The Problem With Music: Still a Problem (Cracker/CVB ed.)

[AnthonyCinder]

Before today, I honestly had no idea that members of Camper Van Beethoven were also in Cracker and Counting Crows. Now, it makes complete sense why I never liked CVB.

[Isabelle Gall]

At most is seems that, providing you had a problem with it, all anyone could possibly argue is that the current situation isn't entirely ideal. So, no change there then, which may be reassuring for those seemingly resistant to change.

More than ever before, there are all kinds of opportunities available to anyone making music excellent or unusual enough to be noticed. The more commercial your music is, the less chance you have these days of anyone giving a shit. That's an interesting development which could equal either less homogeneity or diminished appreciation of craft down the line. However, under the old model, you always knew who your audience were. You don't anymore, which seems like a huge improvement to me.

That I can go to work and make some money to buy this equipment to record what's in my head seems like a small miracle, let alone releasing it and having other people actually listen to it. Is the glass half empty or half full? Half full for as long as I'm given the choice. Eat your cake.

[galanter]

I personally feel the same way, Auntie.
I want artists to be compensated. I support FMC looking for new ways for them to be compensated (though I reiterate that I'm speaking for myself in this thread, since this isn't what I work on for them).
But as a player I don't feel like art and shoe making are the same thing. The latter is a business pursuit. If you're good, you can pay your bills with it - that's how it's always been. Almost nobody pays their bills with art, however they keep doing it because they don't "go out of business" if they make no money at it. Who keeps making shoes if they lose money at it?

Gallanter, the reason I keep asking you about your personal experiences is because everything you say is based on theory and flowery ideas of what *should* be.
I want every artist to be rich and happy even though they never have been in recorded history, save a very, very select few.
So the problem you want solved has existed before the internet, MP3's, or even recorded music. If artists have never been fairly compensated how do you expect for that to happen now, and how exactly is this the result of file sharing, YouTube, etc?

I play out, I tour, I've played on records, I record music that gets released, I work with all sorts of musicians that play for all sorts of reasons and get paid a little or a lot.
I'm telling you that it's a better landscape for most people who are out there playing music and I say this from day to day experience which I'm assuming you don't have at this point. I don't claim that others aren't having different experiences, but I am saying that I haven't seen any data that says it was once good for your average musician and now it sucks. Your arguments are based on theory and some notions about what's right/wrong/moral and the society you want to live in. I'm saying society is fucking awesome and art has never had so many chances to be alive and present - nothing is holding us back anymore. You counter that with what you think should be, but never was.

So at this point I'm inclined to say keep living the world you live in, keep thinking the sky is falling, and keep being nostalgic for a time that was exclusive and pretty much sucked for musicians, and I'll be over here taking full advantage of opportunities I never in my wildest dreams though would exist.

-A

I would never deny anyone their happiness. But for me this is practical reality not puffy cloud theory.

I guess it in part depends on who you know and who you know of. I know and know of plenty of people past and present who were/are able to live off of their income as artists. Most to nearly all do so without having to pander to popular taste. Granted this is a small minority of those who call themselves artists. It typically doesn't happen right away. But it happens. We should structure technology to allow it to happen more often not less.

[EmpireStateTroopers]

All people should take a stab at supporting themselves though means other than art and learn how to be happy doing so. Then our 'career artists' probably wouldn't have their heads quite so far up their own asses.

[Daffodil Column]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

[DrAwkward]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

Pretty sure the Brainiac dudes were all bartending in Dayton or something like that when they were a band. If "bartender" counts as a day job.

[whoisalhedges]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

Pretty sure the Brainiac dudes were all bartending in Dayton or something like that when they were a band. If "bartender" counts as a day job.

Well, that, and apparently Daffodil Column doesn't "really like" any PRF bands.

[howiemarx]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

Most of Louisville's musicians had & have day jobs.
Steve & Bob both have day jobs.
Shannon Wright did remodeling/construction.
Pretty sure Todd is a fashion expert, greyhound handler.
Really the statement is pretty ridiculous. Most if not all the awesome bands on this forum have day jobs.

[DrAwkward]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

Pretty sure the Brainiac dudes were all bartending in Dayton or something like that when they were a band. If "bartender" counts as a day job.

Well, that, and apparently Daffodil Column doesn't "really like" any PRF bands.

Oh, so he's trolling? Got it.

[Luzwei]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

Pretty sure the Brainiac dudes were all bartending in Dayton or something like that when they were a band. If "bartender" counts as a day job.

Well, that, and apparently Daffodil Column doesn't "really like" any PRF bands.

Oh, so he's trolling? Got it.

or he is not really into reality. one of those two things.

[154]

What I really want to know is how earning 20 cents or whatever on every YouTube or Spotify play you get is supposed to make a career at music easy 'again'..

[EmpireStateTroopers]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

absolutely retarded. unless the only band you really like is AC/DC, then ok.

[alex maiolo]

I can't think of a single member of a single band that I really like that had a day job at the same time they were recording the music that made me a fan of them.

absolutely retarded. unless the only band you really like is AC/DC, then ok.

Yes, because Daffodil clearly doesn't like Mission Of Burma, what with those stupid day jobs they've had for most of their music careers.

-A

[scntfc]

All people should take a stab at supporting themselves though means other than art and learn how to be happy doing so. Then our 'career artists' probably wouldn't have their heads quite so far up their own asses.

true. it's feast or famine, and those that are doing well aren't doing the starving artists any favors by acting like selfish entitled assholes. we need less lars ulrichs and more ian mackayes.

[alex maiolo]

All people should take a stab at supporting themselves though means other than art and learn how to be happy doing so. Then our 'career artists' probably wouldn't have their heads quite so far up their own asses.

true. it's feast or famine, and those that are doing well aren't doing the starving artists any favors by acting like selfish entitled assholes. we need less lars ulrichs and more ian mackayes.

Well put. They're lucky people to get to do what they are doing, even though they've worked hard, which certainly helps your luck.
I look at it like a lottery that I enjoy playing. Maybe someone will place one of our songs in a movie or something.
What's more realistic is maybe after some of our songs are passed around some new fans will buy stuff from us - that happens often enough and keeps the band going.
That's possible these days.

-A

[JohnnyDoglands]

We seems to do this 'filesharing/piracy is killing music' arguement twice a year, every year.
People seem to forget that the copying of music was going on way before filesharing ever existed. People seem to forget that the best way to guarantee a comfortable living from music was always to make music that is commercial and popular. Art is only profitable if it is in demand, same as anything else.

Lowery's article reminds of a (much shorter) article I read written by an old Accordion teacher. The Accordion was a popular instrument once up a time, and he was making a very good living teaching kids to play. Then along came those damn Beatles and suddenly the students started to disappear, taking up guitar lessons instead.

Times change, and those who can adapt will always keep their heads above water. If you want to make money, then you have to have a product that people want. It's no good expecting to make a living as a thatcher when everyone wants a tiled roof.

[Superking]

We seems to do this 'filesharing/piracy is killing music' arguement twice a year, every year.
People seem to forget that the copying of music was going on way before filesharing ever existed. People seem to forget that the best way to guarantee a comfortable living from music was always to make music that is commercial and popular. Art is only profitable if it is in demand, same as anything else.

Lowery's article reminds of a (much shorter) article I read written by an old Accordion teacher. The Accordion was a popular instrument once up a time, and he was making a very good living teaching kids to play. Then along came those damn Beatles and suddenly the students started to disappear, taking up guitar lessons instead.

Times change, and those who can adapt will always keep their heads above water. If you want to make money, then you have to have a product that people want. It's no good expecting to make a living as a thatcher when everyone wants a tiled roof.

Johnny Doglands, I mostly agree, but would add that perhaps there is a new wrinkle to the current debate that did not exist for your accordion teacher, and that is this:

if your accordion teacher had videotaped a short accordion lesson, and hosted it on YouTube, where it became an internet hit. Etc., etc.

By the way, I'm not sure how the Google advertisement thing works these days, but I have a friend who made a short instructional video about how to hook up some kind of computer cable, and it suddenly got a bunch of traffic. After 100,000 views (I think), Google/YouTube contacted him about putting a short ad at the head of his video, with part of the profits being shared with him. Does that still happen? Is that how it works? I don't know.

In any case, I feel the current debate is a bit larger than "illegal copying".

That is all.

Godspeed.

[steve]

I know and know of plenty of people past and present who were/are able to live off of their income as artists. Most to nearly all do so without having to pander to popular taste. Granted this is a small minority of those who call themselves artists. It typically doesn't happen right away. But it happens. We should structure technology to allow it to happen more often not less.

If your music/art is not making money in the commercial sphere and you're not willing to perform live, then the only ways you can make a living would be through the generosity of a patron, academia or grantsmanship. Those avenues are unaffected by content being available for free on the internet.

[scntfc]

In any case, I feel the current debate is a bit larger than "illegal copying".

yes. another wrinkle in the debate is the "vacuuming nickels off of the globe" method of making money. many of the variables that are at play for more traditional enterprises have been minimized by the likes of facebook, google/youtube, spotify, et. al., which in turn makes it easier for them to look at pennies-per-transaction methods of turning a profit. it's a smart way to do business for the simple fact that it minimizes risk to an almost absurd degree.

thing is though - and this is how it relates to the topic at hand - is that these types of companies have replaced the traditional workforce with millions and millions of voluntary users (on both the consumer and provider sides). so instead of 1,000 employees each trying to generate $1,000 for the company, they now have 1,000,000 generating $.001 each. this is great for the company: no training. no hiring. no firing. no employee complaints. no unions. i mean, who the hell is going to complain if you just stiffed them over a couple pennies? who the hell would even know?

so. my dislike for contributing to services like spotify isn't because "they're stealing my livelihood!".

it is because they are corporate assholes. just like bp, or mcdonalds, or wal-mart.

why on earth would i want them to make a profit off of my hard work without at least getting my fair share in return? we all have to work for the man in some capacity, i just want us all to get a fair shake.

I know and know of plenty of people past and present who were/are able to live off of their income as artists. Most to nearly all do so without having to pander to popular taste. Granted this is a small minority of those who call themselves artists. It typically doesn't happen right away. But it happens. We should structure technology to allow it to happen more often not less.

If your music/art is not making money in the commercial sphere and you're not willing to perform live, then the only ways you can make a living would be through the generosity of a patron, academia or grantsmanship. Those avenues are unaffected by content being available for free on the internet.

if anything, i think it helps. the more disassociated art/weirdo/punk/whatever music is from traditional forms of commerce, the more willing arts organizations are to accept them for consideration for funding.

[AnthonyCinder]

Really the statement is pretty ridiculous. Most if not all the awesome bands on this forum have day jobs.

Yup.