[Go to page: 1,...15,16,17]

[TomViolenz]

[BaronVonAbelDong]

It wasn't just a daft April fools rant or else I wouldn't have bothered posting it. Admittedly the silly bit about Taylor was the least interesting part... just in keeping with the thread title... that no longer exists.

(The result that was furthest from my mind was anyone taking it as a personal comment, directed towards themselves, what with so many others involved in the thread.)

I doubt it will be too long before some of the hints he made get played out, not by the exact same people but it's not so unrealistic to have a hardware company try and lead with software/service. That's Apple's forte anyway. I'll be very surprised if Beats gets anywhere near Spotify. Never know though.

For what it's worth to anyone I've found:

Selling vinyl direct to customer still works... it's shrinking though, but will still likely work for a few more years. Don't know about CD's as I don't like them.

Selling sample packs/presets/producer tools is growing. Multiple 5 figures a year, for a few days work, if you play it right. I know Tom that you probably equate that to selling t-shirts, but it's a decent income from something a bit closer to 'making music'.

And live performance of course...

Other than that, unless your playing the game at a high level, the arse has fallen out of it even more than when this thread started.

Still would love to hear from anyone 'making things work'... even on a small scale.

[stringtapper]

And live performance of course...

Careful. You're going to draw some soporific stares talking like this.

Still would love to hear from anyone 'making things work'... even on a small scale.

Define "things."

[BaronVonAbelDong]

You mean it's sleep inducing hearing that 'live' performance earns or that it's sleep inducing having to do it?

I'm on the side of the fence that is a bit fed up with 'advisors' telling me to go out and do more 'gigs' as it's the only option for 'real' money. Not sure where you stand on it?

By 'things' I was going back to the earlier discussion in the thread about what is actually working as far as generating an income from music making... in any shape or form.

I don't claim to know anything about anything and so rather than hearing people endlessly complaining about how Spotify has ruined life as we knew it (I'm not debating if it has or hasn't ) it would be great to hear from other people earning a living from music and how they do it. Am sure we all have some little tricks of our own trade we can share. Or is that too hippy?

I'm assuming people won't usually divulge specifics, but that is my interest. I don't believe it's doom and gloom out there... even for people starting out. Sure, talent helps, but there must be some people out there willing to swap stories on how it went with Bandcamp... or spamming everyone they know on Facebook... or whatever.

Would be great to help each other out with some 'tried it and these were the results' type of thing, instead of just bemoaning the state of the 'music biz'.

I've already chucked in what I know at the moment. Vinyl sales can still bring a return if you can target your market. CD I don't try because I can't see the point. Maybe I'm wrong. Creating tools for producers can have great results, but it's a different game to selling work as an 'artist'.

Streaming has resulted in very little for me... but that is to be expected as I'm a nobody.

Random phone calls or emails asking to license back catalogue don't count... I'm very much interested in taking an unknown track or even an unknown artist, for example, and finding a process that you can work, to have it bring back a bit of income... and then scale it up.

All things being equal of course. I understand there is a difference between someone trying to sell music that no one genuinely wants to hear. I don't mean that.

So, assuming the music works... what works right now for people?

I see people making 'running' or 'workout' music on Spotify and playing the whole keyword game so that they come up first in the results. Do they earn? No idea. Someone someplace does though. Not saying I'd want to even, but I'm interested in adapting any and all tactics out of curiosity.

Feel like sharing mate?

[stringtapper]

You mean it's sleep inducing hearing that 'live' performance earns or that it's sleep inducing having to do it?

Meaning that on an electronic music software forum you're going to find less people who actually perform live than on, say, talkbass.com. Any time I talk about performing live being the bulk of my musical output the posts usually go unanswered.

Of course I'm not talking about DJing or being a laptop performer (although I sometimes use laptops in performance). I'm talking about playing instruments with other people playing instruments (traditional or otherwise).

I'm on the side of the fence that is a bit fed up with 'advisors' telling me to go out and do more 'gigs' as it's the only option for 'real' money. Not sure where you stand on it?

I'm a gigging musician, so my stance is that it makes me money. But again, I'm talking about hired gun type of stuff, not being Richard D. James on a stage by myself.

By 'things' I was going back to the earlier discussion in the thread about what is actually working as far as generating an income from music making... in any shape or form.

But do you really mean any shape or form? This is essentially what I meant when I asked you to define "things." Because the rest of your post after this quote seems to indicate that you're talking about the producer/track maker strand of music making, which as I say all the time around here, ain't the only game in town.

I make all of my income from various sources including performing on a couple of different instruments and voice, giving lessons on specific instruments and on music theory or general music instruction, teaching college or institute courses in music and audio, and from live audio engineering gigs.

Most of the musicians I know cobble together their living from a range of jobs that lie within their musical skill set. The larger and more diversified that skill set is, the more gigs you're going to get.

But I have a feeling this isn't the kind of music making you're talking about.

Most of the writing I do using computers has ended up in various independent film projects which have had little or no budget, although I've done a few projects that paid.

I guess my view is that the whole "produca" angle seems like such a small sliver of the possibilities in the wide world of music that it's no wonder to me that people are wondering how to make music doing (only) it.

[TomViolenz]

I'm just sharing my thoughts, not my experience (as I have none yet).

Something like Tidal as the a new United artist could work in principal, but I doubt it's gonna happen.

I don't believe for a minute though that the people behind Tidal itself are sincere, otherwise they would have already told all prospected artists what their cut would be.

As I see it, to be fair the payment needs to be direct in either of two ways:
1:) Like iTunes Plus or Bandcamp. People pay for the "album" which not only gets them the music as a download, but also the right to stream it to any device they own.
2:) A paid subscription service (non of that paid through advertisement and spying on your fans crap) where the cut its determined on a per user basis. Meaning User 1: listens to only my stuff in a given month, I get all his money (minus the cut for the service of course). That's the only way that independent music with a small, but loyal fan base can survive.

Personally, I don't have much experience with giging, but I doubt that anyone, but already successful people, can make a living that way anymore. Because it's not just the market for record sales that's squeezing the artists out, it's the bookers and club owners just the same.

It's not unusual here in Berlin to be paid with a pet on the shoulder and a gram of coke for your work, all with a smirk on the face saying: But you are doing it for the love of the club culture and music, aren't you?!

I personally would never whore out like that (and I hate coke), but I guess that just means I will have a hard time getting a foot in the door.
And that's not only in electronic music. Here in Berlin there are small concerts in countless bars every night, where the typical singer songwriter duos play for free drinks and the permission to pass the hat around afterwards.

Problem is there are too many people, who are willing to do that, because they think they are building on their dream (and I guess daddy pays a nice allowance).

So yeah, honestly?! The whole thing looks rather dire
And I thought there would be money for nothing and chicks for free.....but then MTV don't even play music anymore

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Tom, thanks.

I'm just sharing my thoughts, not my experience (as I have none yet).

Something like Tidal as the a new United artist could work in principal, but I doubt it's gonna happen.

I don't believe for a minute though that the people behind Tidal itself are sincere, otherwise they would have already told all prospected artists what their cut would be.

Doubt they will even get out of the gate though. Would hope to be proven wrong.

2:) A paid subscription service (non of that paid through advertisement and spying on your fans crap) where the cut its determined on a per user basis. Meaning User 1: listens to only my stuff in a given month, I get all his money (minus the cut for the service of course). That's the only way that independent music with a small, but loyal fan base can survive.

That's interesting. Had never thought of that. I'm guessing it would leave the accounting much less vague though (not what they want right?) and we could all see exactly how much was going to where. Interesting.

all with a smirk on the face saying: But you are doing it for the love of the club culture and music, aren't you?! .... the typical singer songwriter duos play for free drinks and the permission to pass the hat around afterwards.

Ha... I watched that happen throughout the 90's until people were dj'ing it for free... all fighting over the same small venues as if it was going to make something happen. Lowered the bar... wish more people realised... and that goes for all areas... including being on every streaming service hoping it makes a difference. Too many people give it all away and it sets the standard. I get that you see Spotify as doing this as well... but I'm not convinced on that one yet. Trouble is, unless people share genuine results... no one knows and keeps talking about how streaming has to be crap... it's working for some right? Or not? The ones talking are not earning... the ones earning have nothing to talk about.

Thanks for bothering Tom.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Thanks so much for bothering mate.

But do you really mean any shape or form? This is essentially what I meant when I asked you to define "things." Because the rest of your post after this quote seems to indicate that you're talking about the producer/track maker strand of music making, which as I say all the time around here, ain't the only game in town.

I do mean any angle. I'm genuinely interested if someone has managed to carve out a living by playing tuned seashells in care homes... anything goes.

Sorry if my perspective comes over as limited... I am the enemy according to most 'musicians' - I grew up in the eighties on two turntables and a sampler (another debate for another day). Family members are/were 'real' musicians so I see that side of it too.

Would love to turn the mindset around from how crap it all is out there... to how exciting it is because you really can do almost anything as an independent. Making it support itself is the challenge and if the only talk is about signing to other labels then no wonder people can't survive.

If you are a session playing trombonist that has made a solo album and has found a way to market and shift it then I am interested in what you have to say. If you play castanets in the local gentlemen's club but pay the bills, it counts. If you are a laptop dude and have found out a way to make YouTube cover the electric bills by using backlinks to spam the internet in a specific way, and it's working, then I'm interested.

You've shared a wide variety of things and I'd love to pick your brains about some of it... but I guess this isn't the right place to do so. Anyone want to make a private forum where we can share specifics with each other?

So yes, while I have a direct focus on producing audio content and marketing it independently in the modern world, I love to hear about anyone making 'things' workout for them. It's all good right?

Thanks again for taking the time out.

[TomViolenz]

In principle as you write it should technologically be possible for each of us to make their own subscription to only their stuff. Let's say for 10 bucks a year you get access to my Blog, the link to my latest album and streaming from something like Bandcamp. Actually except for the website, you still have to make that yourself, Bandcamp lets you do pretty much all of this.

The problem is though and THAT is my main problem I have with Spotify, is that people changed their expectations to what music is allowed to cost them. It used to be that they paid 20 bucks for one CD directly for one artist, now they feel like they are going above and beyond generosity, if they actually choose the paid (10 bucks a month) service of Spotify and not the free, with advertisement one. That is FOR EVERYTHING!!!
And in comments regarding the Tidal announcement the most common one was: 20 Bucks a month? Who do these already rich fucks think they are?!

How can you win with expectations like that?!

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Haha... I can understand those sentiments to some extent though. Also are we going to need a Tidal, a Beats, a Spotify account to support artists that go exclusive? I'm not paying that when I can get it all on YouTube for free. Joke.

I mentioned it before but Google, way before Spotify, set people's new value for music... free. YouTube changed it forever. Spotify deals with it to some extent but again, who's really making it work? Would love to chat to some of the people filling Spotify and YouTube up with generic 'meditation' music... is it paying the bills for them or are they just whoring, spamming and hoping?

It's a really exciting time for music. It's unlimited potential from your bedroom. Tapping into it is another thing.

The $10 a year idea is fine and works to some extent, but there's no 'real' incentive to purchase... it's not a 'must have' item and it's still only $10,000 if you do manage 1000 people. I don't mean that's not useful.

The only way I've seen a subscription successfully re-framed is as 'support' for the artist... I don't recall the website, maybe I posted it back in the thread but it actually gave a genuine reason for parting with funds and seemed plausible. It made you want to subscribe.

How can you win with expectations like that?!

Don't stop there though. That's the starting point... The answer is whatever we can all help each other to uncover.

[stringtapper]

If you are a session playing trombonist that has made a solo album and has found a way to market and shift it then I am interested in what you have to say.

Lol… but wait, trombone was indeed my first instrument. I still play at least two gigs per year on it: Christmas and Easter and combined with my singing gigs on the same holidays they make January and April the two easiest months of the year.

You've shared a wide variety of things and I'd love to pick your brains about some of it... but I guess this isn't the right place to do so. Anyone want to make a private forum where we can share specifics with each other?

Just make another thread here in the Lounge about making a living as a musician or something.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Haha... how funny... still... at least wasn't the conch option.

Christmas and Easter? I can see the solo album covers for those already!

If you're happy to share I will possibly make a thread... although it's one step deeper into 'forum life'... can't I just phone you? Lol...

[TomViolenz]

I mentioned it before but Google, way before Spotify, set people's new value for music... free. YouTube changed it forever. Spotify deals with it to some extent but again, who's really making it work

We had this discussion before in this thread, but just to reiterate: I disagree
Piracy didn't devalue music. Sure the income dropped, because many torrented instead of buying. But many is not everyone, everytime. The price of music in everyones head still stayed the same, just that paying became somewhat optional.
Spotify is changing the price itself!

With Spotify even the honest people, basically pirate everything. And they are not even aware of that.

The $10 a year idea is fine and works to some extent, but there's no 'real' incentive to purchase... it's not a 'must have' item and it's still only $10,000 if you do manage 1000 people. I don't mean that's not useful.

Are you kidding me?!
Make it twice that and I'm happy. I'm willing to be poor for my chance to live my life as a self determined artist, freed from the corporate bullshit life.
I have no interest in material wealth. I just don't want to be homeless and collecting bottles for food.

The only way I've seen a subscription successfully re-framed is as 'support' for the artist...

Well obviously, that's what it is.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

We had this discussion before in this thread, but just to reiterate: I disagree
Piracy didn't devalue music.

I agree, piracy didn't devalue music for the masses. Only because it wasn't 'acceptable' or correct... even though it was the norm for many.

You mention people's perception of the value of music has dropped though, right? I would suggest this happened en masse not from piracy... because Google aren't pirates. If it was on YouTube then it was ok, because it was a respectable company and they wouldn't advocate piracy. YouTube was kind of legal in most people's minds. It wasn't their fault for using it, if Google provided it, then they were gonna use it right? 'Not my fault'.

For every 1 person that was a respectable and honest file thief there were a thousand people that clicked on their favourite music video on YouTube without a second thought... as you say, not even knowing they were helping to devalue sales by setting that as the new expected standard.

Free streaming. That's the point. Free streaming en masse didn't exist before YouTube... it was all good natured file stealing... Napster, Limewire and whatnot.

YouTube established the 'free and on demand without owning anything' standard. We all watched it happen. Tell me what established free streaming (music, video, audiobooks etc) as the norm if I'm incorrect. It wasn't Spotify.

I do get what you mean about Spotify's role now and sort of agree... even though free to paid is a typical sales model. What Spotify have unfortunately done is establish that the whole world's musical output (if they can get it), at a listenable quality, is only worth $10 a month.

"Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it" - 1st century BC, Publilius 'Spotify' Syrus

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Nobody is making a living off of track sales anymore, grandpa.

From another thread, but that about sums it all up without wasting any words.