[Morefrog Jones]

Some useful info here?

[Jenna]

Because selling sex (nevermind it's illegal for the women to do this independent of some huge corporate conglomerate) increases shareholder value. It's all about the money.

This is where I see this going, and it may not be in my lifetime, but the pendulum will swing back the other direction toward valuing individuality and true musical talent. It seems the world swings one way, goes to the extreme with what it thinks is a good thing, and then swings back the other to the same end. We all just ride along and adapt as best we can.

[PaulyX]

Haha, that the best 13 minutes of my week thus far.
Hope you're right Jenna, but that it is well within your lifetime.
Time to start the revolution, folks!

[hardtwistmusic]

While this WAS a rant, it was an extremely well reasoned rant, and had a purpose.  Gave me a lot to think about without really giving me anything I disagreed with. 

Jenna says the pendulum will swing back.  She is right. That is (after all) what pendulums do is seek the center.  The pendulum might be a long time swinging back, but in all musical eras, music has always "returned to folk" and then went in a new and exciting direction.  It WILL do so again.  We just don't know when. 

[Jenna]

I don't know. Maybe it will be in my lifetime. I hear so many complaints about pop music, mostly from older adults mind you. People are already bored with it because it's predictable and mindless. Apparently, the marketers and product developers have decided that they've found the hold grail that leads us zombie-eyed and drooling toward their music.

Whenever I go read through lyrics when listening to new songs, what strikes me is how many songs are meaningless, some of them containing made up words and garbled concepts that make no sense. As long as you have the groove, the hook, and those three energy peaks with the tension buildups between leading to the big climax, who cares if the words make sense?

Now, that pattern may very well be the holy grail of writing commercial pop hits that draw us zombie-eyed toward the self-checkout with their booby-flashing CD in hand, but there is plenty of music out there for those who listen to music for reasons other than shaking a booty for a potential mate, screaming out their rage, or crying in their beer.

Just another dos centavos.

One day, those three or four main outlets for music will begin to cannibalize each other which will lead us to a true Wall-e world. lol "We're coming down . . ." Peter Gabriel, one of my favorite artists of all time.

[tone]

I thought it was an entertaining video! But it's only one side of the argument, and focused on the very narrow slice of pop music that gets a lot of mainstream tv/ radio airtime. Of course, those outlets are multi billion dollar companies, so they focus on what they know (or think they know) brings in revenue. The safest business angle here is to repeat what worked last year - e.g. as many Max Martin songs as possible by the likes of Katy Perry or Bieber/ whoever.

But it fails to account for the massive majority of music out there that doesn't conform to this formula, that while very poorly represented by the mainstream media, finds an outlet nonetheless. There's a whole world of classical, jazz, folk, hard rock, and much more besides that hasn't been dumbed down in the slightest (except for where it appears on saturday night tv).

I get the point of the video, and it's interesting. But every period in mass media culture has been identifiable by certain traits. The current one is that of the receding attention span and blatant sexualisation of less and less appropriate things. Maybe it's a trend. Maybe not. But as musicians, it's our job to get out there and bring the heart and soul of the whole musical experience into the world. Sure, they've got the big budgets, but we've got nothing to lose and nobody to please but ourselves. Let's make the best of that and put out the most diverse catalogue we can muster. TO ARMS, SONGWRITERS!

[diademgrove]

The 67th most popular song on iTunes as at 5 July 2017 is Sweet Home Alabama by Lynyrd Skynryd. In the top hundred is Bruce Springsteen and Don McLean. The top 100 hundred includes a large number of country songs. Hip Hop is also well represented. So its not just pop that is popular.

On YouTube Dylan Scott's official video has over 23 million hits. By comparison the official video (well a copy of the Electric Ladyland photo) has over 66 million hits. Dylan Scott is in the itunes' top 100 whilst Hendrix isn't.

The Smiths' This Charming Man has 17 million hits.

Milestones by Miles Davis has just under 500,000 hits.

Al this shows is how easy finding "decent" music is. When I was younger you had to find the records and then buy them to hear them. Which was more difficult than it sounds. Very occasionally you'd hear something brilliant on the radio but not often. It was all word of mouth and digging through the past.

I'd say the current generation is similar to us. Their listening is probably more varied than ours was.

The 13 minutes was entertaining but I don't think its particularly accurate.

[hardtwistmusic]

I thought it was an entertaining video! But it's only one side of the argument, and focused on the very narrow slice of pop music that gets a lot of mainstream tv/ radio airtime. Of course, those outlets are multi billion dollar companies, so they focus on what they know (or think they know) brings in revenue. The safest business angle here is to repeat what worked last year - e.g. as many Max Martin songs as possible by the likes of Katy Perry or Bieber/ whoever.

But it fails to account for the massive majority of music out there that doesn't conform to this formula, that while very poorly represented by the mainstream media, finds an outlet nonetheless. There's a whole world of classical, jazz, folk, hard rock, and much more besides that hasn't been dumbed down in the slightest (except for where it appears on saturday night tv).

I get the point of the video, and it's interesting. But every period in mass media culture has been identifiable by certain traits. The current one is that of the receding attention span and blatant sexualisation of less and less appropriate things. Maybe it's a trend. Maybe not. But as musicians, it's our job to get out there and bring the heart and soul of the whole musical experience into the world. Sure, they've got the big budgets, but we've got nothing to lose and nobody to please but ourselves. Let's make the best of that and put out the most diverse catalogue we can muster. TO ARMS, SONGWRITERS!

You bring up an interesting point.  None of this is "ill intentioned."  It's "just business."  

Problem is that business and art have different requirements.  Business demands "predictable results."  The unpredicatable is avoided.   Art REQUIRES unpredictability.  Formulas don't work in art.  

From a business standpoint, uncertainty is poison.  Everyone wants to invest in low risk, high reward endeavors.  Art is (by it's very nature) uncertain and high risk.  

Art can fail to impact an audience because it is "too different."  Art can fail to impact an audience because it is "too similar."  

Artistic success can be a matter of pure luck.  Harry Nillson wrote the hit song "Everybody's Talking" (featured in the academy award winning movie "Midnight Cowboy."  He tried to peddle the song without success before deciding to record it himself.  BUT.... in the meantime, Johnny Rivers had decided to record it.  When Johnny Rivers found out that Nillson had recorded it, and meant to release it, he "stood down" and withheld his own version to allow Nillson's version to succeed.  

Without that magnanimous gesture by Rivers, there is a good chance none of us (except those who know
who the WRITERS of songs are) would know the name Harry Nillson.  We know who Harry Nillson is today because he got lucky AND was good.  

That there is such an element of luck involved is terrifying to businesses.  

It's why people like art better than they like business.  

Art is supposed to surprise and delight us.  Business is supposed to find a way to profit from our needs.    

[tone]

Of course I completely agree with you Verlon. But I think the story has still another angle. Because without the media, no-one would know that song 'everybody's talking' or probably any other hit song. Without the means of being discovered and widely heard, there's little opportunity for an artist to make a living. And then art has a problem.

While I don't think it's essential for every artist to make a living from their art, I think it's important that some do. For the sake of the art in question. Can you imagine Paul Simon or Joni Mitchell being able to create what they did while holding down a career in accounting or engineering? Maybe they could. It seems unlikely to me.

But it begs the question: what's the ideal relationship between business and art to make the art flourish while keeping the business worthwhile?

[S.T.C]

I've seen this video before , well, what he says is true. He's not talking about the whole spectrum of modern music, some of it being very good ,but the commercial money making side of it.
In previous decades ,good music by good musicians made it into the top 20 ,this rarely happens now . The damaging result of this is the way younger musicians go about getting somewhere ,it may be the case iTunes/Spotify have old school in the top 100, thats because more mature people are taking up digital music, but the artists are at least 20 years old.

I went to see Radiohead in Manchester the other night 60,000 crowd ,mixture of ages , good to see....but for the most part the bands are dying out, or at least good ones,with proper talent....people like the idea of making money, and the record labels who do the most are bringing music down to ground zero creatively.

[hardtwistmusic]

Can you imagine Paul Simon or Joni Mitchell being able to create what they did while holding down a career in accounting or engineering? Maybe they could. It seems unlikely to me.

But it begs the question: what's the ideal relationship between business and art to make the art flourish while keeping the business worthwhile?

Regarding your "can you imagine. . ." question. 

I read the most interesting and wonderful true recollection of life in the early sixties "artist community" in New York. Mary Travers (I think) was reminiscing about the time when she, her group "Peter Paul and Mary" Gordon Lightfoot, Bob Dylan and too many others to mention were still "undiscovered." 

The only way they were "making a living" on their music at the time was to pool resources and be a true "community of artists." 

She recalled that on most songs, (the one she remembered in particular was "Early Morning Rain" by Gordon Lightfoot,) when someone would write a new song, there was none of the possessive fear of it being played by others.  EVERYONE was playing everyone else's music hoping that SOMETHING would come of some song.... no one knew which ones.  Everyone was thrilled to have his/her songs played, and everyone would excitedly listen to anything that might make an impression so that they could perform it. 

Two key points about this stand out in my mind. 

1.  They were all willing to live like musical gypsies for as long as they could without any real assurance that they were going to "make it."   

2.  That sense of community sustained them and created artistry that cannot be sustained (in my opinion) by money and fame.  I'm convinced that that "community sustenance" is as important as financial sustenance, and I'm convinced that it is entirely "lost" to this generation of artists.  At almost every level, music is about "me, me, me, and more me." 

I agree that some artists have to "make it financially" for music to keep providing hope etc for other artists.  But I'm also convinced that the (usually false) idea that being a "successful musical artist" is a "license to print money" is damaging to the art. 

It is (as you said) a BALANCE that needs to be struck.   

Which leads to your question about whether there is an "ideal balance" that can be struck.  The answer is "No, - not an ideal balance."  I think that in place of an "ideal balance," we should be seeking ANY WORKABLE balance.  I think the musical world is so "money driven" right now that balance is out of the question.  I think that what works in our favor (as songwriters and artists) is that the system is sooooo "out of balance" right now, that it is actually "bad for the business."  I think that someone (and I'd love for it to be me, but I have no viable ideas) will find a way to make a LOT of money by finding a balance where the artists have more control and a more fair "cut of the take." 

That imbalance happens in every business.  When a business and/or an industry becomes overly consumed with the profit margin, they "turn the screws on the profit machine" until they actually start costing themselves money.  It goes on until some competitor exposes their unprofitability by "loosening the screws" and putting them out of business by out competing them. 

I don't know if we are "due" to have this happen in music. . . but it's bound to happen in every industry, sooner or later, and music is (imo) no exception.

[tone]

Very good points well made Verlon. To answer your last point, I would say that the 'old' model *has* been put out of business. The only problem is that it's been put out of business by tech companies, not artists.

Although this is a comparatively recent development, I'd love to think another change is coming soon. But it doesn't answer the question: how much distribution/ popularity does an artist need in order to pay their bills?

There are so many of us out there, is it really reasonable to think we can all make a big enough slice of the pie to sustain ourselves comfortably? I'm not so sure.

The idea of community is very appealing - you could say this forum contains some of those elements... The internet certainly brings musicians closer to one another and their audience. Most still haven't found a reliable way to make it pay though. Maybe we should all be content to just have the talent for making music. I dunno. It's a toughie isn't it?

[hardtwistmusic]

". . . how much distribution/ popularity does an artist need in order to pay their bills?

The idea of community is very appealing - you could say this forum contains some of those elements...

The internet certainly brings musicians closer to one another and their audience. 

Maybe we should all be content to just have the talent for making music. I dunno. It's a toughie isn't it?

How much distribution/popularity does an artist need in order to pay their bills? 

Wellllll.... the one thing I know is that it would take more than I've ever made.  'o) 

YOU SAID:  ". . . This forum contains some of those elements."  The reason that I am here and am so thrilled with this forum is that it contains more of those elements than anyplace I've ever been.  A group of people willing to put aside their natural inclinations to fear being "overshadowed" and just communicate honestly.  I suspect you do understand how rare that is. 

I don't think the internet usually does "bring people closer together."  When I first began being "online" there was no "Internet."  At that time, the "online world" was just people wanting to sell nothing for something, and/or to buy "something for nothing." 

That hasn't entirely disappeared.  There is tremendous potential for sharing, but not much sharing going on as I observe it.  Now this forum is a great example of an "island of sharing" in a sea of selfish needs. 

But, overall, I think the internet has (for the most part) provided the illusion of contact, without only a bare minimum of contact, and has actually - again in my opinion - gotten in the way of actual human contact. 

[diademgrove]

For the dedicated and single-minded I think it is easier to earn a living from music today then it has been in the past. The internet allows musicians to build and keep an audience. The costs of producing music have fallen dramatically, as have the costs of distribution. Artists can produce and sell their own physical cds and merchandise.

There are additional income streams available from having your songs played on YouTube and Spotify.

As a consequence being a success independent of the major labels, including some of the larger independents, is available to a wider number of artists.

However the initial problem remains. How do you build your audience? Usually it requires dedication and playing lots and lots of gigs. To start with locally and regionally. If you can build a fan base and sell merchandise and cds at gigs and on-line you are on your way to getting sufficient income to make a living.

King No-one, an exciting new band from Yorkshire, regularly busk across the country before having a gig in that town. They also play house parties and are moderately successful. They could well make it to the next level shortly. But they have worked hard to get to this stage, both musically and in doing the hard slog in getting their music heard.

The Beatles did the same, they learned their craft in Hamburg and Liverpool for years before being discovered.

Unfortunately for many of us we have come to writing and producing our own music later in life and have things like mortgages, children and a life style we'd like to keep which stops us doing the things necessary to build an audience.

Although there are other ways of making a money music. One is writing or co-writing a song for a top 10 artist. Others include working in mixing other people's music or turning your bedroom into a recording studio. None of this would have been possible for the majority of us 20 years ago.

[Jenna]

Youtube looks like a good way to build an audience for some people. I think of Peter Gergely, Roz Firth, Sofia Karlberg, and Sungha Jung, Hannah Mullholland and so many others that started posting their music on Youtube and ended up building their audiences which led to getting gigs. They all offer music through iTunes and other outlets. But I agree that dedication, commitment, and regular upkeep of the channel is a must. Plus, you've got to have a marketing mindset and not be afraid to ask people to subscribe and share your music with their friends.

I wish I could remember which band it was I saw interviewed that said they sold more records with the major labels, but made more money dumping them in favor of the indie outlets. The money from those sales wasn't trickling down, and they're very happy with their decision to go indie.

I also wish I remember which video it was I watched recently that had over 600 million views online. It wasn't an artist from another country. If it comes to me I'll come back and edit. That number of views on Youtube is astounding! Half a billion views is just incredible for any music video.