What's the future of the music industry?

I can only imagine that most bands lose money touring, short strong t-shirt sales. From gas to lodging to food to other incidentals, it just doesn't add up unless you're earning big guarantees. Or touring solo, I imagine. Maybe Aero or Owen can illuminate/refute.

That Quietus article is just an elaborate way of saying that everything was better in our time and they're scared of the future.

this could also be an argument in favor of thinning the herd.

Well, it's also never been easier/cheaper to record and release a record for free, with no expectation of recompense, so I don't know if the herd will ever be thinned. One ramification of that is that the glut may devalue music, in the sense that so much free music may condition people to expect free music.

may condition? it already has!

xxp I'm actually planning to run for POTUS in 2016 as the "there is just too damn much music" party candidate

i feel like for the most part, music has entered the realm of folk art. It's something everyone can do, and more people are doing it than would make for a healthy economy with music as a commodity.

wrt thinning the herd

i don't think so. the desire to live like that doesn't correlate to the most talent

m@tt, agreed, as in "the herd should be thinned" because that's what the situation is right now

i feel like for the most part, music has entered the realm of folk art. It's something everyone can do, and more people are doing it than would make for a healthy economy with music as a commodity.

^^^ding ding. I've been saying this for years. oddly we're going to reverting back to the system that was in place PRIOR to recorded music - massive amounts of people making it at their own cost for their own amusement, with an upper strata of paid musicians financed by rich patrons (ie corporations)

going to

If every cd was $5 I would start buying music, I guess. Sorry musicians but I'm a poor skeezbag too

Many of my favourite bands in the world are ones that my friends are in

You must either have an amazing circle of friends or really bad taste in music.

... or a different relation to the concepts of "music" and "taste" than you

right, "bad taste in music."

mebbe taste doesn't even enter into it

so... no taste?

Joking aside though, there's something about that statement that bothers me and it aligns with the arguments here in favor of amateur music or music as a purely folk practice. Clearly by any measure of greatness, the greatest musicians in the world at any given time are not all going to live in the same city and be acquaintances with you (apart from a small group of people who do personally know the greatest musicians in the world). So if you find yourself only listening to music made by your friends, that seems like a conscious decision to restrict your listening and just settle for mediocre music.

The "anyone who has a different concept of music or taste than me obviously has bad taste" thing was a joke (funny because it's true). But I do think that limited and narrow tastes can never be as good as broader tastes.

they can make people happy tho

I'm not trying to argue in favor of closed-mindedness or anything, just saying — the reason I have such "good taste" is that, as a teenager, I felt alienated from the pop music on the radio and the people around me who consumed it, so I spent a lot of time and effort looking for things I liked better, and I learned a lot about what's out there. but unless yr end goal is to become a music journalist or musicologist or something, I don't see why that approach is inherently better than getting together with some friends to make our own music. (NB: I heard a lot of mediocre music during this period of my life, too)

I have been rereading that Jacques Attali book lately and it has me thinking about all this stuff

also taking a jazz history course

and: the reason I am giving you such a hard time is that I felt your first post was a beautiful example of the very things that Bourdieu criticized about the notion of "taste"

I'm sure the whole "friend-rock" thing is absolutely fantastic if you live in a city like Toronto or Oslo.

Or indeed a city which is large enough and prominent enough in its country to 1) attract the caliber of people to form such a scene in the first place and 2) have enough money sloshing around the city to provide the kind of dayjobs that enable people to participate in such a scene. And yet not large enough or prominent to force rents and living prices up high enough to drive those people out, or cut-throat enough to inspire the kind of unhealthy financial competition that ruins scenes in, for example, NYC or London. (Also, geographically isolated to not have the gravitational pull of a larger city or scene, hence why places like Portland, OR or Hull sprang great local scenes, but cities of similar size closer to, for example, LA or London just don't.)

But why some local scenes are great and others are barren is a whole topic in itself.

I'm always impressed by how smaller countries whose government arts programs actively foster music talent end up with music scenes that punch so far above their populational weight (thinking of Toronto and Oslo) - I don't know if Canada going conservative have erradicated their whole grant system, but I do think that had a lot to do with how Canada kept a thriving music scene (also the whole Cancon system.) That in larger countries like the US and UK there's this notion that the "market will provide" for good music, while in smaller countries there is the understanding that the market will just overwhelm you with cheap imported goods if you give it half a chance, so you have to make some provision for local artists to have some other source of funding if you want your own culture to thrive. That even folk art needs perservation and support.

I don't know how this idea will fare in austerity cutback climates.

The UK is fond of entirely symbolic gestures towards this like the whole miserable "musicians dole" thing while dismantling structures to support it. (But then you see people like Adele who have benefited from going to schools with government arts support turn around and say they don't want to pay taxes to support the next generation, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish beyond the remit of this thread.)

"^^^ding ding. I've been saying this for years. oddly we're going to reverting back to the system that was in place PRIOR to recorded music - massive amounts of people making it at their own cost for their own amusement, with an upper strata of paid musicians financed by rich patrons (ie corporations)"

I could be okay with this, but (at least here in Italy) the circle of friends you're playing with/for is becoming every year smaller and smaller - and the change in how we listen to music has certainly a major role.
Also, traditional folk music implied the existence of a community sharing experiences, culture, ethics, and this explained its deep resonance: again, playing with/for a number of friends in your living room isn't exactly the same.

I agree with that completely.

This is a great thread!

I'm quite happy playing music, and occasionally promoting gigs, for my own, and friends' pleasure. Helped by, as Kate(?) says above, a pretty ok music scene here. But then I get mails from only-very-slightly-more-popular bands demanding guarantees in the mid-hundreds and think, are we doing ourselves an injustice - by being happy to play for nowt, for fun, are we shooting ourselves in the collective feet?

Or are the [BAND NAME REDACTED] just a pair of greedy fuckers?

>Or are the [BAND NAME REDACTED]

My wife just went through a weird booking experience with a benefit she's help run for years. Someone higher up in her organization really, really wanted her to get a particular local band, and for several months, the band had agreed to play. By the time it came to arrange the show, they explained that they'd just let go of the day jobs, and they'd need to be paid. My wife thought it was implicit that the show was a *benefit*, looked for alternatives, but she was then informed to book them at all costs. Then they mentioned that they also needed a certain sound guy. And so the price rose to the mid-hundreds, which they said was standard for them. Of course, looking at their schedule, it's places like The Book Nook, Fredericksburg.

Now, if you play socially-acceptable music, its really nice to get a city parks gig an get a reasonable payout and such. But I think bilking a not profit's benefit, especially when it's the bake sale that makes the cash for the organization, is pretty darn gauche.

I strongly dislike the idea that touring is the only way for a musician to make money. Many of my favourite albums were by bands who didn't tour at all, and preferred to perfect their work in the studio rather than to travel around the world playing inferior versions for an audience. Late career Beatles, Scritti Politti, 10cc, Prefab Sprout, mid-to-late career 10cc. All brilliant, none of them bothering to play their material live.

many of my favourite books were by dudes who got paid by wealthy noblemen to sit around on their arses writing books

bendy that story is ridiculous! Nobody charges for doing benefit gigs, that's the whole point!

Was drinking with an inudstry type friend of mine last night and he was saying that the main reason there are so many UK electronic/laptop types being hyped right now is that the labels have cottoned on that, compared to bands, they're very cheap and high-margin (produce and record themselves, easy and cheap to fly round everywhere on tour, don't have to bother with roadies and tour managers etc). Which was kinda 'durr' but I hadn't actually thought about it like that.

I used to think bands did Glastonbury for free as well.

xpost yeah, and also why MarkESmith used to slag off Billy Bragg was because he was cheaper (costs much reduced, therefore fee = half the price but bigger profit for the artist)

trying to work out who tom's BAND NAME REDACTED are, but it's safe to say they're probly greedy fuckers

Put it into the anagram server, see what happens.

I'll tell you after the weekend ;-)

the main reason there are so many UK electronic/laptop types being hyped right now is that the labels have cottoned on that, compared to bands, they're very cheap and high-margin

Also why rappers are so popular with labels and have been promoted heavily - recording vocals anywhere is cheap, and producers tend to be happy to work for points rather than cash. I.e. the music industry has switched to a low cost, low risk (and much lower margin) model. So, a big boost in label support for genres that can be made cheaply.

Not dissimilar to post-war touring costs bringing down the big bands, and bop combos coming to the fore. Now the bop combos are too expensive.

And how records became cheaper than seeing/putting on live bands....

xpost

There was also the development of decent amplification and electric instrumentation too, so you didn't need 10 horns or 8 trumpets to make an almighty racket.

good points! I find the whole topic of economics driving aesthetics fascinating.

It does sort of bum me out that DJing has become the most lucrative stream of income for lots of acts. I mean, that ain't working.

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREZ-Gx-G3MtXM80zTQOSyAgK-rgf4utC5O7FsuVj1UwVoRI56Cmw

If bands want to make more money playing than DJing they should try making music that people like to dance to innit

Yeah, like AC/DC! [/ xuckk]

I think DJing (as much as I like a good DJ set) is one step up from making a personal appearance at a shop opening. Not on an aesthetic level, just on a practical level.

Not to mention most musicians aren't good DJs. Competent maybe, but most lack the ability to 'read the crowd', or are simply not passionate enough about DJing.

DJing and Live concerts are both just secondhand work by musicians, who first and foremost are good at making music. Thus, it is important to find good ways to get paid for a songwriter, arranger or for putting together a good record in the studio. I feel that streaming may work to some extent, but only if they secure that all streaming customers do actually pay for the streams. I fully support Spotify's downgrading of their free content, and I hope they go even further, forcing their customers to pay. Those who have made recorded music deserve to get paid for it.

The idea that playing live is of secondary importance to musicians is the most hilariously batshit Geirism in a while.

Where do you get this myth that live renditions are inferior versions? have you never seen a great gig that's miles better than the record?

yeah even 10cc put out a double live album.

oh sorry matt, xp of course!