying that the Constitution is full of sh*t that no one believes, otherwise the media would not be stealing the spotlight! Specially when they go around telling people they can not donate to their favorite political candidates ... the Supreme Court should have nailed that one right away ... but they are old, asleep, and sometimes too worried about how to kill Roe vs Wade, than they are the laws they are requested to uphold!   The system here is not bad ... but the mentality for some is out of town, even if someone thinks I am the one out of line ... but I really do not think that most of these people understand the "revolution" at the time that helped define "progressive" music in the next 5 years ...   It's the craziest thing ... I guess people here think that "Revolution" and "Revolution #9" don't mean sh*t! ... and it is the voice of those that changed history, in music as well ... but music was not the only art involved.   Until they do, the definition of "progressive" will be hollow at best and the sub-genre's all being just a way of saying that something sounds like this or like that as another commercial exercise to help sell the music ... and while I have no issue with the sales, I do from the concept that ... it stops being about the music, and becomes about what I can gain from it. At that point it is no longer "progressive" ... it is "commercial", or "industrial" ...   The issue is that too much of the terminology, doesn't mean sh*t to anyone! And the lyrics and the works and the depth is trivialized by some idealistic musical concept that never existed. It could even be incidental! And worse ... typical imperialism sometimes ... one area is better than the others and given more credit, even when others had the same thing happening in other arts, that were just as important and progressive, but different -- and this is being totally ignored for the most part!   The world is flat, it doesn't exist! ... and my name is Galileo ... don't they wish!

I feel like we've been paid a compliment using a baseball bat as the delivery method.  

Well Bob got dinked around just like just about everyone back in the 70s unless your manager was Peter Grant. Within a few years every live Crimson performance ever recorded will be available.  I have never minded buying CDs at gigs. I don't care for downloads because firstly I haven't a clue how to do it and secondly because it robs the artist of their bread & butter. I got an ipod for Christmas and haven't even taken it out of the package. It was given to me by a cousin as a joke.

I think the only wayto really make a bundle in the music industry is to become the next Bieber or Lady Ga Ga because the general public are sheep. Bah Bah . Could you imagine Bieber struggling through Relayer or tryig to do the multi octave yodelling in Hocus Pocus.