Conan Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340198831' post='1700873'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? More Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? About the same number Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Easier Is more good music being made or less? More [/quote] Have you any evidence for these assertions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earbrass Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Wil' timestamp='1340198681' post='1700867'] If all music were free, the only people with any reason to make music would be those who had something to say or a deep love of it. [/quote] This. [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340199116' post='1700880'] Yes but I think "your day" is longer ago than you realise [/quote] Harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottomE Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340197122' post='1700805'] All this talk of making a living from being in an originals band makes me laugh. It is and always has been extremely difficult to make a living from writing, recording and performing music. A very small percentage of those who embark down that road succeed. This is no different today than it has always been. Many artists back in the day maintained other full time employment after signing possibly lucrative recording contracts. Things are little different today. It's not the illegal distribution that is preventing artists from making a living from music. It's probably more to do with the poor marketing behind the music. To get a hit takes pots of cash in marketing. Many artists don't have that support. This is no different now than it was back in the day. Our record company spent next to nothing on promotion. We were lucky: John Peel liked us. Some radiojocks in Spain,Italy and Greece liked us. We have never been in a position to give up our day jobs. We're recording our 7th studio album at the moment. Even if this was to 'do an Elbow' and go platinum, I think only one or two of us would give up our day jobs - I don't think I would. To earn a living from original material is an unrealistic expectation. [/quote] Great post and also sums up my experience. There is no connection between how professional a musician is and/or if they are full-time or part time. Thats plain ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340198365' post='1700853'] For one thing, all those medium sized gigs are gone. Basically, live music is either Enormodrome gigs by dreadful old dinosaurs / simpering pop kids. Or it's a bunch of no hopers down the Frog and Dog. Nothing in the middle, see. In my day you could see name bands in 1000 cap venues. Where are they now, the likes of ... [/quote] they still exist: O2 academy Loads of venues in Europe smaller 300-400 I'd say there are as many of too: eg Purple Turtle OK so we have lost The Astoria/The Marquee and the Mean Fiddler but there are still plenty of venues Edited June 20, 2012 by Twigman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340198831' post='1700873'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? More Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? About the same number Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Easier Is more good music being made or less? More What's your point? [/quote] My point is that that things have got worse not better. Had the internet had any benefit we would be enjoying it. But I think the majority here would agree we are not. Your post is also quite eye-poppingly incorrect about 'good music'. Music today is mostly complete toilet-spackle. The idea that unleashing a technologically-driven tidal wave of unaccomplished, derivative drivel is good and somehow 'levels the playing field' may be a commonly-held belief but that doesn't make it correct. Try hawking the proposition 'music today is better than it was' around this forum and most would disagree. It's just an issue of perception and taste. The fact is, any dweeb with a DAW can knock out a few chords and parade the result on the web. Doesn't make it any good, whatever his mum and his mates might say. BTW, I'm genuinely pleased that your old band has enjoyed a late flowering among discerning afficionados. But I don't accept that this is proof of the promotional benefits of downloading because it's such a statistically microscopic one-off that it is irrelevant to the debate. NOI. The other thing is, don't take me too seriously on anything I say. One way or another, I couldn't give a f*** about the 'future of music'. I play Country, y'see. [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340199116' post='1700880'] Yes but I think "your day" is longer ago than you realise [/quote] Oh, my trick knees, bad back, agonising gout, bald head and white beard are a constant reminder. Fact is, quality is timeless, which is why the old is good and (most) of the new is inferior. Same goes for music, too. [color=#ffffff].[/color] . Edited June 20, 2012 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Conan' timestamp='1340199401' post='1700891'] Have you any evidence for these assertions? [/quote] I work in an industry supporting the touring industry. We are as busy as ever. While some venues close (Astoria others open to take their place O2 Academy) We're certainly finding it easier to get gigs than we did 20 years ago More music is being made - music is much cheaper to make - whether any of it is good could be debated but if it is true that a certain percentage of the music is 'good' then it follows that more 'good' music id being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340200534' post='1700920'] My point is that that things have got worse not better. Had the internet had any benefit we would be enjoying it. But I think the majority here would agree we are not. [/quote] I strongly disagree. The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever given to the artist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle psychosis Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 The "full time musicians have more time to spend on getting good" argument is a weird one. There must be thousands of bands out there who've released one or two brilliant records at the start of their career when they were nobodies and working part time in McDonalds and then when they hit the big time they just get worse, not better. Paul McCartney was brilliant, forty years ago. He's also loaded, so he doesn't have to worry about money. Has he got any better since 1970? Some musicians get better when they are able to spend 100% of their time on their music. Other musicians just burn out and run out of things to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 From what I have read, the 60s and 70s saw an explosion of festivals and touring bands, and a lot of bands were able to make a reasonable living from their music. (we can argue about whether the music was good or original or if there was much variety between acts...). This began to decline in the 80s and there has been a steady decline since - totally un-related to the internet. At the same time the number of musicians and actually recorded music has increased almost exponentially, due to developments in technology. [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] ...The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever... [/quote] Well, yeh, and I don't think anyone can really disagree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHUFC BASS Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] I strongly disagree. The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever given to the artist [/quote] I agree - you no longer need to rely on the big record companies to get yourself noticed and you no longer need to be constantly chasing that lucrative record deal and be at the mercy of some jumped up A&R man. The internet really has been a revolution in terms of taking back power and giving it to the bands (where it belongs). Record piracy is nothing new anyway. Its been going on since the 70s. Remember the whole "Home Taping is Killing Music" line that was being sold to us all ? Well I dunno but I think music is very much alive and kicking. The record companies didn't like it because it was eating into their massive profits. Anyone remember being ripped off £15 or £16 for a CD when they first came out in the 90s? Record companies have been having it good for years and failed to adapt to emerging ways or performing and producing music and have been bitten in the bum because of it. Stick it up your 'arris record companies - karma is a great thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle psychosis Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='WHUFC BASS' timestamp='1340202925' post='1700965'] I agree - you no longer need to rely on the big record companies to get yourself noticed and you no longer need to be constantly chasing that lucrative record deal and be at the mercy of some jumped up A&R man. The internet really has been a revolution in terms of taking back power and giving it to the bands (where it belongs). [/quote] Yes, but its a double edged sword. Its easier to D-I-Y because of the medium but it also makes things harder in many ways. [quote] Anyone remember being ripped off £15 or £16 for a CD when they first came out in the 90s? [/quote] CD sales are dropping. However, I'd wager that for a long time cd sales were artificially high because people bought cd copies of things they already owned to replace their old vinyl/casettes (I know I did). I probably buy just as many "new" cds as I ever did, but I'm buying less cds overall because I've managed to catch up on all the "old" stuff that I didn't have on cd yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] I strongly disagree.[/quote] That's OK. [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever given to the artist [/quote] Lots of people say that. And they're wrong too. Inexpensive ubiquity might [i]seem[/i] like a good thing on the surface, but when a market's barriers to entry are so low and the numbers of aspirant bands are so high, it is almost impossible to achieve the kind of cut-through necessary for an artist to build awareness and move on to the next stage of their career. Fact is, it was easier to break a band when there were fewer 'channels'. Fewer numbers of deals to strike, less dicking around with amateur pundits and know-all internet reviewers. Few bob in the right DJ's pocket, beer up a couple of brown-nosing print journos and job done. All gone, now of course. It is far more expedient that power be in the hands of few. And a bit of quality control might ensure that most of the crap would never reach an audience's ears. This pious 'internet for the little people win' thing is a romantic mirage that just gets in the way of business. Fact is, there are too many bands out there and 95% of them are commercially useless - either technically, musically or just in terms of marketability. It would benefit the greater cause of 'music' - if not those crowds of hopeful hobbyists - if 95 'musicians' out of 100 gave up and sold their instruments. That way the accomplished and the marketable could garner sufficient gig and record income to support themselves. The rest of us could go watch them and say "They're great. I used to be in a band once, but we were sh*t." As it is, the talentless hordes are smothering the worthy few. [color=#ffffff].[/color] Edited June 20, 2012 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottomE Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='WHUFC BASS' timestamp='1340202925' post='1700965'] Stick it up your 'arris record companies - karma is a great thing. [/quote] Yes, nice. The music industry was a very closed shop - a plaything for the few huge labels that could make or break artists. Thankfully the landscape has changed and power has returned in some ways to the artist. There is a massive variety of music available now that i would never had heard of in the 70s and 80s as there was no way to access it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='WHUFC BASS' timestamp='1340202925' post='1700965'] Record piracy is nothing new anyway. Its been going on since the 70s. Remember the whole "Home Taping is Killing Music" line that was being sold to us all ? Well I dunno but I think music is very much alive and kicking. [/quote] As I've said twice now in this thread, home taping was never going to kill music. It was too slow, complicated and the taped quality never matched that of the record. A digital copy is easy takes seconds and is identical to the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottomE Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340203441' post='1700975'] Fact is, it was easier to break a band when there were fewer 'channels'. Fewer numbers of deals to strike, less dicking around with amateur pundits and know-alls. It was far more expedient that power be in the hands of few. And a bit of quality control ensured that most of the crap would never reach an audience's ears. As it is, the talentless hordes are smothering the worthy few. [/quote] Way i see it is that now I can choose what to listen to its not down to a few execs or a Radio 1 DJ. The explosion of channels is a good thing. Yes, there is a lot of rubbish around - but there always was. At least now i can choose if something is rubbish or not and not have that decision made for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340200534' post='1700920'] My point is that that things have got worse not better. Had the internet had any benefit we would be enjoying it. But I think the majority here would agree we are not. [/quote] Well that's a big subject you've just touched on there. What "things" have you in mind and have they all got worse because of the internet? And "worse not better" is rather subjective so that's a doubly-sweeping statement which probably makes it doubly pointless. [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340200534' post='1700920'] The other thing is, don't take me too seriously on anything I say. [/quote] Ah, I see. OK then. As you were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340203441' post='1700975'] It is far more expedient that power be in the hands of few. And a bit of quality control might ensure that most of the crap would never reach an audience's ears. [color=#ffffff].[/color] [/quote] Let me be the judge of that - not the commercially minded record company exec whose only interest is the bottom line. Who is he to decide what I like or should be listening to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 when I was at school we used to complain about how the radio stations always played the "commercial crap" and how little merit there was to the acts that were "broken" by the music industry. Rightly so! There is some sh*te on the radio and always has been. Getting more acts out there is only going to open up the possibility of there being less sh*te on the radio. Getting less acts out there will reduce this possibility. Isn't it simple maths? Obviously if you want to be in a famous band and get rich from it then the fact that every band can market itself is a big downer. But if you ignore the economic side of the debate, the internet is clearly exposing more people to more music, and this can only be a good thing in terms of "musical merit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 If a bunch of musicians (well, bass players ) can't agree on this subject it's no wonder that the world at large doesn't agree either. What amazes me is that many people think they can stop these changes and hang on to the 'old ways'. Times change and the winners are those who embrace those changes and use them to their own benefit. The losers are the ones who cling on to a nostalgic memory of how things used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottomE Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Just a little bit of nostalgie to remind us all of how those highly paid execs exerted quality control back in the day... [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dldJCeZjcBo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dldJCeZjcBo[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1340204081' post='1700988'] What "things" have you in mind and have they all got worse because of the internet? And "worse not better" is rather subjective so that's a doubly-sweeping statement which probably makes it doubly pointless. [/quote] What I originally said was: [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Is more good music being made or less? [/quote] So I'm not saying the internet has made these issues worse. But it certainly hasn't improved them. Despite what some may misguidedly aver, things are definitely more sh*t than they were. But I [i]am[/i] saying the internet has made marketing bands a far more complicated and expensive exercise. That's worse, depending on one's POV. Of course, if one is in a band with little or no appeal, the internet must seem like a marvellous thing. So, bands that broke through off the back of the internet? Arctic Monkeys? and - er ... It's all bollocks and everyone is ghastly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340204189' post='1700991'] Who is he to decide what I like or should be listening to? [/quote] Well, he's the one paying for it so you can listen for free. Seems fair to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] So, bands that broke through off the back of the internet? Arctic Monkeys? and - er ... [/quote] I'm actually very interested in this question. There was a lot of suggestion that the Arctic Monkeys owed more to major labels than they did the internet. Personally I have heard a hell of a lot of new bands through Spotify and friends, and I can only assume these bands would not have come to my attention if it weren't for the internet. Perhaps the majority of "airtime" on spotify is taken up by major label acts though - I don't know, it'd be very interesting to see the relevant statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] So I'm not saying the internet has made these issues worse. But it certainly hasn't improved them. Despite what some may misguidedly aver, things are definitely more sh*t than they were. [/quote] Where did you get your sh*t-O-Meter to make such a definitive statement? [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] But I [i]am[/i] saying the internet has made marketing bands a far more complicated and expensive exercise. That's worse, depending on one's POV. Of course, if one is in a band with little or no appeal, the internet must seem like a marvellous thing. [/quote] More complicated, perhaps, but not far more expensive. The problem with these sorts of discussions is that they're too general. Thus, the internet has no doubt been a bad thing for the big labels and the suits but it has also been a very good thing for independent bands, who can now reach huge numbers of people for very little outlay. Some of those bands will, of course, be utter sh*te but some will be brilliant - and of course there'll be no consensus about which is which, but the point is that the internet enables them to be heard for the audience to make that judgement themselves and not rely on someone like John Peel making the decision for them. I'd say this is a good thing. [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] It's all bollocks and everyone is ghastly. [/quote] Ah, now you're talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340205133' post='1701017'] I'm actually very interested in this question. There was a lot of suggestion that the Arctic Monkeys owed more to major labels than they did the internet. [/quote] I thought it was because Gordon Brown said he listened to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.