Earbrass Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='4000' timestamp='1340196258' post='1700778'] I seem to be getting the impression, although I could be wrong, that some people feel that making a living as a musician, or more specifically as an artist, that the possibility of developing your art or craft without the distractions of a full-time job, is no longer something to aspire to. [/quote] Another thought on this: if you rely on your music to pay the bills, you are going to have to devote your time and energy to the projects that bring in the cash. Unless you are very talented or very lucky these won't always be the projects that you believe in, or which will allow you to develop your art and craft. You may find that you have less time and energy to devote to those than if you had an income from a less demanding day-job. Being a pro can be something of a double-edged sword. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340204264' post='1700993'] when I was at school we used to complain about how the radio stations always played the "commercial crap" and how little merit there was to the acts that were "broken" by the music industry. Rightly so! There is some sh*te on the radio and always has been. Getting more acts out there is only going to open up the possibility of there being less sh*te on the radio. Getting less acts out there will reduce this possibility. Isn't it simple maths? [/quote] Now you're on my turf. In all my years in mainstream radio (he said, to widespread yawns) the thing that mattered was record company support, interview availability, TV appearances and marketing schedules. And a bit of charlie on occasions. Plenty of great music [i]didn't[/i] get played, not because programmers are tasteless (in fact most I knew were passionate about the subject) but because it was the [i]commercial [/i]side that mattered. Why d'ya think Peel went out at nights rather than breakfast? Low demand, low support, niche interest. Even when I worked on a specialist music station and had a commercially neutral playlist meet, we'd listen to the first 30 secs and / or the hook. That's all. Anything that wasn't signed didn't get into the meet because 99% of unsigned is sh*t so why waste valuable time. Don't expect this to change. And radio's dying anyway, so who cares. Anyway, back OT, Same as with multi-channel TV, the internet hasn't opened things up or improved matters. It's just lowered the barriers and the quality threshold's gone with it. Which is what makes me laugh about illegal downloading - 25,000 tracks on the hard drive and only thirty-odd are any good. Edited June 20, 2012 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340203441' post='1700975'] Inexpensive ubiquity might [i]seem[/i] like a good thing on the surface, but when a market's barriers to entry are so low and the numbers of aspirant bands are so high, it is almost impossible to achieve the kind of cut-through necessary for an artist to build awareness and move on to the next stage of their career.[/quote] Tru, dat. In general it still takes big marketing dollars to build a big act from a small one, and t'was ever thus. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1340205306' post='1701022'] Where did you get your sh*t-O-Meter to make such a definitive statement?[/quote] What? That 'things are definitely more sh*t than they were'? It's the Basschatters' motto - I thought everyone knew that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] ...Even when I worked on a specialist music station... Anything that wasn't signed didn't get on...[/quote] And you would admit that a great number of sh*t bands have been signed up and pushed to radios, right? [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] Anyway, back OT, Same as with multi-channel TV, the internet hasn't opened things up or improved matters. It's just lowered the barriers and the quality threshold's gone with it. Which is what makes me laugh about illegal downloading - 25,000 tracks on the hard drive and only thirty-odd are any good. [/quote] so you're saying that record labels filtered out the sh*te, but you also seem to agree that the record companies ensured the sh*te got played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Vader Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 But without t'interweb I would still be making crap tapes on a 4 track that only my Mum listened to, and she said they were crap. Now there are 2 blokes in Sweden and a couple of deaf yanks that regularly refuse to pay to listen to my solo music project. This is better. I also get to listen to weird stuff that I would never have heard about without the net. I however fully accept that it has only made it MUCH better for those of us who realise we are a niche interest and will only ever reach 3 people that like us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340206146' post='1701053'] And you would admit that a great number of sh*t bands have been signed up and pushed to radios, right? so you're saying that record labels filtered out the sh*te, but you also seem to agree that the record companies ensured the sh*te got played. [/quote] Yes, if by 'sh*t' you mean 'bands you and I don't like but ordinary people probably will'. Look, it's not about being good or talented, It's about being saleable. Doesn't matter if the band's any good or not. If you want to make some cash, better some clothes-horses and a good backroom writer than some worthy plug-uglies with a meaningful, musicianly dirge In the old days, the labels had a more limited pool to draw from and they spent more time developing them. Hence the quality was better, even if it was sh*t. It was good sh*t. Then they muscled their good sh*t into the public eye. Don't knock it. If the swashbucklers of the 60's hadn't bullied, bribed and cajoled their acts onto the airwaves and news pages we'd still be listening to Doris f***ing Day. Que Sera, Sera. Godawful crap. Sold a bundle though. [quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1340206531' post='1701064'] I however fully accept that it has only made it MUCH better for those of us who realise we are a niche interest and will only ever reach 3 people that like us. [/quote] See, Dave gets it. Smart chap. Edited June 20, 2012 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340206964' post='1701070'] Don't knock it. If the swashbucklers of the 60's hadn't bullied, bribed and cajoled their acts onto the airwaves and news pages we'd still be listening to Doris f***ing Day.[/quote] I totally disagree. I can recognise good sh*t, even when it is sh*t. There has always been a lot of sh*t sh*t marketed by major labels, and depending on the marketing, people buy it regardless of the fact it's not even good sh*t. Not every act needs a development budget, and i'd argue that the best acts don't need it at all. I'm in over my head here (if it wasn't obvious) so shall now bow out of the thread, crushed under the heavy desire to get the f*** home and sink a beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer of the Bass Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] So, bands that broke through off the back of the internet? Arctic Monkeys? and - er ... [/quote] My missus-to-be (who was at college with them) points out that the Arctic Monkeys broke through mostly off the back of playing loads of tiny venues, both locally and up and down the country in the time honoured fashion, in addition to the internet following. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340197122' post='1700805'] All this talk of making a living from being in an originals band makes me laugh. It is and always has been extremely difficult to make a living from writing, recording and performing music. A very small percentage of those who embark down that road succeed. This is no different today than it has always been. Many artists back in the day maintained other full time employment after signing possibly lucrative recording contracts. Things are little different today. It's not the illegal distribution that is preventing artists from making a living from music. It's probably more to do with the poor marketing behind the music. To get a hit takes pots of cash in marketing. Many artists don't have that support. This is no different now than it was back in the day. Our record company spent next to nothing on promotion. We were lucky: John Peel liked us. Some radiojocks in Spain,Italy and Greece liked us. We have never been in a position to give up our day jobs. We're recording our 7th studio album at the moment. Even if this was to 'do an Elbow' and go platinum, I think only one or two of us would give up our day jobs - I don't think I would. To earn a living from original material is an unrealistic expectation. [/quote] Oops! Missed the point entirely! It had been suggested that with sales of your product (i.e. recordings) no longer being your bread and butter, bands would make a living from playing live. I was pointing out the flaw in the argument, which you've just reinforced. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='4000' timestamp='1340207703' post='1701087'] Oops! Missed the point entirely! [/quote] How have I missed the point? The point is one is no more likely to make a living now as one ever was.....illegal downloading just is not a factor in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1340196719' post='1700794'] Yes, more pills Nursie, AND QUICK! Weeble weeble, cupcake, otter-wax, simian thorpe-thing dunderhead spatula snot, snot, snot! EEEEP! EEEPPP!! EEUUURGHHHHHH!!! * climbs up curtain and crouches on top of wardrobe. Flings dung at assailants * EEUURRGHH!! [/quote] Ah, I see you've met me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340207457' post='1701081'] crushed under the heavy desire to get the f*** home and sink a beer.[/quote] [/thread] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] But I [i]am[/i] saying the internet has made marketing bands a far more complicated and expensive exercise. [/quote] really? File sharing is free. It kept my band 'alive' for years. Can't get better vaslue for money than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1340205386' post='1701024'] Another thought on this: if you rely on your music to pay the bills, you are going to have to devote your time and energy to the projects that bring in the cash. Unless you are very talented or very lucky these won't always be the projects that you believe in, or which will allow you to develop your art and craft. You may find that you have less time and energy to devote to those than if you had an income from a less demanding day-job. Being a pro can be something of a double-edged sword. [/quote] Potentially, yes, but not necessarily in the scenario I was envisioning, where you are the creator of the music (as I tend to be). The thing is, I'm talking about aspiration and a perfect world. Obviously the facts don't necessarily correlate or I wouldn't be in a sh*tty dead-end job. I guess my point is, if you lose the potential to make a living from something you create (and lose the potential ability to develop yourself along the way) aren't you really shooting yourself in the foot? And wouldn't you rather have the chance to find out which side of the sword you sit on (if you'll excuse the expression)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] Plenty of great music [i]didn't[/i] get played, not because programmers are tasteless (in fact most I knew were passionate about the subject) but because it was the [i]commercial [/i]side that mattered. Why d'ya think Peel went out at nights rather than breakfast? Low demand, low support, niche interest. . [/quote] And yet many bands that started life on Peel moved to the 'mainstream'....U2,Smiths, Cure, New Order to name but 4.... Who assessed what was [i]commercially viable[/i]? They obviously felt that those 4 bands were unmarketable or why would they need Peel to break them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer of the Bass Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 A slightly off-topic query for the old-timers; A couple of posts have made the distinction between "covers bands" and "originals bands" and their ability to make a living playing live. I'd agree this is the case at present, but it strikes me that most bands from the 60s and earlier cut their teeth playing mostly covers and only increased the proportion of originals in their set once they had already developed a following, so that distinction didn't always exist. So I'm wondering when that "covers band" versus "originals band" division kicked in in the lower reaches of the live music circuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340207850' post='1701090'] How have I missed the point? The point is one is no more likely to make a living now as one ever was.....illegal downloading just is not a factor in this. [/quote] Did I say anything about illegal downloading? To reiterate, read my second sentence again. If it wasn't clear, my point was that making a living simply from playing live as an originals band, without the backup of income from recordings (as it appears to have been implied by some that it's not important to earn from your recordings and that your income comes from playing live), is extremely difficult. If you don't generate income from recordings and you can't generate sufficient income from playing live (as is probably the case for most of us) then where does that leave you? I realise the chances of making money from recordings is completely arbitrary but that's not the issue. Edited June 20, 2012 by 4000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='4000' timestamp='1340209172' post='1701122'] Did I say anything about illegal downloading? [/quote] oh I'm sorry I thought that was the topic being debated here. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340208695' post='1701109'] really? File sharing is free. It kept my band 'alive' for years. Can't get better vaslue for money than that.[/quote] Look, in this particular debate your band is outstanding in a field of one. It came back from the dead entirely by chance. Which is nice and lovely and God knows I'll probably go check it out and undermine my entire proposition. But if you were trying to make it now, from scratch, you'd be lying down in a darkened room, dabbing your temples with eau de cologne. And if it's so [i]easy[/i] to do the whole band internet marketing thing, why don't guitards or frontmen take it on? Why is it always the bass player? Eh? Eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340209253' post='1701126'] Look, in this particular debate your band is outstanding in a field of one. [/quote] There are plenty of other bands that have been revived due to the internet. We play a lot of the same vanues as many of them. Balaam and the Angel And Also The Trees Alien Sex Fiend are 3 bands from our era that we've found are still working after years of having their material unavailable........ As I said before we are being exposed now to a whole new audience of people who were not even born first time around. Does that not make us more akin to a new band? OK so maybe we play on the legacy a little but in all seriousness it isn't much. Our original record company never spent anything on marketing in the first place. that's probably why so few people have ever heard of us. That and we are sh*te.... The difference between us and a new band is that we have a catalogue of material to market. Recording a catalogue of material is nowhere near as expensive as it used to be. The playing field is far more level with new bands than you are implying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340209240' post='1701125'] oh I'm sorry I thought that was the topic being debated here. My bad. [/quote] Indeed it is. But I was responding to a subplot, which I thought was fairly obvious from my posts. Sorry I upset you by not sticking to the agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] I strongly disagree. The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever given to the artist [/quote] In theory yes, in practice no. The people who pick up on something on the internet and share it and think it's OMFG this is awsome!!!!! are many, but those who OMFG you are so right!!!!! and reshare only tend to like pap with a massive marketing angle, cute kittens balancing plates, good cleavage, or stuff that's already popular. Even then it's the video getting shared and the music seems to be incidental. There is a massive load of sh*t to wade through before the good stuff hits your search results, and I think people are fatigued with that and prefer the push model, hence the sharing revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340209017' post='1701117'] And yet many bands that started life on Peel moved to the 'mainstream'....U2,Smiths, Cure, New Order to name but 4.... Who assessed what was [i]commercially viable[/i]? They obviously felt that those 4 bands were unmarketable or why would they need Peel to break them? [/quote] Different thing him featuring bands - he wasn't responsible for their success/fame; he always did it from the start of his time on air. He championed Roxy Music & Slade in the early 70's too. It helped - but it didn't cause their success. Tho' everyone knows about him & The Undertones. Just sayin'. You can carry right on into Page 16 of "I said, you said" now - [b]not[/b] you personally, just the whole topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340210211' post='1701155'] cute kittens balancing plates[/quote] Good example that. Not easy at all. Took me hours and about a gallon of superglue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.