# Fix the Music Industry



## Jingles (Jul 9, 2017)

Hey!

I mean it's kindof a big title. But let's discuss!
What do you think could be improved in the present-day music industry?

For example, the music listening experience? Do you think digital consumption is lacking something? What about the subcultures people built around their favorite artists; is that still a thing or if not, how could we get that sort of engagement back? Or what do you think of artist payment, or their negotiation position. Did that improve? Or maybe you'd like to say something about how Spotify/Apple Music are or aren't solutions to battling piracy.

I'm eager to know what you think could improve our industry! 

I also made a little questionnaire about it to capture some more info directly. I would really appreciate your input 

https://goo.gl/QG7tXp

Thanks for your time!

Love,

Janne


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jul 9, 2017)

Nothing needs to be improved except the work ethic and business acumen of musicians. The opportunities are out there for those who are willing to do the work.


----------



## dpasdernick (Jul 9, 2017)

*Fix the Music Industry*

Hmmm.... I'll take eliminate Justin Bieber and Katie Perry for $200 Alex?


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 9, 2017)

Alex Trebek: _"Justin Bieber has made millions of dollars selling this."_

Contestant: _"What is music?"_

Alex Trebek: _"I'm sorry, that's incorrect."_


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 9, 2017)

What's occurred to me in my time is one must change with the times lest his children starve.

I once left the safety of my birthplace to seek a better life.
I'm still seeking, yet I succeed.

Watch any old movie from the 60s and really analyze the music, the lack of CG, the sheer amount of time and material, location shooting, etc.
Thousands were employed.
Now, it's done with dozens.

As long as money is the goal rather than the employment of thousands, fewer people, musicians are needed.
This is nothing compared to when AI and automation start to do more.

Some folks are driven, others are easily discouraged.
Doesn't mean they're lazy, or lack drive.
It's the future and if you can just look back to Lawrence of Arabia or Cleopatra, to productions now you see film and music trend the same.

If you have talent be grateful. Use your time wisely and find your niche.
Musicians must be more than great composers or performers.
You must see the trends and adjust.

In 10 years time I will program my own hologram of myself.
Sit at the bar and run my band from a hand held device as I chug Jager.

I think I'll be fine.

Mark Zuckerberg is spot on about redistributing money.
Read his prediction of the way capitalism must continue with the assurances of a base pay.

Whoever figures this out first will move the world forward...


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 10, 2017)

One thing that I despise the most is the fact that you no longer need to "pay your dues" to become a successful artist. For example. there was a time when a band needed to pound the pavement, starve, and tour relentlessly in order to get signed (I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt); and even after signing, continue the process to stay afloat. These days, a teenage band could record a lo-fi single in their basement, post it on YouTube with a cheesy video, and have a zillion hits. As a result, super-stardom overnight. How can that be fixed? I'm not sure, but it has saturated the commercial music scene with TONS of cloned acts and no "quality control" anymore.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jul 10, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Alex Trebek: _"Justin Bieber has made millions of dollars selling this."_
> 
> Contestant: _"What is music?"_
> 
> Alex Trebek: _"I'm sorry, that's incorrect."_



Right, he makes millions from touring. "Selling" music is one of the worst ways to make money.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 10, 2017)

I pay my dues over and over.
Music to me is a business.
Everytime you have a new product it involves risk and hard work.
I got tired of no challenges and left Nevada as it is a massive safe space for performers, artists and dancers.
After finishing my project here in Nashville I was just about to head back but noticed how an average tribute band can sell 3-5,000 seat auditoriums.
So grabbed a couple of bored rock Gods who only do Deadwood and Swedish Rock Festival every year and created a mobile concert rig, stage and all.
We take the show to where there are no clubs or halls and rent out ballrooms, hire our own bartenders, charge 20 bucks a pop with 1 free drink, ladies get 2.
Yes I'm a sexist, mysoganist, etc.
But there's hundreds of towns in the Midwest and make bank just doing 4 or 5 gigs a month.

Heading back to Nevada after 4 more months as I'm weary of the driving, etc.

I'll be paying my dues all over again, but it is exactly what motivates me.
How can life be bad when you do what you love and get paid good money?

Just gotta find your groove.
In my case, I haven't got a clue what's coming in 2018.
I do know I'll be paying my dues, but 2 or 3 gigs is all it takes in Nevada.

Cheer up gents, knock down some doors, make your own breaks.
Send a CD to an agent or AR person with a strip o gram and a dozen Fireworx roses.
Whatever it takes..


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 10, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Just gotta find your groove.



Well said! There is no specific formula, but hard work pays off eventually, and perhaps not in the way one envisions. Speaking of tribute bands, myself (along with other road warriors from the 80's) play regularly at Casinos and reputable clubs as an 80's Hair Metal tribute (spandex, hair spray, eye-liner). Not only do get we to be rock stars every weekend, but it pays a handsome sum for doing something we love. So in a sense, the touring back in the 80's & early 90's paid off....but many years later. At least we still have our regular careers to pay the bills and feed our addiction to collecting gear (I have waaaaay too many drum kits and cymbals...not!).


----------



## robgb (Jul 10, 2017)

Fuck the music industry. It has always been a bunch of middle men who screwed composers and musicians. Now, in the time of YouTube and Bandcamp and SoundCloud, etc., musicians don't need to rely on the middle men anymore. They can go directly to their audience. That translates to the best time in the world to be a musician.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 10, 2017)

I once had to pay a wise guys wife 10% of my pay to work the old Desert Inn (Wynn).
She was a hideous old Sea Hag that showed up at load in with hair curlers and a robe.
Once I became familiar with Vegas, booking agents knew I was in with Eleanor so figured they had no game.
Now you kick back 10% of the overbloated budget to the Food & Beverage Manager.
Cheap bastards haven't had Entertainment Directors for years now.
Once your complicit, you can't get fired....


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 11, 2017)

Here's musicians getting revenge on cheapskate game developers.

https://www.eteknix.com/musician-sues-bethesda-fallout-4/


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 11, 2017)

Another thing that's killing the live music portion of the industry are bands willing to play for free, or dirt cheap. Not only does this set the standard for the local pay scale, but it deteriorates the quality level and ultimately screws everyone over. I love how some nightclubs offer bands "free exposure" if they play for a small token fee, and in turn get to keep the ticket sale money....that the bands are expected to sell themselves!! The same applies to the film composition world, at least on the indie level. There's a big difference between taking on a project for free to gain personal exposure, versus being taken advantage of.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jul 11, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> My comment wasn't trying to make a point. It was just a lighthearted joke about his product. Let me deliver it another way:
> 
> Alex Trebek: _"Justin Bieber has made millions of dollars selling this."_
> [A series of metallic-sounding scrapes and clunks is suddenly heard coming from the studio rafters overhead]
> ...



I don't think your jokes are funny. That isn't right to harass a prominent entertainer. That could be defamation!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 12, 2017)

robgb said:


> Fuck the music industry. It has always been a bunch of middle men who screwed composers and musicians. Now, in the time of YouTube and Bandcamp and SoundCloud, etc., musicians don't need to rely on the middle men anymore. They can go directly to their audience. That translates to the best time in the world to be a musician.


Okay, I'll bite. What band (with no record company support before or after) got famous and made a ton of money from being on SoundCloud?


----------



## AllanH (Jul 12, 2017)

Now Spotify is being accused of creating "fake artists" to avoid paying licensing.
http://www.avclub.com/article/spotify-denies-making-fake-artists-game-its-own-sy-257843

Maybe it's simply like Netflix, who now make their own movies.
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide....own-recordings-and-putting-them-on-playlists/


----------



## robgb (Jul 12, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> Okay, I'll bite. What band (with no record company support before or after) got famous and made a ton of money from being on SoundCloud?


Famous? That's your motivation? Ooookay.

You don't have to be famous to make a good living. Just ask these musicians:

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2013/12/23/full-time-musicians/

http://www.complex.com/music/2015/04/musicians-whove-found-success-without-major-labels/

https://www.wix.com/blog/2015/12/indie-musicians-who-are-killing-it-on-social-media/

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...t-look-like-for-an-indie-band-in-2014/383328/

The point, of course, is that there are a NUMBER of ways to make money in music these days that don't involve the mainstream industry.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 12, 2017)

The very first guy you mentioned had a deal with Universal first. Ooookay. Nice reading comprehension. 

MY motivation? I'm 63, have made a living in the music business for 40 years without any interest in fame whatsoever. Sometimes I've made a lot of money. My point is that by the time Radiohead release their album for "pay what you want" on the Internet, they were already, er, Radiohead. Their brand recognition was established by a record company.


----------



## robgb (Jul 13, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> The very first guy you mentioned had a deal with Universal first. Ooookay. Nice reading comprehension.


I think you might want to rethink the reading comprehension crack. The POINT, which I apparently have to state again, is that there are many different avenues for musicians these days, more than ever, in fact, and many that don't include being exploited by middle men who rip artists off in order to line their own pockets.

You say you have no interest in fame, yet the first words out of your mouth are asking who has become famous via Soundcloud, as if that's the litmus test for success.

The reason I posted all those links is to demonstrate that many musicians make a good, even great, living without the help of the industry. Yet you chose to read one entry and ignore all the rest.

And yes, Radiohead already had a name. But did Pamplemoose? Did any of the other bands or artists you've never heard of that are making a great living? The proof is out there. Go find it.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125783271


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 13, 2017)

You made a statement. I countered. You responded with links. I went to the VERY FIRST ONE and found it did not meet the stated criteria.

I personally know a dozen very good young artists who are scuffling and trying to cobble a living together using the mediums you mentioned. Any of them would be delighted to have record company support regardless of the reputation of the big bad music industry.

It's really not as cut and dried as you present it.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 13, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> And yes, Radiohead already had a name. But did Pamplemoose? Did any of the other bands or artists you've never heard of that are making a great living? The proof is out there. Go find it.
> 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125783271



Pamplewho? That's the beef I have....you can be successful to a certain point (which is great). The thing that a reputable label did (and still does for the most part), is nurture a band into success. These days, a band can't afford to pull off a regional or world tour without going into debt from their own savings account and bank loans; many go bankrupt. There's also the millions in marketing and recording costs. Let's face it, a seasoned tech-savvy musician can record a decent sounding album in their home studio, but nothing beats the sound of a world class studio, and this is $100,000+ plus for an album. There's definitely no guarantee the label-signed artists are going to be stars, but at least the backing is there. IMHO, trying to promote your band on Youtube, etc, is just a crap shoot, where one in every million get lucky because a song or video goes viral. To me, this is unfair to the bands that have been busting their asses paying real dues.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 13, 2017)

This. Exactly. It's not that there's no shot, but to think self marketing makes this a great time...mmm.


----------



## robgb (Jul 13, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Pamplewho? That's the beef I have....you can be successful to a certain point (which is great).



I'm curious to know. What defines success to you? What is the ultimate goal to you? Being able to write or perform music full time and raise a family and pay your mortgage with the money you earn as a musician? Or becoming obscenely rich and having several houses and money to burn? There are many different levels of success and Pamplemouuse, among many others, are making a serious living with their music.



> The thing that a reputable label did (and still does for the most part), is nurture a band into success. These days, a band can't afford to pull off a regional or world tour without going into debt from their own savings account and bank loans; many go bankrupt. There's also the millions in marketing and recording costs. Let's face it, a seasoned tech-savvy musician can record a decent sounding album in their home studio, but nothing beats the sound of a world class studio, and this is $100,000+ plus for an album.



This is akin to saying a guy should never start selling hamburgers in his own shop because he doesn't get the support of the big chain businesses to nurture their beef. I have to laugh, especially about this nurturing nonsense, because it hasn't been true for a very long time. Today's model is to take on a band, record an album, throw it out there and hope it sticks, and if it doesn't, immediately abandon them, saddling them with the production costs.

The problem with your argument is that it's completely false in this day and age. There are thousands of artists recording their own albums with low cost technology that easily compete with the sound of that world class studio. Nine times out of ten, those studios are using the very same plug-ins that are easily affordable. Just ask Andrew Scheps. There are also world class producers with decades of credits who are hiring out to indie artists to produce and mix their albums at a fraction of that cost (Why? Because there's so little work otherwise). To say that no one but a tech-savvy musician can record a great album is laughably absurd. That hasn't been true for a couple decades now.

I come from the publishing industry, which is about five years behind the music industry in its slow downfall. They no longer support midlist authors and only shoot for the big name franchise authors. Just like the music industry. With indie publishing, the game has changed, just as it has in the music industry. There was a time when publishers, like record labels, used to actually promote their authors. Today they do only in the most lazy, cursory fashion, and most of the authors I know either do their own marketing or have gone indie. And the indies are making boatloads more money by going directly to their readers and marketing through social media, while collecting a much larger slice of the pie.

It's no different in the music industry. Anyone who adheres to a belief in the ancient industry model you've described is apparently stuck in a time that no longer exists. Again, I've posted several links that show bands and artists who are making a very good living. Denials of that easily provable fact are little more than hot air.


----------



## robgb (Jul 13, 2017)

> You made a statement. I countered. You responded with links. I went to the VERY FIRST ONE and found it did not meet the stated criteria.
> 
> I personally know a dozen very good young artists who are scuffling and trying to cobble a living together using the mediums you mentioned. Any of them would be delighted to have record company support regardless of the reputation of the big bad music industry.
> 
> It's really not as cut and dried as you present it.



Did I say it was cut and dried? I simply said this is the best time to be a musician because the opportunities are more plentiful. But it's still a struggle. It will ALWAYS be a struggle no matter how you get your music out there. That's a given. And, of course, if someone isn't making a success of it one way, they're always game to try another. That's human nature.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 13, 2017)

I would concede a point (the nurturing part, that part of the industry is long gone.) However, I have a brother who is a successful record company exec and was president of a small but very well thought of label that got lucky-they landed two of the better selling rock artists of the early 2000s. Record companies sign non-known artists to 7 album deals. They tie them up privately as well, with any non band projects belonging to the company, they own part of merch and publishing, etc etc. most of the deals are 360. 

HOWEVER-they provide tour support, traditional marketing, social media marketing, up front recording money, etc, just like always. They screw bands over? Sure-but if the band hits, the band does just fine as well. That's why companies still get thousands of submissions. 

I would agree with you that there are more opportunities for self-marketing that ever. As a matter of fact, I think artists have to self market even when signed to become successful, as each fan seems to feel entitled to personal communication these days. However, I would posit that record companies still break the vast preponderance of hit artists, while self marketing yields a handful of success stories.


----------



## robgb (Jul 13, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> However, I would posit that record companies still break the vast preponderance of hit artists, while self marketing yields a handful of success stories.



I'd posit that there are only a handful of success stories period, record company or not. Like the publishing business, the amount of marketing a corporation gives to an artist is based solely on the amount of the advance they offered the artist. If it's a big advance, they'll get more marketing and publicity. If it's a small advance, they will be largely left to fend for themselves. The bigger the advance, the harder the corporation has to work to get their investment back. Which is why you usually only see big promotion for very big, very bland artists, or those who have somehow managed to defy the odds. The rest are left by the wayside.

But again, you have morphed this into a discussion about mega stardom. That was not the point of my original comment and never has been. There are different levels of success. If you're shooting for mega stardom, then chances are good only a record company can give that to you. But the chance is slim, no matter what.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 13, 2017)

People were making decent careers without contracts and before the Internet too. YOU posited that we're in a golden age for talent. I call bullshit. Now I'm done.


----------



## robgb (Jul 14, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> People were making decent careers without contracts and before the Internet too. YOU posited that we're in a golden age for talent. I call bullshit. Now I'm done.


You call bullshit, but don't back it up with anything but your own gut feeling. You can call it bullshit all you want, but that doesn't make you right. Now I'M done.


----------



## mikehamm123 (Jul 19, 2017)

*How music streaming service SoundCloud ended up on the brink of extinction*

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...ndcloud-ended-up-on-brink-of-existence-2017-7


----------



## robgb (Jul 23, 2017)

mikehamm123 said:


> *How music streaming service SoundCloud ended up on the brink of extinction*
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...ndcloud-ended-up-on-brink-of-existence-2017-7



Or maybe not...

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/20...hutting-down-not-anytime-soon-executive-says/


----------



## Cruciform (Jul 24, 2017)

robgb said:


> Or maybe not...
> 
> https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/20...hutting-down-not-anytime-soon-executive-says/


This article is dated March 2016. They are in trouble now, 2017.


----------



## ghostnote (Jul 24, 2017)

Cruciform said:


> This article is dated March 2016. They are in trouble now, 2017.


Soundcloud was in trouble more than a year ago already. It's always easy to say they'll go down without profound behind the curtain knowledge. As I said earlier in another thread, soundcloud will be alive as long as they have value and even potential value to stay the flagship in this field.


----------



## robgb (Jul 24, 2017)

Cruciform said:


> This article is dated March 2016. They are in trouble now, 2017.


How about one dated this month?

https://blog.soundcloud.com/2017/07/14/soundcloud-is-here-to-stay/


----------



## Cruciform (Jul 25, 2017)

We'll see.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 25, 2017)

I'd say, based on the overall sound of things, that they will be acquired. What happens after that is anyone's guess.


----------



## mikehamm123 (Jul 26, 2017)

I think the business model is to get people hooked on free stuff, then find a way to monetize it.

Capture an audience, then figure out a way to milk them.


----------



## Krisemm (Aug 1, 2017)

There's a LOT I would fix, but the issue isnt one of the music industry, but more to do with social behaviour.

The music industry should be a pyramid, with the musicians at the top.
Instead, its an inverted pyramid, with the musicians at the bottom.
This entire industry provides millions of jobs worldwide. Everything from local radio DJs to security guards, ticket sales staff, canteen staff, roadies, lighting technicians, record store staff and on and on.
They ALL recieve a wage.
Yet the very musicians, who create and perpetuate this industry, are increasingly expected to have less and less money, or work for free, pay to play etc...and we have things like spotify etc....whose little empire would not even exist if it hadn't been for musicians, yet they pay musicians criminally tiny amounts.

One thing that absolutely MUST change, is that governments need to get serious enforcing laws about filesharing and piracy, and unite in a global effort to completely stamp it out. Zero tolerance. At the minute they just don't take it seriously enough. People in general also need to be re-educated about the theft of music ( aka filesharing ) and intellectual property
Spotify is a good idea in principle, but these streaming sites need to be forced to pay musicians fair rates.


----------



## Krisemm (Aug 1, 2017)

dpasdernick said:


> *Fix the Music Industry*
> 
> Hmmm.... I'll take eliminate Justin Bieber and Katie Perry for $200 Alex?




As will ferrell once said

"I fell downstairs with a guitar in my hand and accidentally wrote a One Direction Song"


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 2, 2017)

Krisemm said:


> One thing that absolutely MUST change, is that governments need to get serious enforcing laws about filesharing and piracy, and unite in a global effort to completely stamp it out. Zero tolerance. At the minute they just don't take it seriously enough. People in general also need to be re-educated about the theft of music ( aka filesharing ) and intellectual property
> Spotify is a good idea in principle, but these streaming sites need to be forced to pay musicians fair rates.



Isn't that the truth! I was debating about this with a couple of younger musicians recently, and I asked them when was the last time they bought a CD, or bought an album off iTunes, and the answer? They don't! Their excuse was that they could just "grab" the music for free of the internet (Youtube rips, torrents, etc). Now THAT is one of the reasons for the downfall of the industry. The sad part is that these guys were in an original band, and I'm like WTF??


----------



## Krisemm (Aug 2, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Isn't that the truth! I was debating about this with a couple of younger musicians recently, and I asked them when was the last time they bought a CD, or bought an album off iTunes, and the answer? They don't! They excuse was that they could just "grab" and music for free of the internet (Youtube rips, torrents, etc). Now THAT is one of the reasons for the downfall of the industry. The sad part is that these guys were in an original band, and I'm like WTF??



Thats the mentality now. I saw a thing a few years ago on twitter, and it was basically part of an anti-piracy law that had been introduced in the UK, and, if memory serves me correctly, people were up in arms about it and started a petition or something, with the words "we DEMAND free music. Its our RIGHT"
They just don't see it as theft because its not tangible or has any form, and its just airwaves to them.
They steal it because they can.
My question to them would be "ok, so can I come into your place of work and collect YOUR paycheck on friday?"

The laughable part about that band is that they will most likely try to make money from their music, and then it might dawn on them "hey...isnt it hypocritical for us to try to make money from our music when we steal everyone elses ?"


----------



## storyteller (Aug 2, 2017)

I've been thinking about this for some time recently. I'm a music connoisseur with an extremely diverse taste and an audiophile and have been struggling with this thought *a lot* recently. The conclusion I've recently reached may sound a bit esoteric, but I can't help but feel most music today is missing a soul. It is like a world of robots to my ears. And no, I am not talking about auto tune and distorted/ sounds. I'm talking about something more intangible... like literally most newer music does not speak to me at my core like it once did. Once in a blue moon, it can and still does, but that is rare. Super rare. Whereas I used to be able to sift through the songs and find that gem that spoke to me, there seems to be such a mountain of soulless stuff that finding a gem is that much, much harder today. It is what bothers me so much about the concept of "library music"... but I won't digress down that tangent train in this post.

Dynamics in songs have been squashed beyond recognition. This literally kills an emotional story in any song. And I can't help but think the algorithmic nature of dynamic processing today disassembles anything resembling a soul and reorganizes it into some type of soulless robotic byproduct. I was never in the analog is greater than digital camp. In hindsight, there are certain tonal aspects that it provides that digital doesn't quite capture... but that isn't the problem. And yes, the industry is an upside-down pyramid of nonsense. Still, that isn't the problem I'm specifically speaking about.

No. I'm talking about the concept of finding a song you can listen to on repeat for a week straight and still want to hear it one more time because it somehow speaks to you in an intangible way. Today, that's rare. Really rare. As in... does it still exist? I'm sure it does... somewhere... but just like all great tools become abused at the hands of money, I can't help but feel this is one more example of that.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 2, 2017)

to fix the "industry" the goverment and the PROS should fight those big tech companies. facebook and google keep giving measley royalties while not checking if the content is not copyrighted or its for kids etc etc like broadcasters need to do. those tech companies get away with so much and get so much money. all with the excuse that its not them uploading it. and they get to decide how much they will pay the artists who's music and video gets uploaded.

Also netflix and amazon dont pay as much in royalties as broadcasters even though they pay the same in license fees to the networks. so how come it costs the same or more to license a show to netflix than a broadcaster but netflix pays less in royalties. which i think they decide how much they get to pay... arrranged by the pros. and the pros think those guys dont get enough hits/views as broacasters or have the same amount of money :-/ 


as for commercial music.. hmmm not my scene but i would suggest to do nothing. they shot themselves in the foot a long time ago. and nowadays no one buys music under the age of 30 (?). and streaming seems to be a miss as spotify and those guys say they is not enough money to pay artists and artists are getting paid like $200 for a mega hit that plays millions of times.

Could it be that with so much gear and technology that made it so to be much inexpesive to put out a record made it that the supply of musicians has sky rocketed and with sooooo much supply prices go waaaaayyy low?
Andif you think "well, those guys are not good" "its not good music" etc etc.... you live in a bubble. kids and random concert musicians nowadays are making kick ass music overall and have much better tools than before. They have tutorials that have good info which needed to be from a school before. etc. its just hard to see since there is not a centralized way of finding music as it was before when the big record companies had a hold on the industry.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 2, 2017)

Storyteller, I feel your sentiment about the music today. There is a lot of great music being created, I think the issue is that it's getting smothered by the mainstream. IMHO, the ones to blame are the consumers. If they didn't buy what the major labels are throwing at them, it would stop being produced. I'm referring to current top 40 American music like Nikki Minaj, etc. Not that it's bad, but it's just "cookie cutter" production and lacks the soul you mentioned. There are a few gems, but far and few between.


----------



## Krisemm (Aug 2, 2017)

storyteller said:


> I've been thinking about this for some time recently. I'm a music connoisseur with an extremely diverse taste and an audiophile and have been struggling with this thought *a lot* recently. The conclusion I've recently reached may sound a bit esoteric, but I can't help but feel most music today is missing a soul. It is like a world of robots to my ears. And no, I am not talking about auto tune and distorted/ sounds. I'm talking about something more intangible... like literally most newer music does not speak to me at my core like it once did. Once in a blue moon, it can and still does, but that is rare. Super rare. Whereas I used to be able to sift through the songs and find that gem that spoke to me, there seems to be such a mountain of soulless stuff that finding a gem is that much, much harder today. It is what bothers me so much about the concept of "library music"... but I won't digress down that tangent train in this post.
> 
> Dynamics in songs have been squashed beyond recognition. This literally kills an emotional story in any song. And I can't help but think the algorithmic nature of dynamic processing today disassembles anything resembling a soul and reorganizes it into some type of soulless robotic byproduct. I was never in the analog is greater than digital camp. In hindsight, there are certain tonal aspects that it provides that digital doesn't quite capture... but that isn't the problem. And yes, the industry is an upside-down pyramid of nonsense. Still, that isn't the problem I'm specifically speaking about.
> 
> No. I'm talking about the concept of finding a song you can listen to on repeat for a week straight and still want to hear it one more time because it somehow speaks to you in an intangible way. Today, that's rare. Really rare. As in... does it still exist? I'm sure it does... somewhere... but just like all great tools become abused at the hands of money, I can't help but feel this is one more example of that.




Yep. I can echo that.
Where there's money there is no soul. People just don't seem to ache or hunger anymore. Its just like "how can I make that trap bass just like X ?" 
and its all about following a formula you seen someone else do in a youtube video....."steps x y and z and then I get my paper".
I remember reading about quantitative easing during the recession a few years back, and I can see exactly how it applies to the current state of the music industry.
Basically the government was printing money without any gold to back it up, and I remember this....."whenever there is too much money in circulation, that money loses its value"
We can apply that same concept to the music industry.
The software has become so dumbed down now that its almost possible to make a hit song on your mobile phone whilst sitting on the toilet, so all this garbage gets uploaded to the net, and because there is so much in circulation, and its completely saturated, music has lost its value.
Years ago, it meant a great deal to get a deal, go to a studio, cut a vinyl......now my granny could start a netlabel.

As for dynamics, I think we'll begin to see that gradually drop off again, because of the new broadcasting compliance targets like -23 LUFS ( EBU ), and basically anything on itunes, spotify, youtube, cable etc....will be turned down to those levels, so its not gonna benefit anyone to make a sausage track with zero dynamics anymore.
Im hoping this has a knock-on effect on most electronic music that is all process and no substance, because maybe genuine authentic, soulful music will rise to the surface again and nnot be crowded out by a deluge of unimaginative, uninspired, hollow, copycattery ( is that even a word, or did I just invent it ? )


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 2, 2017)

Up to the 90s (at least good) musicians had always a reputation, they earned respect. And even the uncle who grabbed a guitar at a family fest was a little hero back then. Nowadays, and that has less to do with the internet but with its result - the "democratization" of everything -, musicians tend to get forced into the shadow of their predecessors. We've had this in another thread. Every decade in the last century had their thing: style, music, attitude, etc., but nowadays it's just a mixture of things they like. Hipsters or like I call them the "Generation of Quoters" who love beards, political correctness (not a bad thing unless it gets a trend...) and star wars. Who don't create but recitate. They just take the poular things from an aera before everything was available for free, because nowadays free stuff isn't worth anything.

It's a mindset thing that sadly reached us all, some more, some less. To be honest: When did you buy your last Album? Do you think there are any new artists out there who make great music and deserve your respect? Did you buy any of their music recently? Another question: Would you have bought a Led Zeppelin Album when it forst came out if you could?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 2, 2017)

I bought an album directly from a local band I saw live last week (I always do). Plus, I recently bought and downloaded the soundtrack to Castaway. I'm one of those old-school guys that still prefers a physical medium (vinyl, CD) as opposed to a download unless it's not available as such.

Lol! I love that term Hipster (beard, Smurf hat, skinny jeans with a lanyard holding their keys). And they are cloning eachother regularly...thriving to sound like the next Kings of Leon (who are great), but keep writing the same songs over and over again.


----------



## patrick76 (Aug 2, 2017)

Here is an interesting article on what streaming music services pay out. YouTube, you suck!

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/07/24/what-streaming-music-services-pay-updated-for-2017/


----------



## robgb (Aug 2, 2017)

Krisemm said:


> Yet the very musicians, who create and perpetuate this industry, are increasingly expected to have less and less money, or work for free, pay to play etc...and we have things like spotify etc....whose little empire would not even exist if it hadn't been for musicians, yet they pay musicians criminally tiny amounts.


This is true in most creative fields. The middle men control exposure and distribution, so they can decide who gets the biggest cut of the pie, and it isn't going to be the musician. God forbid the people who make the entire industry possible should also be able to make a living at it. It's the same in the publishing business.


----------



## pz_music (Aug 3, 2017)

I don't subscribe to the whole "music's gone bad" narrative. There are just as many fantastic musicians, bands and composers as ever. Even better: Nowadays we have the best access to all that music, something that decades ago people could only dream of.
Technology has enabled a lot of people to be heard and seen, that doesn't necessarily mean it's become easier or harder to breakthrough. With so many people trying their luck there's a lot of competition and noise one has to get through. What IS true is that the absolute need for a record deal with a big label has gone down. 
After all it was those labels that fought Napster when it started, instead of thinking of ways how they could benefit from it, losing precious time in the process. 

Streaming and subscription-based models are here to stay, that is a fact. Sales of physicals will only continue to go down. So what really needs to be discussed are fair rates of compensation for music played on those platforms, YouTube as the biggest streaming service of all, included.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 3, 2017)

Make the music you miss hearing.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 3, 2017)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Make the music you miss hearing.


Agreed. Personally, I am writing, recording and beginning to perform classic Americana with an acoustic guitar and my mediocre voice. I recorded 5 songs tonight with an actual engineer, through a great signal chain.

What I'm writing is not very pop, but it (hopefully) expresses some views about the America past, human frailties, longing and a few personal truths. 

It won't be Autotuned.


----------



## Morning Coffee (Aug 3, 2017)

I'm coming at this more from a band type of perspective rather than composing for a living, and maybe I'm showing my age, but I think with the rise of the internet and music, people have grown to have shorter attention spans as there is just so much to listen to, so much choice and access to new music, but so little time.

If a song or musical piece doesn't grab people's attention within a few listens, the listeners most likely reaction will be, next!(a bit like online dating!) and you run the risk of falling into the music industry abyss. Of course, this has always been the case, but it is just more so now I feel.

At least when I was younger, and we only had the radio or T.V, you might hear a new song on a few occasions and eventually you would get into it and perhaps purchase the album etc. I know that many times in the past I have disliked a piece of music on it's first few listens, but over time, the song/music grew on me. For example, have you ever listened to an album where the catchy songs got boring after a while and over time the best songs from that album might turn out to be the lesser known ones? This brings me to my next point, I don't think people listen to complete albums like they used to, from start to finish, over and over until it was seared into their brains! For this reason I don't think people purchase complete sets of music anymore.

Music is cheap and disposable now, it is less like it used to be, where an album or a particular band might be considered a brand or an asset of sorts, something you strive to own or be part of the experience.

iTunes and it's ilk, brought choice to the consumer, people didn't have to buy a complete album anymore, just whatever songs that they liked. A brilliant idea at the time, but I also think this is not the best thing for the artists.

How could we fix the music industry? (hopefully with some Gaffer Tape!).
I don't know actually. I think in these times of short attention spans, perhaps bands should stop selling songs individually and just go back to selling an album or shorter EP album as a complete unit, something that was hopefully made with passion, a collection of songs or musical pieces from a snapshot at a certain time of the composers life, to be listened to in a order or as a series, like a story, much like you would look at an artwork where all the elements within the artwork make up the complete picture. I think Pink Floyd tried this a few years ago (to only sell complete albums online, and not individual tracks), but it seems that they are back to selling individual songs, either by choice or for legal reasons.


----------



## pz_music (Aug 3, 2017)

Morning Coffee said:


> I don't think people purchase complete sets of music anymore.


People don't purchase music anymore, they subscribe to it - that's the big new difference. You have this 10 Dollar membership which gives you access to a gigantic pool of all kinds of music. From a consumer perspective this is fantastic, I think. The question is, how can creators benefit from it as well? Platforms like Patreon show an interesting take on this model, by giving the artist full control over all aspects of the proccess. 




Morning Coffee said:


> I think in these times of short attention spans, perhaps bands should stop selling songs individually and just go back to selling an album or shorter EP album as a complete unit


I don't think this is possible. It might be for bands like Pink Floyd and Radiohead, who already have a massive fanbase, but for new and upcoming bands it's just not feasible. Consumers want choice. Just as they've always bought singles and created their own mixtapes.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 3, 2017)

pz_music said:


> People don't purchase music anymore, they subscribe to it - that's the big new difference. You have this 10 Dollar membership which gives you access to a gigantic pool of all kinds of music. From a consumer perspective this is fantastic, I think. The question is, how can creators benefit from it as well? Platforms like Patreon show an interesting take on this model, by giving the artist full control over all aspects of the proccess.



Subscriptions are a bad idea. I like to think people are honest, but the reality is that "pirates" are finding ways to archive the songs that stream and/or download from these sites...such as Apple Music; there are free programs for Google Chrome, for example, that will grab any type of media (which alone is piracy). So for $10, one could theoretically copy thousands of songs. This equates to practically nothing for the artist, and millions in lost profits across the board. Back in the days of a "mix tape", it was still technically pirating if you borrowed an album, but it was all done in real-time. So if you wanted to record that KISS Alive II record, you needed to buy the tape for $15, and then sit through the whole 71 minutes (which wasn't a bad thing, but you were limited by time).


----------



## pz_music (Aug 3, 2017)

It is easier than ever to basically pirate any digital product, but so far user numbers and revenue for subscription-based streaming services have only gone up. We've recently seen a 60,4 % growth in streaming revenue in the music industry.
For me it's not so much a question of if it's a good idea, because that frankly doesn't matter. It's more a question of how can musicians profit from it and how has streaming changed the rules of the industry?


----------



## Krisemm (Aug 3, 2017)

robgb said:


> This is true in most creative fields. The middle men control exposure and distribution, so they can decide who gets the biggest cut of the pie, and it isn't going to be the musician. God forbid the people who make the entire industry possible should also be able to make a living at it. It's the same in the publishing business.



I'm not saying for a second that they shouldn't earn a wage. They are good at what they do, but if every musician in the world came to a standstill, or went on strike for 6 months, those CEOs would be out of a job, so I think they have a brass neck to pay themselves more than the musicians. The musicians are the golden egg. The CEOs are the hen who sit on it and keep it warm until it hatches

Others have said the music industry is in rude health. Its not. Its absolutely amazing for consumers ( cough..."subscribers") but its terrible for musicians, unless you're one of the 1%.

What we also have now is a boatload of wannabe "facilitators", who know they are failed musicians, but they have learned something, and I'll give you an example.
There's a girl online, who read the theory of "1000 True Fans", and now she is making a mint touting herself as having the answers that will grant you fame and all that goes with it, if you will sign up to her course for something like $40 a month. She is raking it in, and i'll tell you why.

Musicians "hopes and dreams" are an infinite supply of money, because they are so desperate that they'll sign up for this course, buy this ebook, join this, subscribe to that. Now, this girl stole this idea. She plagiarised it from the guy who wrote it, and now she is parasitically sitting on the backs of musicians, telling them all the cliches like "don't give up", "your music needs to be great" etc....and she's raking it in.
I've seen others just like her. Failed musicians who know from personal experience what will "tickle the ears" of musicians, desperate to succeed.


----------



## patrick76 (Aug 3, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> Agreed. Personally, I am writing, recording and beginning to perform classic Americana with an acoustic guitar and my mediocre voice. I recorded 5 songs tonight with an actual engineer, through a great signal chain.
> 
> What I'm writing is not very pop, but it (hopefully) expresses some views about the America past, human frailties, longing and a few personal truths.
> 
> It won't be Autotuned.


Cool, I hope there might be a Gillian Welch/ Dave Rawlings influence in there. Good luck with the project!


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 3, 2017)

Thanks! There's a T-Bone Burnett vibe to it. The man almost singlehandedy brought early Americana back to the ears of the world with the songs recorded for "O Brother Where Art Thou"


----------



## robgb (Aug 4, 2017)

Krisemm said:


> I'm not saying for a second that they shouldn't earn a wage. They are good at what they do,


Are they really? To my mind, they throw money at an artist and hope he or she catches fire. Most artists don't. So what does that say about the middle men? Maybe they're aren't that good at their jobs and maybe they just get lucky sometimes. And maybe, just maybe, you have as big a chance of success (monetarily, at least) if you go indie.

We have all had the myth of "middle man relevancy" pounded into us, but from the beginning that's simply been a manufactured relevancy because they controlled the purse strings and the distribution chains. This is no longer true.


----------



## mikehamm123 (Aug 11, 2017)

SoundCloud saved by 11th hour investment


The beleaguered audio streaming platform SoundCloud was saved by a $170 million investment Friday, after reports on Thursday indicated that investors could terminate the company within hours. The "largest financing round in the history of SoundCloud" comes from The Raine Group, which owns the music festival Lollapalooza, and Temesek Holdings, a state-run Singaporean company. Co-founder Alex Ljung will also be replaced as CEO by former Vimeo CEO Kerry Trainor, but will remain with the company as a chairman. "All of this together ... puts our company in a really great position to stay strong and remain independent," Ljung told _Billboard_. "We see a strong, independent future for the company."


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 11, 2017)

"We'll do a big round of funding, but you gotta go."


----------

