Got thinking about this the other day. No one "buys" music any more. Well, one person might buy it, but then all of that person's friends will also have that music gratis. Ctrl+c, Ctrl+v and away you go.
So, will we reach a point where the only bands/acts who actually make any money are those who can hold down a big tour? Seems it may already be happening, as AC/DC made a fair few bob from their tour. The Stones continue to make money, but less and less from record sales.
What d'we reckon?
its long been the way to do it. i think pearl jam were the first. maybe greatful dead actually. and all you need is 1000 core fans + word of mouth and you'll earn a decent living from tours, merchandise etc
hopefully, then all that banal rubbish made on a PC in your bedroom dance "music" will disappear and people with the talent to play real instruments will thrive
then again i went to see a band and the support was some bloke singing along to his laptop which was plugged into the PA system, a few plastic glasses of beer from the crowd discouraged him somewhat.
Dont forget that there are big businesses tied up in promoting bands. They are switching to other ways to market bands - via your mobile, yourface, youtube, sponsorships etc etc. Also big record companies control the music playing media to a large extent.
Dont forget it dosent take long for a few large businesses to have a large control over what you see on the internet. Think of new forms of media like Youface, youtube, twitter, apple, etc big image online and large control over what you get.
don't bands make all their (profit) money from tours anyway while the records just cover the production costs?
I think the answer is yes if you mean long term financial gain. Quite a lot of the "pop bands" appear to make a good living for a short while but the money soon disappears when they do. Single sales these days are not what they used to be (look at the Christmas #1 - approx 500,000 sales) so it will still probably be album sales. The artist gets a small percentage of these and rack up enough hits and you will earn a few pennies. Long term the real money will come from a sustained career where you perform live and you write good songs yourself.
Or get attached to a decent record label and allow them to give you a wad of cash to ease you along the journey.
Coldplay were giving their music away a while back.
Yeah but thats because no-one in there right mind would want to pay for a coldplay single/album.
The Stones continue to make money, but less and less from record sales.
pretty easy when you can command £2million guarantees per show though...
No one "buys" music any more.
I do. Lots of people I know do as well. Still go to gigs, but I'll always try to pay for music that I like rather than steal it. I still see people making a living from recordings, but yes, the mix is definitely changing.
hopefully, then all that banal rubbish made on a PC in your bedroom dance "music" will disappear and people with the talent to play real instruments will thrive
People have used technology to create music for a long time, much of it not dance music at all. It takes a similar talent to create something worthwhile on a computer or a guitar - just a different tool.
Singer/songwriters can still make a living via records, mainly because the overheads are much lower, and they can pretty much run their own career, sell cd's via the web and at gigs, and sell mp3's via iTunes and emusic, etc. Bands, OTOH, have to divvy up the proceeds among a number of people, only some of who may contribute to songwriting duties. I believe the Dead made most of their money from touring for many years, as do most of the really big bands nowadays. Even the small bands have to slog around the toilet circuit for years to make a living; some never do, sadly. The trick is to write a big hit single and album; Gerry Rafferty makes £80000/ year just from 'Baker Street'!
Wish I could write good song...
LOL! agreed. 
there was a survey i saw recently that found 'illegal downloaders' spent £33 MORE per year, than those who didn't download illegally. suggests to me that those who are interested in, and listen to music, ARE prepared to pay. those who aren't, wouldn't anyway.
after all, there's been plenty of music available for free for a long time - radio. the suggestion that file sharing is killing music is as laughable as the old 'home taping killing radio' argument. fiction put forward by record companies who find it easier to manipulate and sway tastes, through saturation across mainstream media of created 'artists' rather than searching out real talent, which would involve rather more effort.
some of you may have already seen this, but here's a pretty interesting article about bands signing to major labels that steve albini wrote in the early 90s... obviously, the financial model for music has changed substantially since then but this still makes for interesting reading and is probably still somewhat relevant if you simply replace record sales with, say, itunes or whatever... anyway, here:
whoops! x2 post
Certainly in rock - touring seems to be the way of life, and one thats returning.
Lemmey has been touring for the last 30 years or so.
Saxon only pause to record a new album, then its back of the road.
Nightwish and Turisas (Finnish bands) have both just completed virtually 2 years of solid touring - occasional breaks here and there - but otherwise on the road.
Blaze Bayley - former front man of Iron Maiden has also just done a good 18months of touring (there was an unfortunate period in the summer of 2008 while Blaze's wife was seriously ill in hospital which curtained any touring), the band finished the tour, then headed into the studio to record the next album, then back out to do some more dates, back to the studio for mixing, back on the road. a short break now till the album's release date then the next tour starts - and all done with out any record label support, but the album financed to a certain amount by pre-sales of the album. same with the live album/DVD they did last christmas - 500 pre sales funded the recording, the pre sales with its limited edition version of the DVD sold out.
at grass roots level - touring is how the bands get on. It used to be what a band had to do to make money, tour as much as possible - the cost of the show is paid by the ticket sales and the profit comes from the sale of merch at the show.
They still make money from Radio play.
depends if you can write something with longevity I suppose
I can't remember the exact figure but I seem to recall Steve Harley still makes over £100K per year in royalties for 'Come up & see me'
rich, what i meant was try recreating the PC sound on stage without playing an instrument, what you get is the pet shop boys, one sings whilst the other stands behind a box, not what i'd call live music
No one "buys" music any more.
HEH ?? cheeky beggar. 
I spend on average £150 a month on vinyl and cd's , mainly vinyl. The only music I download are the free downloads of albums I buy on vinyl that give you a code to allow this download.
I also attend at least one festival every year , T in the Park every year , and average another 6 gigs throughout the year.
Bands make a pitance in music sales , especially now with all the thieving bastids stealing low quality downloads from t'internet , but this has been proved not to be 100% fact as Radiohead's In rainbows proved. This album was available to download from a Radiohead endorsed site , for free or make a donation if you wish , before official release. Pre-orders were taken on a limited edition vinyl boxset and later released on both single vinyl and cd. Thing is though this was done by Radiohead cutting out the record company and proved highly successful.
I don't see this downloading wrecking the established bands but it surely dents the coffers of the record companies and this will inevitably lead to less and less new bands being signed up , and that will kill music IMO. 
da funk
OK 29er fella, I will accept that it isn't always visually exciting watching electronic music being performed. Often my eyes are closed at gigs anyway so I don't find it especially important. I will say that some of the best gigs I've been to have been by electronic artists. Done well, mixing live from a laptop can be great, and also fiendishly difficult.
I don't see this downloading wrecking the established bands but it surely dents the coffers of the record companies and this will inevitably lead to less and less new bands being signed up , and that will kill music IMO
Not sure what you mean by killing music, how can you? Maybe the industry? Who cares?
The bands/artists that are solely in it for the money will dissapear but the people who do it cos they have a passion for it will carry on regardless.
I play my guitar, I ride my bike etc. I dont get paid to do it but I do it because I enjoy it.
Bands who make money from touring probably at some point in their career have had record company support and at a time when people were buying records. This created the established fan base who are still attending gigs. These days with no record company support, particularly in marketing the band, establishing a large enough fan base to make money from tours will become much tougher.
Tour support is even worse. Bands who provide tour support for a main act playing to 300 -400 people per night usually get paid £50 per show. From that they have cover the costs of van hire, fuel, some hotels and the odd parking ticket. Half the venues don't even feed you. Carling Academy's are the worst. Corporate feckers.
Tour support is even worse. Bands who provide tour support for a main act playing to 300 -400 people per night usually get paid £50 per show.
and that's if they haven't had to buy onto the tour in the first place (a loss leader? nope, a scam and nothing else).
I don't see this downloading wrecking the established bands but it surely dents the coffers of the record companies and this will inevitably lead to less and less new bands being signed up , and that will kill music IMO.
I'm not sure about that either. There's a very healthy live music scene in Leeds, for example, where it's actually quite difficult to get rehearsal space at a time that's convenient to all members of the band, especially if you have full-time jobs as well. I'd imagine most big cities are the same.
Occasionally you'll get a band like Arctic Monkeys who basically 'broke' themselves on the world via the internet, but it's still mostly done the hard way - gigging, gigging and more gigging...
For those of us starting out on our band's careers, it's actually a lot easier to get started now than it was say 20 years ago - I speak from experience.
The price of Recording Studio time is still pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago - about £1 per hour per track - so in real terms getting a good recording of your band is actually cheaper now than it's ever been.
Once you've got the recording, getting the music into the ether is simple - just sign up to Myspace or AmazingTunes, Zimbalam and the like. You can even upload to the BBC for your local radio station's local bands
Then comes the hard part. Getting the first gigs can be difficult and is essential to get your name known locally. Then the people that come & see you, that like you, will (hopefully) go to your online space & start downloading your songs - for a fee of course - and telling their mates.
And of course there's also Facebook. A great place for telling all your mates about your next gig(s). Free advertising, what more can you ask for. Ok it's a limited market at first, but of course that depends how many friends you have. And how many friends the rest of the band members have. and their friends, and so on...
what i meant was try recreating the PC sound on stage without playing an instrument
*cough*
John, you're missing the point a little. I'm presuming you pay for your recording time and your practice time like a lot of bands do. So in effect you've got to have jobs to sustain the hobby (no offence).
Great, you get gigs, walk away with 100 quid each. Pocket money if effect. Yes, you can give away you music fairly easily but that don't pay the bills...
These big bands like the Stones have been supported by their record companies for years and through greed (can't say if the bands greed or the record company) they've decided their fan base is large enough to sustain touring only and relying on their old back catalogue.
I'm not even sure how much the X-Factor winner gets out of the deal, I imagine Simon Cowell pockets most of the profits.
Unless you can get a really good viral campaign going like the Artic Monkeys did then potentially the audience isn't going to be there. Even that girl who supposedly 'broadcast' her songs from her basement was found out to be basically used by Sony who helped her.
John, you're missing the point a little. I'm presuming you pay for your recording time and your practice time like a lot of bands do. So in effect you've got to have jobs to sustain the hobby (no offence).
Does it matter that you still need a job?
The fact is that your still making music, recording music and playing gigs.
Is it a good thing if your hobby becomes your job?
possibly. I went off on a tangent a little due to interruptions from work
Surely for real artists, who just want to be heard, there's never been a more beautiful time man
unfortunately although this is a lovely idea last year's britney spears concerts proved you dont have to perform live to make any money...
For me I guess the point is obvious; the more time you have to work at your music the more accomplished you are likely to become. Obviously not true in every case though. I'd therefore see it as a bad thing if less people can get by as full or even part time musicians.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
