Martin Orford August 2009

Teaflax wrote: Dean wrote: Teaflax wrote: Chris S wrote: the artist suffers..... Again, studies show they don't. Those studies did not show whether the artist suffers or not. Taken as a whole (especially the latter-day ones from Holland, Denmark and Norway), they do show that overall revenue from all music-related activities have not shrunk by any significant numbers and that smaller artists reap the benefits as the majors lose ground. And even so, at the very least all of them prove that "The sky is falling! There will never be any more good music made!" rhetoric is completely baseless. Okay, so 10,000 through label < 2,000 direct to fans, then. And that still assumes that people shold cling to making CDs, rather than using on-demand delivery systems that require minimal overhead. The point is that either way, a straighter line between fans and the artists benefits creative artists over bean counters. Any artist with, say, 5,000 fans should easily be able to leverage that to a reasonable living, and if you can't make that many fans using the global reach of the internet with a few billion eyeballs and ears out there...well, maybe you need to think about doing something else. Unless of course, you're doing it for the love of music . Either way, the odds of making any money at all have gotten better than they ever were before (providing, as noted, that you know how to adapt to the times) as the income curve flattens. Also, not everyone who's been playing in bands has ever thought they were going to be huge or even dreamed of that - in fact, every musician I know personally, including everyone in my band, has never played with that goal in mind, and our guitarist is a full-time musician/sound engineer, so it's not just hobbyists we're talking about. One of my closest friends is a full-time musician and producer who has had many offers to work with big names and do high-profile work, but has turned them down because it would have meant compromising what he does. Admittedly, he's had a bit of economic padding when he won a law suit against an American rock star for intellectual property infringement, but still... If file sharing really eats into sales, please explain how The Arctic Monkeys managed to have the fastest selling debut in UK history a few years ago. Please explain how NIN:s album was the best-selling one on Amazon last year. But all that is really moot. The reality is that, unless corporatist forces manage to get governments to effectively shut down the internet, this state of affairs isn't going away. Better then to harness its many undeniable benefits than to decry its pretty unstoppable drawbacks. The comparison made before to a certain knight of sad visage is all too apt. People on here may not be the chief windmill tilters, but are looking pretty Sancho Panza-like from here.

Quite a lot of words and some valid but give me a simple PT riff anyday, I'll pay for it too. I thought Bob The Builder was the fastest selling debut a few years back in the UK, or was it Spice Girls?

Dean wrote: Teaflax wrote: Chris S wrote: the artist suffers..... Again, studies show they don't. Those studies did not show whether the artist suffers or not.

Taken as a whole (especially the latter-day ones from Holland, Denmark and Norway), they do show that overall revenue from all music-related activities have not shrunk by any significant numbers and that smaller artists reap the benefits as the majors lose ground. And even so, at the very least all of them prove that "The sky is falling! There will never be any more good music made!" rhetoric is completely baseless.

Okay, so 10,000 through label < 2,000 direct to fans, then. And that still assumes that people shold cling to making CDs, rather than using on-demand delivery systems that require minimal overhead. The point is that either way, a straighter line between fans and the artists benefits creative artists over bean counters. Any artist with, say, 5,000 fans should easily be able to leverage that to a reasonable living, and if you can't make that many fans using the global reach of the internet with a few billion eyeballs and ears out there...well, maybe you need to think about doing something else.

Unless of course, you're doing it for the love of music .

Either way, the odds of making any money at all have gotten better than they ever were before (providing, as noted, that you know how to adapt to the times) as the income curve flattens.

Also, not everyone who's been playing in bands has ever thought they were going to be huge or even dreamed of that - in fact, every musician I know personally, including everyone in my band, has never played with that goal in mind, and our guitarist is a full-time musician/sound engineer, so it's not just hobbyists we're talking about. One of my closest friends is a full-time musician and producer who has had many offers to work with big names and do high-profile work, but has turned them down because it would have meant compromising what he does. Admittedly, he's had a bit of economic padding when he won a law suit against an American rock star for intellectual property infringement, but still...

If file sharing really eats into sales, please explain how The Arctic Monkeys managed to have the fastest selling debut in UK history a few years ago. Please explain how NIN:s album was the best-selling one on Amazon last year.

But all that is really moot. The reality is that, unless corporatist forces manage to get governments to effectively shut down the internet, this state of affairs isn't going away. Better then to harness its many undeniable benefits than to decry its pretty unstoppable drawbacks. The comparison made before to a certain knight of sad visage is all too apt. People on here may not be the chief windmill tilters, but are looking pretty Sancho Panza-like from here.


Edited by Teaflax - October 02 2009 at 19:11

Teaflax wrote: Chris S wrote: the artist suffers..... Again, studies show they don't.

Chris S wrote: It's become a throw away society....excluding people who still invest in these items. Even kids are trained in Vodafone/AT&T to sell upgrades after 6 months. Attention span on music is the same. Most people lose interest quickley.   example: Viva La Vida - IMO it had the attention demand of a flying gnat. So it can work both ways especially with NEW material. the artist needs to ' drag' you in.   Illegal downloads? they are illegal....the artist suffers.....you know the guys who actually deliver the art

is it possible they face competition from entertainment outside of music ? i.e same pie, less for each ///
as for the guys who actually deliver the art ... artists have suffered before ... not always deserveingly ... at the hands of scum bag promoters, thug managers, record label creative accounting departments .... and for some of those who feel a sense of entitlement - the music listener who does not buy their music ...
 Attention span ... is usually based on the length of time that keeps a person's attention. If you have a million songs to listen to, is it unusual that you don't want to bother with the merely O.K. ? If you know there's a thousand great songs, is it unusual that you want to listen to as many as you can, which may mean that you don't keep playing the same song over & over again ?

It is probably still lucrative to be a session player, especially if you have the name recognition.

No.

Dean wrote: The bottom line is that a lot of artists in our niche market do not earn a penny from CD sales.

Oh, I'm sure they can make it up with the revenue from their sales of 8-tracks and 78s.

"Small band through record label sells 10 000 CDs"< "small band sells 1 000 copies directly to fans".

debrewguy wrote: Most business account for a certain percentage of theft or wastage (lost, not presumed stolen, spoiled, etc.) in their operating budget.

debrewguy wrote: Wilcey wrote: Dean wrote:   Typical royalties are 10-20% ... that is of the net revenue, not the gross - so we are talking $1.20 per CD - which is then split between composer and the band, and the band share is then further split to the individual band members... let's assume a 4-piece band with equal composer/performer royalties  - 40¢/member/CD... the average earnings in the USA is £20,000/anum - total number of album sales required to earn a living for each band member - 50,000...     And that is required each year for a living, most bands are unable to release a yearly album if they do all their own admin, production etc etc.......... It's not much of a money spinner is it? Wilcey, if I own a corner store that does not make enough money for me to support my family, is it shameful that I need to think about finding another job ? Am I the only one who sees that like most everyone else on this planet, you don't have the final word on what you might have to do to earn a living ? If you choose an occupation, including the arts, no one owes you a living. There is no entitlement to success, no matter what level was enjoyed in the past. And too often, this is what seems to be the impression - Poor Nick / Martin - they want to make music but they can't make money at it. Like f**k people, how many bands do you know that would like to be able to make music their full time career but can't ? Should they feel entitled to this too ? Or are there criteria that are to be met ? There are bands that started at the same time as IQ & Pendragon that are still out there and making a living despite the killer illegal downloads. Why them & not IQ or Pendragon ? And there are bands that never even came close to enjoying anything close to the success that either band enjoyed or enjoys. Should they feel cheated ? SO next time someone shows you a chart of P2P vs CD sales decreases, ask them to show you the dollars spent on other entertainment options. Tell them to compare how much was spent on Video games in 1996 to what was spent in 2006 ? How many Rockbands, Guitar Heros, even Pro Tools / Cubasis et al that were sold back then vs today ? Are the LPs, EPs, CDs manufactured by little indie labels or vanity labels all accounted for ? Iron Giant manages to self finance each of their releases. They still have full time day jobs. Their sales, mostly regional , have not suffered from P2P. Drive By Truckers have managed to ESTABLISH a viable career during the exact same time period when P2P exploded. Phish achieved its' biggest successes during the time of Kazaa's peak.  Bands like Pearl Jam that can no longer rely on radio to play new stuff (and PJ haven't needed that for years) have just managed to sell close to 200 000 copies of their latest album in its' first week out. And they can still tour to great crowds. Are many selling fewer albums ? Heck, most are. But again, is it just P2P or is it that the pie is getting shared by many more musical acts, and surprise surprise, people are also spending it elsewhere . To summarize - the bands that can make a living (see above), do. Those that can't, make excuses. How many units are the Arctic Monkeys moving lately ? What about the Kings of Leon ? Why couln't Saga sell out a 400 seat venue in its' home country, in the prog capital of Canada ? Or is the truth too hard to swallow ? You can talk about morality all you want. But not being able to do what you got use to, or not being able to do the same as others seem to be able to do despite facing the same obstacles you do really doesn't do much to support your excuses.  i.e. if they can, why can't you ?

Wilcey wrote: Dean wrote:   Typical royalties are 10-20% ... that is of the net revenue, not the gross - so we are talking $1.20 per CD - which is then split between composer and the band, and the band share is then further split to the individual band members... let's assume a 4-piece band with equal composer/performer royalties  - 40¢/member/CD... the average earnings in the USA is £20,000/anum - total number of album sales required to earn a living for each band member - 50,000...     And that is required each year for a living, most bands are unable to release a yearly album if they do all their own admin, production etc etc.......... It's not much of a money spinner is it?

I used to have a job that paid me just enough to pay an apartment, own a 15 year old car, which I had to cancel the insurance on in the winter, car pool to work, and barely afford a girlfriend. I no longer work there.
Your point ???

Oh, and most working people are unable to go to Florida once a year, they cook their own meals, cut their own lawns, get their own transportation to their workplace, buy their own clothing for work,
youknow, basically not being able to do just what they want ...
 Your point ?
oh, some bands are able to make a career in music nowadays. Even while doing their own admin, production etc... but then it's always been like that. Unless I missed an era when every band or even the majority of musical acts out there was able to live solely on their music. Was it the 60s ? 70s ? 90s ? the glory days of the 90s ? Please give some references where someone was practically guaranteed a livelyhood by playing music ...