Making a living as a musician
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
How do you explain how (despite all this rampant music piracy) modern day Pop/Rock singers/bands are awfully rich
Most top tier bands make the bulk of their money from concerts. See the previous post about Sugar Ray making 8 cents per record sold - and that's a good record deal. Besides, the guys who make millions represent .0000001 percent of all recording artists, and probably a fraction of that amount in terms of regular, working class musicians.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Besides, the guys who make millions represent .0000001 percent of all recording artists, and probably a fraction of that amount in terms of regular, working class musicians.
True.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
I see CD's marked over 20 all the time, here in the states. Also don't forget the number of tracks. Some of my CD's have 18+ tracks on them and cost only $12 whereas 10 seems to be the target for a lot of new $25 a CD artists.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
What does the number of tracks have to do with it? I bought Mike Oldfield's Amarok a couple of years back for £12 ($22) and it only has one track. Personally, I think that was one of the best CDs I ever bought.
* Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
Binary Boy wrote:
Why don't more musicians sell their music from their own web sites?
It doesn't change the equation. If people are unwilling to pay for music because they think they should be able to download it for free, then it's the same whether the music comes from a record industry label or the musician's own label.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Christopher Duncan wrote:
It doesn't change the equation. If people are unwilling to pay for music because they think they should be able to download it for free, then it's the same whether the music comes from a record industry label or the musician's own label.
It does change the equation. The record company might pay $1.00 per $15.00 album while PayPal will pay around $14.00. Even though many people still won't buy, the profit is much higher from those who do. It can also encourage sales because the price can be lowered and people wwill know their money is going straight to the musician. Binary Boy newsreader
-
exactly. when i heard about the troubles OLGA was having, i posted a copy of a tab of Jimi's Red House on my blog. it's a pretty typical tab, has all the famous licks, the basic chords, just a few of the tricks, etc.. it'll help get beginners started, but it's not going to turn anyone into Jimi. the guy who transcribed it gets a few bars into the big solo and then says
"[and then] Hendrix repeats the 10p7, 7 lick a bunch of times, then does a bit or two that I've got no idea how to play"later, he says"Now play a little blues "see ya" riff, and then play something else."yeah, that "and then play something else" is a big threat to the record industry.Chris Losinger wrote:
yeah, that "and then play something else" is a big threat to the record industry.
I don't think it is, for two reasons. 1. As far as I'm aware there are laws against this kind of stuff 2. Anyone with a good ear can pick up the tabs himself, so if someone was bent on reusing somebody else's work lack of guitar tabs wouldn't stop him. And if this "then play something else" was that much of a problem, why publish official tabs in the first place? The only reason RIAA goes after tab sites is because it's still a source of revenue, however small it is, and since they publish official tabs I suppose they see the revenue from it is greater than any "potential" loss when someone uses those tabs to sing some song. Actually, on somewhat unrelated note, I have a hard time believing there is actually a legal reason for suing OLGA and such. I have never used OLGA, but I believe that most of the tabs there are not scanlations of official tab books, but rather amateus work, regular people picking the song apart and recording tabs as they hear it. If that is true I find it unlikely that you can sue for that. You are simply retelling others the tabs as you heard them, very much like music lyrics, you hear the song, you write out lyrics and you share them with a friend, there is no copyright infringement here, or at least there shouldn't. If someone provided scanned versions of official tab books in pdf/jpeg format then I agree, it is a copyright violation, but if it's simply people writing out tabs and lyrics as they hear them and sharing them, even on a such broad medium as internet, I just don't see how this should be a copyright infringement.
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
$25 for 10 tracks of hip hop is theft just as much as walking out of the store with the CD is.
Charging too much is not theft. The person has a choice whether to pay the money for the disc or walk out the store. If people don't pay the money the price will come down because the companies involved have to recoup some of their losses. I went into a record store the other day and they were selling some discs for £3.00, and other discs were selling for £20.00. The discs at £3.00 were obviously not as popular and the store needed to encourage people to buy them. The store obviously thought that £20 (currently that's $38US) would indeed get people buying the discs.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
if you steal an M6 the insurance company loses 60 grand, if you download a song you would never buy the music industry loses zero.
Why would you download a song you would never buy. If you would never buy it there is an implication that it has no value to you. If it has no value to you, what would be the point in wasting time to download it?
* Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
Curiosity. Is this song as bad as everyone else says, is this the song I am thinking about, etc. Also, there is the rare occasion, were I have d/l a song that I loved and wanted to pay for merely because the album is out of circulation.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
Curiosity. Is this song as bad as everyone else says, is this the song I am thinking about, etc. Also, there is the rare occasion, were I have d/l a song that I loved and wanted to pay for merely because the album is out of circulation.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
I pay for curiosity. If I'm curious enough about something I'll pay to find out.
* Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
yeah, that "and then play something else" is a big threat to the record industry.
I don't think it is, for two reasons. 1. As far as I'm aware there are laws against this kind of stuff 2. Anyone with a good ear can pick up the tabs himself, so if someone was bent on reusing somebody else's work lack of guitar tabs wouldn't stop him. And if this "then play something else" was that much of a problem, why publish official tabs in the first place? The only reason RIAA goes after tab sites is because it's still a source of revenue, however small it is, and since they publish official tabs I suppose they see the revenue from it is greater than any "potential" loss when someone uses those tabs to sing some song. Actually, on somewhat unrelated note, I have a hard time believing there is actually a legal reason for suing OLGA and such. I have never used OLGA, but I believe that most of the tabs there are not scanlations of official tab books, but rather amateus work, regular people picking the song apart and recording tabs as they hear it. If that is true I find it unlikely that you can sue for that. You are simply retelling others the tabs as you heard them, very much like music lyrics, you hear the song, you write out lyrics and you share them with a friend, there is no copyright infringement here, or at least there shouldn't. If someone provided scanned versions of official tab books in pdf/jpeg format then I agree, it is a copyright violation, but if it's simply people writing out tabs and lyrics as they hear them and sharing them, even on a such broad medium as internet, I just don't see how this should be a copyright infringement.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
I have never used OLGA, but I believe that most of the tabs there are not scanlations of official tab books, but rather amateus work, regular people picking the song apart and recording tabs as they hear it.
they're uniformly incomplete, sloppy and often wrong. and, they rarely even have full lyrics - typically each verse will have the first one or two words, and that's it.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
I don't think it is, for two reasons.
yeah... i was being sarcastic ;)
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Even so, if I wrote it, I own it, in all forms. I'd probably give people permission to use my tab for free, but it should be my choice, not thiers.
Not if you sign into a contract. I haven't read one firsthand (I wonder why those aren't available), but from what I hear the terms are draconian, artists do not own music anymore, the music label does, as an artist you are only guaranteed that nobody else can perform your work, that's about all.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
artists do not own music anymore, the music label does
You're talking about "work for hire" clauses, something that only a fool (or a musician) would sign. :) It's not industry standard, just another little scam that people will pull if they can get away with it.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
I feel like I'm in the minority. I'm prepared to pay for music. I even sometimes take the punt and buy an album without hearing it first because it is by an artist that I consistently like (Jean-Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield, Queen and Steve Vai are all artists where I've bought an album without hearing it first and for the most part I've enjoyed the music).
* Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
I bought 4 CDs last week. I had been using the UK MSN Music store but discovered that CD WOW![^] had the CDs for something like 75p more than MSN Music's prices for an album download. That's a no-brainer - I get media that's compatible with legacy players, and if I want to listen on my computer, I can do so straight from the CD or rip it at much higher quality settings than the download offers, and it has no DRM so I can transfer it to other systems. Incidentally one of the CDs I bought was allegedly copy protected but apart from trying to install a proprietary player (which I refused and would have failed anyway since I'm deliberately a low-privileged user) nothing adverse occurred. Windows Media Player was still able to rip at full speed and I haven't noticed any artifacts. The artist doesn't see any more revenue if I do transfer it, but I'm only listening to one copy at a time (I don't give ripped files to other people), so I don't really see why I should pay again. I'm not sure what the difference in royalty payments (if any) is between the download and the CD. The trouble with the honour system is that many people are dishonest.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
The real question is whether mucisians indeed deserve to make millions for their profession and I think the public is speaking loud and clear on the issue. Personally, I like to buy CD's but I won't pay more than $12 unless it is a double set. Of course the wealth is also being spread. "Working" musicians now actually have a chance to be their own label, sell their own music, and make their own videos netting a decent income if they work at it on the business side. As for your question, charge for your music but charge a fair price for the value offered. If you only make $1(net) per cd but go platinum that is still a million dollars.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
1. A lot of artists' 'millions' are in fact advances from the record companies, who charge it back out of their royalties. It's common for popular artists to reach ten years in the business and then discover that in fact they have no money and owe millions to the record company. 2. For those who are making real millions, it's a very small royalty - insignificant in percentage terms - multiplied by large numbers of sales. About half the cost of a CD goes to the retailer. The record company then takes most of the rest.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
How do you explain how (despite all this rampant music piracy) modern day Pop/Rock singers/bands are awfully rich - a lot richer than their counterparts from 20 years ago?
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)They're not, they just think they are. They're living off their advances, not realising that they're actually living off their future unearned income, and not realising that the record company is deducting as much as possible so that they'll never actually earn that advance. You have to be phenomenally successful to actually make money from being a recording artist.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
One of the threads on /. today is about OLGA, an online guitar tab database, being shutdown by lawyers for copyright violation. I browsed the comments, and almost everyone decried this as an unjust move. The music industry is universally considered greedy and evil, and besides, now the Internet lets musicians go right to the people, so we should probably do away with all those corporate types anyway. So, I thought I'd do a quick check to see how much the Internet has improved life for professional musicians. All recorded music should be downloadable and free Although some people do seem willing to pay iTunes for downloads, that's dwarfed by the number of mp3s shared for free. If you try to block free download sites people throw a fit. Message? "We expect music for free." All lyrics, sheet music and tab should be posted online and free Sheet music and every other printed form of music is another tiny slice of income for songwriters. However, as in OLGA's case, protecting this revenue is seen as evil. Message? "We expect music for free." Bar gigs still pay the same as they did in 1976 I'm not kidding. If you thought it was hard making a living on $75 a night in the late 70s, try it with today's cost of living. And yet, across the country, pay for musicians in bars remains the same. For those of you without a pocket calculator: working 4 nights a week 50 weeks a year (a challenge to stay booked even that consistently) nets you a whopping $15k annual salary. Hope you didn't want fries with that. Message? "We expect music for (almost) free." Let's review. You can't really make a living playing bar gigs, and if you write or record music it should all be made available for free on the Internet. However, I continually read that "the Internet is ushering in a bold new era, giving musicians tremendous opportunity by enabling them to bypass the traditional music industry and go right to the people." Wow, that would really be great. I mean, you know, if "the people" were actually interested in paying for tbe music that they so obviously enjoy. However, they're hostile to the idea of musicians making money from any aspect of recorded music, and live performance doesn't pay squat for 99.9% of all working musicians. So, since it's socially unacceptable for us to expect money from recorded or live music, I'm curious. What's an acceptable way for us to make a living with our trade?
Author of
Here's an interesting concept. Music for thousands of years was passed down the line and shared to record history and the like. Only recently have we locked it all up. I think that songs and records shouldn't be free. But the sheet music should. For learning and knowledge sharing. Nothing new under the sun. But gigs should pay well. Cover bands is a common thing. And also expected. So sharing of sheet music makes sense. But credit should be given and mandated. I don't agree with sharing music online. Mp3s that is, unless its the artist that wishes to let it go for free. But this is a large part of why I changed my major from music to math. The whole concept of intellectual property is still in its infancy. Where do we draw the line between commerce and community? That's rhetorical, I don't think there are any easy answers. But that's my take.
This statement is false.