Music Business

[ShadowRaz]

Hey fellas.

 

I'm starting out this topic in order to possibly find out others thoughts / opinions and experience of music as sort of a business if you are interested to reply in anyway. I have actually written a blog post on my home website already about this but i would assume that not many would stumble there, and especially reply anything at all from their end, as no one ever has on either of my home websites. Anyways if you are interested, read it here: https://sunshineartwave.wixsite.com/home/single-post/2018/04/16/Music-Business

 

Now, as you may know, there are A LOT of producers and composers from all corners of the world, especially now in the age of information and Computers, and time of Digital Audio Workstations and their ability to access vast amount of sound design plugins and virtual instruments to use on productions and composing at home. And hence it is rather absurd how many talented composers and producers i encounter online really often, that do not seem to have still many people who know, follow, like them or otherwise haven't made it "big".

And then.. on the other end, isn't it rather odd, almost in an annoying way, how big some producers are when their productions seem to be quite simple in the end, often just some really basic repetitive bass heavy beats/basslines and simple leads or melodies, and often also enhanced with some singing to even drown the music further or sometimes music videos to distract you from the sounds themselves. I'm not saying tracks with singing and lyrics for example or even vocal chops are bad, but i see singing and music as rather separate things myself as they are. And not saying music videos are a cancer especially considering i also design some moving effects for my own music videos for the tracks i produced, visual art is whole separate category on its own, but still you can see sometimes how basically "sex sells" on some cases.

 

So the public image out there for musicians of all sorts (composers/producers, bands, singers) is often boosted by gigs and touring, which would kind of be understandable in a fashion that someone pays off tickets to be on some suffocating (in my opinion, introvert here) party or concert/festival, and notice of course someone who might be on the stage of some sort and hence all the people there get to know the person(s) perhaps. And i have heard that those pay quite big sums for the ones that are performing something on the stages, no matter was it genuine band, singer on a mic with some live instruments or even background music playing on some recording, some DJ partying with their already made music and maybe just maybe doing something with the tracks changing on the spot though not always, or some really public figures lip syncing and performing some "sexy" dance crap to entertain or something like that. Then i assume live orchestras aren't as popular among big crowds of "millennials" or something and hence don't pay as much especially to the individual players of instruments that only play the music someone else composed (there might be the composer/designer along though as conductor or something who gets more, the hell if i know)

 

But is music on it's own a dying business, as in someone buying the music instead of tickets to some party or live performance? I mean in the age of internet and streaming services, no one wants to necessarily use their hard earned or otherwise small amounts of money to get some tunes as audio files, when they can basically connect to internet anywhere anytime with all kinds of devices from phones to big pads and laptops, and listen for "free" (or some small prices some streaming services charge such as Spotify for example would be one extremely popular one) and those hardly pay anything to the artists unless you truly get millions of plays, similar to the ad revenue Youtube has. Like when i upload my music to Bandcamp, there hardly comes even plays, but i did get 1st EVER money from my music as donation from a fella downloading my track called 'Sunshine'. Still the 1€ he used, and the 73cents i got after Bandcamp and Paypal fees, would hardly be a notable earning from music from 5 years of practicing and occasionally uploading the tracks online.

That in mind, there are still people who would like to support some artists to produce more instead of letting them die out in the masses of others music and without the artists being able to support their productions and future in it, but this too depending on cases, if it would be only few, even few hundred, it wouldn't affect almost at all say if all of those donated/used 1 euro for downloading 1 track.

 

Also assuming that in this modern age, in order for to succeed in business world with music only, you would have to produce a lot of it in order for some people to like at least one of the many, as even tastes in music are obviously different, or otherwise could create what is "ordered" or needed for something and therefore you would have to be doing it a lot for anything to eventually pay off and not just casually doing what you feel like. Would it then just get frustrating and boring and take the fun out of it completely when you are forcing yourself to produce too much? I mean all jobs are like that but would music then feel like work instead of feeling it with the interest and emotion otherwise.

 

One way to get out there as composer/producer only would be making soundtracks of course, but even they aren't as needed always with the vast amount of people attempting the same and getting their better fitting tracks to play on movies/games etc. But still there is also a lot of other entertainment and even advertisements (for example i know a website called 'Tracks&Fields' which has these request for music often, would it be wise to attempt to get your stuff out there and get paid for the effort you put in through there?) so the demand for background music is still strong. Would making these order requests be worthy thing to do in order to get something from the effort?

 

Or in general is music just a fun hobby, but not at all could be considered as a way of making living without touring around (i want to settle down more and stay at home) or basically selling-out and doing only what others order you to do? I mean personally i have practiced a lot of different stuff so i could create indeed a lot of different genres from composing instrumental or orchestral music with virtual instruments, to producing, composing and designing sounds for a lot of different styles of Electronic genres from heavy Dubstep and fast DnB to party vibe House/Trance music. Still i would want to create what i want, not what others want, though for it to be thought as a business, of course you are supposed to give the "customers" what they want, in a way at least.

 

What are your thoughts on general of all this, if you had patience to even read this? Have you thought of same things? What would you like to do? What would you recommend? Are you even experienced about music business more? Do share your intake on this for me and us all at this forum. Thank you.

[Ridiculously Garrett]

Music isn't a dying business at all. Bands or artists performing live is absolutely huge still. Look at any pop artist nowadays. Rock, jazz, etc. - performance is huge. There's a certain experience seeing favorite bands play their music live that people want to see.

If you want to be a performer, you had better take every gig you can, and be able to nail everything the arranger or composer needs. People don't get out of college and become these famous musicians, at least, not people like you and me. Performers nowadays? Years and years of nailing gigs and hard work.

And orchestras are not failing. Those aren't session musicians up there, those are people who are paid to be a member of the orchestra. Being a freelance classical musician nowadays without any other job is pretty impossible. But that doesn't mean it's "failing."

Music is a business that favors hard work. If you look at anyone who's famous right now, they probably do their work. Maybe, just maybe, there are some artists that arguably are "bad" or "shouldn't be in the spotlight," but pop music is pop music. 

Pop does not equal less work or musicianship.

[ShadowRaz]

Yeah but that is precisely what i meant, the music business favors the performers more who might be touring hard and living life on the road. But it doesn't necessarily favor the ones like i am, as in only a creator/designer, a producer and a composer. As in buying only music is dying business isn't it? I make the music, but never ever want to get up on stage to play my music for a crowd as dj, which would still fall into my category of performing live as all my music is electronic. Though a lot of my creations i composed with virtual instrument libraries and would not fit to a "dj" or anything like that, but instead be more fitting for live orchestra to possibly play though not sure how it would work as for example they are still hybrids of some sound designs and for example orchestra plus a single guitarist playing my riff compositions that would be funny. Is it btw unheard of for electronic instrumental composers to get their stuff being played by live instruments on some orchestra shows? Or do "dj's" play epic/tender instrumental music ever? I would imagine they do, but still i despise the very idea of being a performer, and still love producing and composing new music and wouldn't mind something for return if i would seriously start producing in larger scales and effort than, whatever i feel like.

[Ridiculously Garrett]

I like the idea of getting experimental. Take this music for example: 

 

These aren't electronic musicians per se, but this group Two Steps From Hell uses a lot of electronic effects in their music. Modern film scoring sees plenty of influence from all genres of music, including electronic. 

Being a dj is a form of performance, as you know, there are plenty of people who do it nowadays, for example deadmau5. He makes all his tracks and performs them with whatever his setup is on stage, but he couldn't play his music on an instrument. I think if you were to get experimental with it, it'd probably be really fun. There's totally a market for electronic/orchestral music (and better yet in one of the more profitable areas of music - film scoring!).

 

EDIT: (The first video is Two Steps From Hell, not the second)

 

[Ridiculously Garrett]

Also, working towards being an established composer will make the bank. I mean, look at this amount of money!

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/producers/john-williams-net-worth/

EDIT: Also, this: https://www.recruiter.com/salaries/music-composers-and-arrangers-salary/

[ShadowRaz]

I assume those average salaries are still untaxed, and even still those sums are BIG. But take John Williams, though my mind has not comprehended it properly on movies and such and it has just gone by on credits for my shame, it still seems slightly familiar as if i still have seen it so yeah.. Star Wars themes, freaking Indiana Jones, everyone knows those man though can't understand why didn't i know the composer for them properly. But he seems to fall into same category like Hans Zimmer (according to the website you linked) of whom i remember hearing and seeing on the credits of the music as i'm quite a movie watcher still like 'Inception' is big. Reaching those heights still would require some sick skills and connections out there in the world perhaps to get music out of own channel.

 

But to make those average salaries, where on earth does one work in such way? As in there can't possibly be a job available on some regular website: "Composer and Producer wanted for full time work, apply now with demos of your work" ahaha :D You know.. since there isn't... especially on my country as i have searched the usual available jobs site for säveltäjä, musiikin tuottaja, ääni suunnittelija etc which are my language translations of composer, music producer, sound designer. Is it even a constant income i mean doesn't it depend a lot on the demand of skills and productions?

 

Btw, talking of 'Nero' as i now listened the video twice (that's good stuff, i like) whilst writing this post, i totally got inspired by his drop style from the remix of Muse - Follow Me:

'Morning Cycle' on which drops are heavily inspired by Nero's production

 

But yeah, if talking of experimental in general my style is focused usually on orchestral/instrumental dubstep, but not always:

More recent Virtual Orchestral track of mine with the Electric Guitar style i was talking about

Orchestral Dubstep

Orchestral Dubstep/DnB hybrid

House with a lot of basic Sound Designs and also Virtual Solo Violin for lead, this be the track on which i got my 1st and only donation as it was bought

Virtual Orchestral

Then i realized that i should just link the Bandcamp channel in general to hear rather all music production styles from me (though those are not all) instead of filling the post with individual links since there are a lot of those and also have links connecting more links on my freaking signature on this site, bloody hell, no need to link too much of my stuff, and oh boy is this turning out to be a long link and have link word many times :D

 

But that is precisely it, film scoring would pay off perhaps even if not performing but instead only creating and not necessarily in such manner that you would get tired of creating them, but in order for people, such as me, to reach such heights, i have no idea how to proceed and do my skills even match such. For example, yesterday i was playing and heard cool music, checked out the mix i chose to play on Youtube for background, found a link to the composer of all the tracks in it: http://www.jacktrammellmusic.com/ i mean seriously this guy for example has some serious talent still, and just look at the film score selection on trailers on his site, and yet don't recall ever hearing of the guy. I don't believe i can even reach such demand of productions, nor especially John Williams / Hans Zimmer level net worth

I mean i'm completely self learned and compose by my natural pitch-ear entirely on the piano roll and choose what to use in same manner, however have been influenced obviously by all the music i've heard over my life still. Would going to a musical school assist still in the end? I mean i'm not ruling it out and have thought of it in all seriousness but exactly the amount of more talented musicians all around the globe makes me doubt should i be wasting time and effort on a school in some town i would hate to live in especially as i have no one to live with (as in haven't found love which would muffle out many of the own living comfortably requirements as i would be comfortable with her, but now i'm totally getting off-topic), only to end up nowhere further than i am now. This is difficult matter to think of especially on my own, and hence i started this forum topic anyway.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

6 hours ago, ShadowRaz said:

And hence it is rather absurd how many talented composers and producers i encounter online really often, that do not seem to have still many people who know, follow, like them or otherwise haven't made it "big".

It's not really absurd at all; it's symptomatic of supply vastly exceeding demand.

5 hours ago, Ridiculously Garrett said:

Music isn't a dying business at all. Bands or artists performing live is absolutely huge still.

Dude, performing artists earn less money than they ever have before and only the top like...10% as a very generous estimate actually earn a living from it. I know a guy who drummed in a successful country band and made a living at it for several years...but they had to play 200 shows a year to make it happen!

1 hour ago, ShadowRaz said:

film scoring would pay off perhaps even if not performing but instead only creating and not necessarily in such manner that you would get tired of creating them, but in order for people, such as me, to reach such heights, i have no idea how to proceed and do my skills even match such.

Over the last eight years, I've composed soundtracks for about 10 games, many of which were paid but only 3 ever actually made it being publicly playable. I've also done music for a production library who provided music for Netflix and recently some short film work as well. The entire experience has made me very red-pilled to two facts:

1) MOST people don't bother to seriously learn things like even basic four-part writing, don't understand the concept of consumer buying power and thus expect ridiculously-high pay from small-time producers, all while having a meager list of accomplishments; a general respect for the CRAFT of composing and learning everything you can about music composition and theory goes a long way and is putting in more effort than 90% of people.

2) Despite that, it does mostly boil down to sheer luck and who you know. Odds are, even with networking, the people that you meet will not require your services. Your best bet, is to work with indie filmmakers and such and hope that you can ride their coattails to success (if they succeed themselves!) and that's really it. Making the best music you can that doesn't sound like just another Zimmer clone goes a long way, but you still need that luck factor because like I say: Supply exceeds demand.

I've been more fortunate than many, and from a young age. Looking back, my earlier projects I didn't really know nearly as much about composition as I should have. Honestly, to the point it's embarrassing. Still, I was more successful THEN than now!

When it comes to pursuing music as a career, you should never "give up" but you should absolutely accept the reality that even being really skilled, the odds are terribly against you. You also have to pay attention to "survival bias". Musician "A" might have succeeded by doing XYZ but we ignore the countless musician "B"s who did all the same things and still failed. Like @Meteo Xavier often says: There is no recipe for success.

Lastly, there's been some recent studies that show mental health among musicians is on a serious decline: Depression being rampant. These studies have found that this depression comes from a decreased sense of self worth from the struggle of not "making it" financially as a musician and trust me: Musicians tend to rationalize career failures that yield real-world rewards with subjective ones. "Sure, I'm not making any money at it, but I'm really pleased with my new album and that's a success!" is just denial. For all that musicians like to say what they do is a "business", no businessman thinks this way.

 Becoming a full-time musician requires sacrifices of time that could also be spent on other fulfilling pursuits and as the years go by (they only go faster as you get older!) where you're NOT doing music and instead working dead-end dayjobs you hate, if not unemployed entirely, and eating just beans on toast — I'm using real examples here — to forgo spending money on proper meals so that you'll have enough money for that next music investment; all the Facebook "likes" in the world on your newest track aren't going to quell the soul-crushing depression that will come with realizing the rent is due, you hate your dayjob, you're 37 years old, and your life has gone nowhere.

[ShadowRaz]

@AngelCityOutlawOk you hat the nail in the head with your reply. Exactly the amount of music composers and producers especially boosted by the age of computers and DAWs, kind of explains the amount of talented ones that aren't as big as some others. More musicians than is even needed even if music is on demand on many things.

3 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

performing artists earn less money than they ever have before and only the top like...10% as a very generous estimate actually earn a living from it

Yes I suppose it completely depends on the publicity of the performer how much they are paid still, the more famous the name, the more people are interested about buying tickets to shows of any kind that have the performer perhaps and hence the performer earns more as does the place where it is performed, you know paying more for the performer to raise the artists interest enough to even attend as they start having some standards instead of doing anything they can, so almost being selective and demanding more too might do something and not working with effort for half free, however not turning down stuff either especially if not well "known" enough yet as smaller things are step stones to bigger things usually as some leap to glory would be rare wouldn't it? Though not unheard of. I read from quora actually (not sure how trustful some responses there are but usually are still professional enough) that some dj's get from few thousand to tens of thousands per gig which would on my living financials supply a year of VERY comfortable living easy, as in triple time living or 3 years of living the same way if talking of 30k for example.. even if it would be 10-20 gigs to get that those are ridiculously big sums for such small work. But the thing is i never want to gig, ever. Being on parties / big crowds like that would give me just anxiety and also i have serious stage fright and being on the road, traveling to places is not my thing as i have never even experienced it and have gotten used to being at home all the time. SO.... to compare it to my career wishes sort of, This rule still also applies to film scoring, should one see ZImmer as the composer, you would expect the soundtrack to be epic and also the movie, and they often are depending on taste too of course. And therefore he gets paid more to create to their film, but say some fella you have basically never heard of, even if he or even she would create his/her own unique (not being a copycat) music which is freaking delicious, does the same and gets the music on some film or something, doesn't get the same pay still as you pointed out, not until the name of the composer has grown further and it might not even do that, even if the film turns out to be big or something like that. So as you said that there is luck factor too, you are absolutely right.

 

Also, some people might just still accomplish (whether it is accidental or on purpose) to do something unique and/or memorable more than others that make them fall into peoples minds more easily than some others and therefore people just know them, usually they are some precise "hit songs" for example on musicians, on some cases it might be some other unknown factors like some weird image, not to be disrespectful and point out names, think of this as critic, but just look at the weird dj Marshmello and his costume, whilst usually having (no offense) not that special music at all (some basic notes, rather trap style beats while some other sings some supposedly meaningful lyrics for the music to fade in the bg and then the usual vocal chops which aren't really that hard to orchestrate with), and same image thing goes for Deadmau5 in the end though i personally liked his music back in the day (when i wasn't as aware of what producing such music is) as much as making a home made mau5 mask to try on and keep on shelf otherwise. Both of mentioned seem to be really huge. And yet here i am, the more i progress as a producer and composer, the less i respect certain big artists. I'm just saying this as a producer who has experimented on house, trap for example and have gone to the heavier sound design side of dubstep and dnb which requires some serious planning on both sound designs, their fine-tuning, and designing and composing with them to get smooth enough sound, that compared to some repetitive melodies playing over and over or vocal chops and vocals and stuff like that makes me rethink the whole progress of certain really big artists with their skill areas and their way to become big. Just being truthful.

 

Let's say making a remix would get you out there as some people search the original track they know and notice a different spin on the same song and get interested, wouldn't that be advised then huh? Well it still doesn't always depending of the quality of it and taste of others as many people like to listen some happy mood music instead of more grim or melancholic stuff but i could actually attempt both though i'm not feeling happy as easy and hence it doesn't mirror into such music usually though can improvise such music but i'm not necessarily feeling it. I haven't made many remixes but could as i think i have progressed on my skill areas enough already to finally get better outcome than back in the day when i had a short passion to perform such one after another and most of them turned out to be horrible. The best one was this and even this is slightly improved version of the original remix project of mine: 'Walking in the Air' Remix

What do you guys think of remaking? I mean that shit isn't obviously innovative at all, and might be kind of disrespectful to the original artist as in to show how one can reverse-engineer the track and perhaps match their skill if not even further since it actually requires a lot more sound design and fine tune skills and on some cases careful listening to match some little stuff too, than doing own 'what you can' stuff but doesn't need imagination at all, so then again it is just copying the original so what is the harm? Is it disrespectful? I mean as long as obviously mentioning the track being a remake and not starting on using that project as bases of claimed "own" music which would be being a copycat.

 

Then if steering into

3 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

there's been some recent studies that show mental health among musicians is on a serious decline: Depression being rampant

This is rather interesting as i actually have self-diagnosed a small depression for myself actually, though not in a self-destructive way, but instead just not being that happy about my situation and future plans and any crap like that and feeling anxiety and unpleasant often and thinking how things should be better to live happy especially relationship-wise as i long for a woman into my life (man would i want to just snuggle up with the love of my life, squeeze her tight and still gently in my arms whilst she does basically the same as she wants to be as close as possible, both out of pure love, i said actually long ago on DSF Ninja forums as a metaphor how i am a snuggly teddy bear, but without snuggles, am in a world of mistrust and hate, which would mean basically depression but now getting off-topic again), though still am definitely having my moments of enjoyment, and self-diagnoses are just that. But for me personally, i don't think lack of "success" on music is the cause, but instead loneliness and financial trouble and some general future plans plus some weird instinct or rather paranoid anxiety of feeling that i'm being spied on / be more known (being stared at, talked behind my back) than it shows but that might be a but egoistic actually i mean honestly who the f*** would care to perform such :D, but one huge factor is that i was bullied and especially discriminated back in the day in schools for being odd duck and hence the general 'not worthy for anyone and inferior to others and people talk shit of me in secret' crap grew on me as i witnessed first hand how superficial and/or hating anything out of their "normal" image, some people can be. But on being a musician, The very fact that i am aware of how i could basically remake easily some popular music and find my fully own music still a bit more advanced (in some ways especially though not in all, as some are talented on making "simple" music still smoother/more for peoples liking than i could) already than theirs, is a show of actually having better self-confidence which results in this weird feeling of being slightly proud of myself which mirrors into a better mood actually. Also as on the blog post i linked on the start up message of this topic and on my old blog post titled 'Music' at the home website of this artist name, as i have said, i started out on being a musician for own interest and as hobby, not for some aim of success on it at all. Hell even some names of several tracks (for example 'Through the Darkness' 'Redemption' 'Salvation' 'The Ugly Duckling' 'The Beast's) are a reference how it actually helps me to deal with crap to produce and compose instead of causing it.. You can actually read about these more precisely on my 'A Blast From The Past' blog posts (On Duckling i actually wrote on Bandcamp's upload track info more precisely) where i explain some such stuff about the tracks but not in their full explanation still, just bits and pieces, link to it on my signature or the first post of this topic goes straight to blog and then just clicking another post there, this only if you got interested but the titles alone explain quite nicely of what i mean.

3 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

...you'll have enough money for that next music investment; all the Facebook "likes" in the world on your newest track aren't going to quell the soul-crushing depression that will come with realizing the rent is due, you hate your dayjob, you're 37 years old, and you're life has gone nowhere.

This is actually quite an eye opener and rather motivational, and yet also depressing at the same time The whole paragraph of which i quoted the end only. Nice job fella to get such controversial feeling with hard facts. Some people tend to avoid talking straight if it would somehow make others think of them badly, feel bad or something like that, and some just drive their own agenda on every single 'public' stuff the say/post etc as in either to make themselves look better or sometimes misinform and stomp down others. I don't (think) i do that, as i tend to say/post what i have in my mind though usually in shortened versions and missing stuff to keep them short(er) but still this post alone still has perhaps a small disrespectful part and certain amount of own linked stuff in it but i don't think i'm still advertising myself as i'm referencing as it is easy as i am still me, and have opinions. But yeah... The very fact of being stuck in some job i would despise doing, only to earn some money so i can live, which i wouldn't enjoy that much anyway then, does not feel very motivational. I think (again) that love would still make life go somewhere so to speak, though not necessarily in musical way as in being known artist for good productions, money way as in being financially wealthy to live all fancy or accomplishment way as in contributing something really meaningful or useful for human race in general. As in not doing anything out of the ordinary, but gosh jolly would love make happy and that is the meaning of life from my point of view..

And if you are happy, then you are going somewhere. And being happy in such way still doesn't mean one couldn't fulfill and/or accomplish other stuff, hell it might even help as you get inspired by love and motivated by happiness.

 

So i agree on not giving up. Even if music does remain as personal hobby until death, it will always be close to my heart.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

1 hour ago, ShadowRaz said:

Nice job fella to get such controversial feeling with hard facts. Some people tend to avoid talking straight if it would somehow make others think of them badly, feel bad or something like that

Getting truly honest perspectives on the music industry, especially where composers are concerned, is quite difficult because people tend to fall into one of two camps: The starry-eyed dreamers who've given into that "survival bias" I was talking about, and can't see that these highly-successful musicians are the outlier and not the rule; and people like you'll find on V.I. Control who are these old guys who have been doing this most or all of their lives and have absolutely no idea what it is like for 99% of people. I won't say who, but there are a couple of well-known composers who really piss me off with their pompous attitudes regarding the business. One thinks that music is the most important thing in the world and composers pulling in millions is still "criminally underpaid" because actors make more. The other guy literally thinks all that this career path is supposed to be "easy" and that if it isn't, it must be because you suck or don't have the knack for it.

I mean, if I was pulling in millions of dollars with music and famous since I wasn't even legal drinking age in the US, I'd probably imagine the same thing, too.

1 hour ago, ShadowRaz said:

I think (again) that love would still make life go somewhere so to speak,

Here's the thing that's really hard about this, though.

Love isn't something that truly just endures any hardship thrown at it. Not like in the movies. It needs stability.

Remember the "Musician B"s, I was talking about? Those guys who've done everything "right" but are still  working at McDonald's and eating beans on toast at 37? Most of those guys are still single and tend to be so for most of their adult life. While most men generally don't care about what women do for a living, most women always care what their man is doing. If it comes down to you and another guy she thinks she likes just as much, what he does for a living vs what you do will be the deciding factor. 

I'm not saying it's fair, but it is the way it is. Unless you're already making money and scored like...the Avengers or something, saying you're trying to become a professional musician to women makes you go from a "date, maybe kids and white, picket fence" to "One-night stand at best" in an instant.

1 hour ago, ShadowRaz said:

So i agree on not giving up. Even if music does remain as personal hobby until death, it will always be close to my heart.

and that's a good plan and place to keep it. 

 

[Ridiculously Garrett]

3 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Dude, performing artists earn less money than they ever have before and only the top like...10% as a very generous estimate actually earn a living from it. I know a guy who drummed in a successful country band and made a living at it for several years...but they had to play 200 shows a year to make it happen!

I just wanna clarify that I said this immediately after: "If you want to be a performer, you had better take every gig you can, and be able to nail everything the arranger or composer needs. People don't get out of college and become these famous musicians, at least, not people like you and me. Performers nowadays? Years and years of nailing gigs and hard work." 

[ShadowRaz]

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Love isn't something that truly just endures any hardship thrown at it. Not like in the movies. It needs stability.

Dammit man, again with the controversial feeling with the truth, this part of your reply not only amazed me from the professional outlook of it as the "being able to provide and has future" is a huge factor of being desirable man for the wanting to settle down ladies as i thought already on one of my long ago blog posts, but also made the dream of having it all, as in being free to experiment as musician at home yet also in mutual love with a woman with bright settle down future ahead, crash and burn like a zeppelin behemoth on Battlefield 1, oh the humanity.

However, isn't it a bit two-sided thing? If a woman expects a man to have it all, doesn't it mean that such counter stuff should be expected of the woman as well? Not same things necessarily but yeah... Equalism bitch. This matter is off-tracking already too much perhaps though very important still. Doesn't this then mean basically according to some women (or how you pointed out.. all?) i should find indeed a steady good job to work in for to be able to even think a woman in my life or the more preferred option to me would be to find a woman who is more about the closeness than future plans all together, i mean not all women are the same and some might not be as aware of even their own future as i'm not sure of mine, i would think of it in a way that i find love first, then start settling down when and if we both want to start a steady income family as we are comfortable and care of each other so much that we want to spend life together and without me relying on her to provide (yes this can go both ways too, not all men are the head of household income always but i would still want to provide as much as i can if needed) should she have a job or even want to be a stay-at-home mother (in fact, i'm such a person that being a stay-at-home father sounds nice, stereotypes often are confusing people too much, saying this as small time feminist and equalist) whereas i didn't have any basic income in a way yet at that point although the government supports living in certain amounts at my country (on same matter, cultural differences are big on several factors actually as well, like many women respect men here with regular jobs instead of looking it in a "gold digger" way, i still assume it is like that everywhere), however certain things as good jobs still might not come at command still if not having something already, but at least i have certain amount of job experience and i think i could even possibly get back (not sure though, but i did my stuff efficiently and without errors in there) to my old job eventually if truly asked with genuine persistent positive attitude as so far i haven't asked since i don't want back there as i don't need to yet, or otherwise the XP of it and obviously completed occupational school degree helps on regular job hunt still. But i think i'm slightly defending still the situation as many women don't appreciate the "i would do this and that" attitude but instead look on what one is already, but again, that is quite demanding depending on their own future plan and what the woman wants to do. I mean you are right in a way that men generally don't necessarily care what the lady does for a living as long as she is happy, but still a bit harsh for women to expect men to have it all from the start, personally as i pointed out already still, the mere happiness of love would motivate me go to work in regular job to provide instead of continuing with my own crap, her and the mutual happiness is more important than only own though own happiness is her happiness and hence.. yeah you catch my drift.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

2 hours ago, Ridiculously Garrett said:

I just wanna clarify that I said this immediately after: "If you want to be a performer, you had better take every gig you can, and be able to nail everything the arranger or composer needs. People don't get out of college and become these famous musicians, at least, not people like you and me. Performers nowadays? Years and years of nailing gigs and hard work." 

You did, but I suppose I should elaborate.

The person I'm talking about when I responded to your post also missed out on his child's first steps and words because playing a ridiculous amount of shows, always being on the road, was the only way it was feasible to feed himself and his young family with it. That kind of lifestyle doesn't seem so bad when you're 16 - 25. Afterwards, it gets to be way too much for most.

2 hours ago, ShadowRaz said:

However, isn't it a bit two-sided thing? If a woman expects a man to have it all, doesn't it mean that such counter stuff should be expected of the woman as well?

Should be, but it isn't. I know a lot of the younger "I'm studying liberal arts in college and I know everything" crowd will call for my head for it, but it's a double standard that will probably always be around.

Men don't care if their girlfriends/wives work at Starbucks forever. The number of women who, even today, are still housewives by choice while their husband goes out and works, with both parties being fine with that arrangement, is all the proof you need. Women of all shapes and sizes, not just gold diggers, want a mate who has it all and feel like they're "settling" if they get less. They want tall, successful men with full heads of hair well into middle age. Preferably forever.

Obviously, there are exceptions, but they are just that — exceptions and we can't ALL get what we WANT. Without going too off-topic, evolutionary biologists and psychologists have studied this behavior in the females of various species for years and it makes perfect sense why women would be gunning for the "highest-quality" mate possible. Even dating sites have, on numerous isolated occasions, found that 80% of female users only match themselves with the top 20% of men. 

This isn't to say "Oh if you're not a good-looking lawyer and rich you'll never find love!" but the point I'm making, is that creating lasting relationships without a financially stable career with strong future prospects on the man's part is very difficult.

Like, find me a woman who is a lawyer or a doctor and is married to a gas station clerk.

[ShadowRaz]

9 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

..stable career with strong future prospects on the man's part is very difficult.

Like, find me a woman who is a lawyer or a doctor and is married to a gas station clerk.

The last sentence is in fact though the "find your level" partner fact, let's look at this in bigger scale, as in hardly celebrities for example with big accomplishments of some sort and hence net worth are together with someone who hasn't made any significant things to match the others at least in certain aspects.

 

But still i suppose it is commonly the males precisely who have done big that "score" a "trophy wife" spoken in common terms i have heard during my years, am i right? As in usually the successful males have less "successful" (considered business/financial world-wise, but usually these types of wives are quite beautiful as women tend to be in general more concerned about beauty than men about looking handsome) females as partners as you pointed out.

 

However, on feminist side of looking these things, sometimes women aren't appreciated or taken in account enough with their accomplishments, ideas and hence it has become a stereotype for them to be such way, is this not true?

 

"Me, man, me hunt food, you woman, cook food and look pretty" :D

[Nabeel Ansari]

I didn't know "Music Business" was code for PPR.

[ShadowRaz]

9 minutes ago, PRYZM said:

was code for PPR

I assume you mean we are steering way far off-topic into some relationship talk and psychology etc, but do not know what the abbreviation PPR stands for. I tried Wikipedia and even Urban Dictionary, the ones that popped up do not make sense. But on bases of that assumption i suppose you are right. Let's keep it Music Business related mostly if posted here. I mean not many have started replying at all about anything, and also have unanswered stuff on many things i have asked for opinions, perspective etc

[Ridiculously Garrett]

 

27 minutes ago, ShadowRaz said:

The last sentence is in fact though the "find your level" partner fact, let's look at this in bigger scale, as in hardly celebrities for example with big accomplishments of some sort and hence net worth are together with someone who hasn't made any significant things to match the others at least in certain aspects.

I think it's interesting, from an economic standpoint, that's how it is in America (or let's say in capitalism). Based on class alone, not too many rich and poor people are intermingling. I think it has less to do with any differences of sex and more to do with how a capitalist class system is set up. 

Ok, bringing it back around!

10 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Should be, but it isn't. I know a lot of the younger "I'm studying liberal arts in college and I know everything" crowd will call for my head for it, but it's a double standard that will probably always be around.

Men don't care if their girlfriends/wives work at Starbucks forever. The number of women who, even today, are still housewives by choice while their husband goes out and works, with both parties being fine with that arrangement, is all the proof you need. Women of all shapes and sizes, not just gold diggers, want a mate who has it all and feel like they're "settling" if they get less. They want tall, successful men with full heads of hair well into middle age. Preferably forever.

Haha I'm studying liberal arts right now, but I'm not liberal. Is that a problem? But yeah, I agree. We're tied to our biology.

And I think this will add to the talk of of the differences of sex side that could be incorporated into the business:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html

It seems like a pretty even split in the music business between men and women, roughly.

[Rozovian]

51 minutes ago, ShadowRaz said:

I assume you mean we are steering way far off-topic into some relationship talk and psychology etc, but do not know what the abbreviation PPR stands for. I tried Wikipedia and even Urban Dictionary, the ones that popped up do not make sense. But on bases of that assumption i suppose you are right. Let's keep it Music Business related mostly if posted here. I mean not many have started replying at all about anything, and also have unanswered stuff on many things i have asked for opinions, perspective etc

PPR is our Politics, Philosophy and Religion subforum. This thread is all over the place. Would be a fun read if I had the patience for it.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

6 hours ago, ShadowRaz said:

The last sentence is in fact though the "find your level" partner fact, let's look at this in bigger scale, as in hardly celebrities for example with big accomplishments of some sort and hence net worth are together with someone who hasn't made any significant things to match the others at least in certain aspects.

 

But still i suppose it is commonly the males precisely who have done big that "score" a "trophy wife" spoken in common terms i have heard during my years, am i right? As in usually the successful males have less "successful" (considered business/financial world-wise, but usually these types of wives are quite beautiful as women tend to be in general more concerned about beauty than men about looking handsome) females as partners as you pointed out.

 

However, on feminist side of looking these things, sometimes women aren't appreciated or taken in account enough with their accomplishments, ideas and hence it has become a stereotype for them to be such way, is this not true?

 

"Me, man, me hunt food, you woman, cook food and look pretty"

The simple way of putting it is that men date across and down, while women date across and up. So yes, if you can meet a woman with the same kind of career aspirations, then it's probably a strength. But generally speaking, most people aren't working toward such high-risk careers despite said careers still being saturated.

5 hours ago, Ridiculously Garrett said:

I think it's interesting, from an economic standpoint, that's how it is in America (or let's say in capitalism). Based on class alone, not too many rich and poor people are intermingling. I think it has less to do with any differences of sex and more to do with how a capitalist class system is set up.

I'd say that's a fair assessment. I think when you hit a certain extreme of wealth and fame,everybody will only date similar people. Like, Brad Pitt could have any woman he likes right? Except he seems to only ever date other celebs. I assume because he'd have basically nothing in common with a "commoner". 

5 hours ago, Ridiculously Garrett said:

Haha I'm studying liberal arts right now, but I'm not liberal. Is that a problem? But yeah, I agree. We're tied to our biology.

And I think this will add to the talk of of the differences of sex side that could be incorporated into the business:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html

It seems like a pretty even split in the music business between men and women, roughly.

No, but it is odd lol

It won't let me read that article, but I can say that if you look at it just in general, it's an even split, but areas of interest are disproportionate and depends on geography. In North America, there are far fewer female composers than somewhere like Japan. On the flipside, we tend to have a lot of female pop and country singers. 

Anyway, regarding the OP, I don't think there's much else to be said IMO. Fields that once could be lucrative like albums and touring have becoming unreliable means of pulling in serious cash unless you really kill yourself with it. There is still, and may always be, good money in composing for films or TV at the highest level, but the market is extremely tough to break into, is a pretty elite boy's club, and involves a lot of luck. The amount of teaching positions is also a case of supply exceeding demand and I don't think teaching is a job for everyone to begin with. It takes a specific type of person to make a good teacher. Writing music for trailers and production libraries could also be lucrative, but again largely boils down to luck since you can't MAKE a certain track(s) get tons of syncs in big-time ads.

There's also the possibility of becoming a session musician (though I suspect that's becoming very rare) or playing in orchestras that record film and game music, but no doubt that's also a highly saturated business. 

 

 

 

[SonicThHedgog]

On 6/4/2018 at 12:10 PM, ShadowRaz said:

But is music on it's own a dying business, as in someone buying the music instead of tickets to some party or live performance? I mean in the age of internet and streaming services, no one wants to necessarily use their hard earned or otherwise small amounts of money to get some tunes as audio files, when they can basically connect to internet anywhere anytime with all kinds of devices from phones to big pads and laptops, and listen for "free"

Change and death are two different things. Music has always been "free" to listen to.

 

On 6/4/2018 at 12:10 PM, ShadowRaz said:

And then.. on the other end, isn't it rather odd, almost in an annoying way, how big some producers are when their productions seem to be quite simple in the end, often just some really basic repetitive bass heavy beats/basslines and simple leads or melodies, and often also enhanced with some singing to even drown the music further or sometimes music videos to distract you from the sounds themselves

The average listener doesn't care about production(and lately, neither do I), that is more of taste. I will also add that making a simple, basic idea is really hard for some people to pull off and actually make sound good and creative/fresh, not that i'm saying that all music should be basic. 

Singing I would treat on the same lines as an instrument with more factors like melody, tone, lyrics, and style. Most average mainstream tracks are designed specifically not to be too distracting to give priority to the vocals. Mostly a taste thing.

 

22 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Dude, performing artists earn less money than they ever have before and only the top like...10% as a very generous estimate actually earn a living from it. I know a guy who drummed in a successful country band and made a living at it for several years...but they had to play 200 shows a year to make it happen!

On 6/4/2018 at 12:10 PM, ShadowRaz said:

or musicians of all sorts (composers/producers, bands, singers) is often boosted by gigs and touring, which would kind of be understandable in a fashion that someone pays off tickets to be on some suffocating (in my opinion, introvert here) party or concert/festival, and notice of course someone who might be on the stage of some sort and hence all the people there get to know the person(s) perhaps. And i have heard that those pay quite big sums for the ones that are performing something on the stages, no matter was it genuine band, singer on a mic with some live instruments or even background music playing on some recording, some DJ partying with their already made music and maybe just maybe doing something with the tracks changing on the spot though not always, or some really public figures lip syncing and performing some "sexy" dance crap to entertain or something like that.

I've actually had a similar question to this and learned that it really depends. Actually It can be plain stupid some times. I know DJ's that make triple of what a instrument playing performers make. I also know sessions artists who need to play a ton of shows just to make ends meet with there day job. I think its down to the goal of why a person is performing, the period of time, and what is trending.

 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Holy shitballs I haven't seen you post in years.

[SonicThHedgog]

2 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Holy shitballs I haven't seen you post in years.

Im also gonna try to remix more, but for things that arnt touched on.

 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

7 hours ago, SonicThHedgog said:

Change and death are two different things. Music has always been "free" to listen to.

 Well, to a certain extent it has been. It doesn't generally cost you anything beyond your power bill and the initial cost of the radio to turn on your radio and listen to music without paying a cent. There have always been street performers who may or may not earn tips and historically, a lot of music was at the church where, beyond the collection bowl, there wasn't any real payment required to listen to the music. 

But what's changed is that now you can listen to just about any piece of music you want, at any time, without paying a cent thanks to YouTube and Spotify. There are also entire live DVDs and cellphone footage uploaded to YouTube which somehow escape copyright claims.

In the past, you could only tape some performance if it was on TV or phone in and request songs at radio stations to make your own mixtapes. But that took a lot more effort than just going out and paying 20 bucks for the album and you HAD to pay to experience the concert.

3 hours ago, SonicThHedgog said:

Im also gonna try to remix more, but for things that arnt touched on.

Nice. I've thought about doing more remixes, but I just can't find anything that I'd want to do except original tunes.

[SonicThHedgog]

3 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

 Well, to a certain extent it has been. It doesn't generally cost you anything beyond your power bill and the initial cost of the radio to turn on your radio and listen to music without paying a cent. There have always been street performers who may or may not earn tips and historically, a lot of music was at the church where, beyond the collection bowl, there wasn't any real payment required to listen to the music. 

But what's changed is that now you can listen to just about any piece of music you want, at any time, without paying a cent thanks to YouTube and Spotify. There are also entire live DVDs and cellphone footage uploaded to YouTube which somehow escape copyright claims.

In the past, you could only tape some performance if it was on TV or phone in and request songs at radio stations to make your own mixtapes. But that took a lot more effort than just going out and paying 20 bucks for the album and you HAD to pay to experience the concert.

I've noticed that some records are allowed to be reposted on YouTube (like remixes or covers with the original sounds in it) to get more revenue from ads. 

On demand streaming IMO is a good change. I was always on the end of making music "free" to listen to while still benefiting an artist, but digital download or physical copy still be paid. It can make music easier to reach to people and to induce recall on new music from brand new artist with little to no following, and it can (potentially) be more lucrative for an artist. However, the ad revenue model that most streaming companies put out (with the exception of tidal and apple music) is totally one sided/unscrupulous, unless you have an exclusive deal with said company, which is nearly impossible to even pull off unless you have an insane bite of music distributing market share.

*edit* You just reminded me that I had a tape and vhs collection of recorded music videos which I used to listen to all the time haha

[AngelCityOutlaw]

19 hours ago, SonicThHedgog said:

On demand streaming IMO is a good change. I was always on the end of making music "free" to listen to while still benefiting an artist, but digital download or physical copy still be paid. It can make music easier to reach to people and to induce recall on new music from brand new artist with little to no following, and it can (potentially) be more lucrative for an artist. However, the ad revenue model that most streaming companies put out (with the exception of tidal and apple music) is totally one sided/unscrupulous, unless you have an exclusive deal with said company, which is nearly impossible to even pull off unless you have an insane bite of music distributing market share.

The way I see it, streaming is the best option that could exist for the consumer. It's legal, it's affordable, it gives you access to all the music you could want.

The issue is that you can never count on the corporate suits to pay a fair share, even if they can keep their operating costs to a minimum. 

19 hours ago, SonicThHedgog said:

*edit* You just reminded me that I had a tape and vhs collection of recorded music videos which I used to listen to all the time haha

I had some tapes from the radio, too.

I also have a lot of tapes from stores that I still listen to. Mostly these ones at the moment. =D 

[JohnStacy]

So I posted a rant on here recently about feeling like people who don't really belong get handed jobs while I have to work really hard to get even considered.  Mostly it's a political game and the good ole boys from the university get everything in the area, but still felt good to complain about  it.

This is decently related.

A point I bring up occasionally in discussions relates to saturation of the market.  I'm going to venture into a subcategory and talk about mainstream vs. niche.

I can't remember the thread, but somebody was basically asking how to be successful in the VGM scene, and why they weren't being successful.  Asking what they did, they did metal covers of mainly 8-bit music.  The discussion was productive, constructive, and a lot of good communication happened. (another thing I'm happy about OCR btw, teacher gatherings can turn into acid raining down form the sky)  An example I give is Wily Stage from Megaman 2, and the comically absurd amount of metal covers there are of it.  By cover I mean note for note from the original but with guitars.  So if you're a metal guitarist, doing covers of Wily Stage, and you basically sound the same as the 1200 other people who have already done it, your youtube channel will have 6 subscribers and 40 total views, because you don't stand out.  Very few people want to wade through 1200 virtually identical metal covers of Wily Stage hoping they find a good one.

When it comes to mainstream music (here referring to what is produced on a large stream for mass audiences), this both applies and doesn't.  It has to be somewhat new and fresh, but also very accessible to the average listener, but even then, no it doesn't.  Talking with people about modern Christian worship music, it basically has turned into generic love song, but shaded to fit in a worship context.  Why does it sound distinctive from pop music?  Because it kind of developed in a musical vacuum.  It evolved largely on its own which is why it didn't really follow pop trends as closely.  Christian record labels were, and still are somewhat niche.  Quick look at a stats site tells me that it makes about half the revenue of country music.  I live in Texas.  Country music is a BIG deal here.  Christian music is a BIGGER deal here.  There are a lot of bands that do Christian music but refuse the label so that they aren't put in that box where people won't listen to them.  The watering down of the genre is a result of the labels avoiding risks.  That doesn't have much grounding in reality, since a lot of the people are buying the music because it's available and it's basically the least bad option.

Where to go from here?  People are generally a lot more open to unique music than the labels give them credit for.  Honestly, if the radio stations and everywhere were to start blaring pop music based on 12 tone music from 1910, eventually people would think that 12 tone influenced pop were the new thing.  Exposure makes people tend to enjoy things.  A lot of pop music really is very bad.  But if you hear it a few times, the familiarity of it makes it not seem that bad.

A lot of musicians are trying to do that.  They're trying to be the next big thing, and as a result they end up with a sound that resembles the current big thing, but isn't very distinctive.  I'm really talking on a large scale.  Every musician has something that makes them stand out, if they're doing original works.  But really, if there are 20 bands out there trying to be the next big thing, and they are all sounding like Portugal. the Man, but not as high quality, why would anybody listen to them when they could just listen to the real one?  When it comes to people talking about a saturated market, they're exactly right.  There are too many people trying to go where the money is, and they end up sounding like the other people going where the money is.  Personal dig, a lot of guitar players I know that complain about not being successful have absolutely no regard for musicality or style, but still insist on doing their thing that doesn't work. The ones who do something different enough to stand out, but similar enough to blend in are the ones who succeed.

I really think a lot of the state of the music industry today, with mainstream music is directly related to the lessening of value of music in the school system.  A lot of elementary music education in the US is a joke, and I think it's the reason for a lot of problems in the music industry.  In a lot of public schools, which the majority of the population goes to, music education is edutainment that doesn't actually teach music.  By the end of 4th or 5th grade, the students might can sing a single line matching pitch, but even that is a stretch sometimes.  It's not a fault by the music teachers, a lot of them only see a specific group of kids once a week, the other days of the week are other groups of kids.  And there's a lot of red tape, and there's really short class times (~30 minutes), and this and that.  Plus, economic issues causing kids to be hard to teach (why should I pay attention in class when I haven't eaten in 3 days and I don't know if I'll ever see my dad again because mom's new boyfriend beat him up again).  Then there's secondary education, mostly band, orchestra, or choir, which is optional and being cut more and more as the days go on.  The simplification and homogenization of pop music wouldn't be noticed at all because most of the population doesn't actually know anything about music.

When I stand in front of students, especially those in rural schools, the students have this idea that music is what they hear on the radio.  Music in school is something that vaguely resembles music, but is boring.  I can show the trumpet players Maynard Ferguson, Herp Alpert, or the saxophone players Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, and they will be in awe.  But the trumpet or saxophone they hold in their hands they insist is a completely different instrument.  I can grab their trumpet and play the Gonna Fly Now solo and they will still insist it's a completely different instrument (subconsciously).  Beyond that, okay, I played my boring band music, can I got beat the snot out of the drumset now?  Marching band is what these kids really like, only for the reason that they get to play the music they hear on the radio in band.  All other music they play is just sound that resembles music and is just filler, and as a result they just affirm that they aren't musicians and just listen to the popular music.  This creates a demand that affirms that the labels and other sources should just be conservative with what they sell.  They have the marketing money, so they win.

Wow.  This went on for a while.  I haven't tried to really succeed in the music industry proper, mainly because all my performance experience is in live gigs, and small time studio work.  I'm not trying to market JohnStacy the artist to try to sell music to whoever.  I'm happy doing that, and doing the teaching thing.  But, I'm getting more and more of those gigs because I'm similar (a brass player who can play both classical and jazz, and can work in any musical setting) but different (I'm a french horn player who can do this, and do this well, in a lot of cases better and more reliable than the trumpet and trombone players).  I'm also observing people around me, both in person and on the internet.  A lot of the ones doing well are doing something unique, but accessible and know how to market themselves.