MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: If you think we're having it bad look at musicians ...  (Read 48935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« on: February 22, 2015, 05:58 »
+2
Indie labels publishing their MISERABLE payouts from the top streaming music services ... as low as 0.001$ per stream !!

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/02/19/indie-label-spotify-youtube-beats-rdio-google-music-deezer-paying-us

and here another musician got barely 20-30 bucks from it :

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/04/03/streamingstatements


in the meantime things aren't going to look better for a DJ/producer who's working with top brands like Skrillex, he's actually LOSING money even from live gigs !

http://thayernick.tumblr.com/post/80563891112/do-you-wanna-know-just-how-much-money-i-make


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2015, 06:48 »
+12
You can't compare these type of business models. There is a difference between streaming music and using music for advertising or something like that. Streaming can compared with just viewing an image. So every time when someone see an ad with your picture you receive a small amount.

I can't believe that any music artist would give me the permission to use his song for advertising for just one buck like the dollar photo club do. Touring can be compared with traveling to do shots... so there are here also a lot of photographer which will lose money too.

« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2015, 09:28 »
+1
Doesn't indicate how much they make from people like me who listen to streamed music but will pay for a download if they really like it.  When I was a kid, I used to listen to music for free on the radio and tape it.  I don't see streaming as much different, there is obviously a lot more music available now but the good stuff should always make money.

« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2015, 10:02 »
+2
When I was a kid, I used to listen to music for free on the radio and tape it.  I don't see streaming as much different

Subscription streaming (eg Spotify) allows you to play any piece of music which you want to listen to. In this way it is different from radio.

There is no longer really any need to 'own' a music collection - whether virtual or physical (excluding arguments about fidelity, tone etc)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 10:04 by bunhill »

« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2015, 10:42 »
+2
You can't compare these type of business models. There is a difference between streaming music and using music for advertising or something like that. Streaming can compared with just viewing an image. So every time when someone see an ad with your picture you receive a small amount.

I can't believe that any music artist would give me the permission to use his song for advertising for just one buck like the dollar photo club do. Touring can be compared with traveling to do shots... so there are here also a lot of photographer which will lose money too.
Perhaps the comparisons aren't identical but the philosophy of companies running the businesses are. Pay out as little as possible; retain as much as possible.

« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2015, 12:47 »
+2
when mp3 first came out, i knew blokes in our local network who were earning 0.00014 cts per dl . and 50cts per indie produced cd. they had fans writing them from poland, japan, holland, germany,etc . they thought they were awesome and supported these artists. but when the fans were told these blokes were paid 50cts for the cd they bought they said it was sheer exploitation.
these blokes were in the top 5 in electronics,  blues, and fusion charts regularly.
i remember one showing me her annual earning = $74  and this was a leading top 10 chart indie artist during the early days of mp3 in the 90s , way before they dumped all these artists who made them famous, and got tori amos, whatshisname from the old santana group,etc etc etc.
then mp3 wrote these indie guys to say they now had to pay mp3 if they wanted to stay .


« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2015, 12:50 »
0
Perhaps the comparisons aren't identical but the philosophy of companies running the businesses are. Pay out as little as possible; retain as much as possible.
Youre right but this is also true for all other businesses as well. Just have a look at Mc Donalds, Ikea, Samsung, Apple and so on Its not a problem of this business its a general problem all over the world.
I still think you cannot compare streaming with the license model of the stock agencies. At the end of the day in the music business are also big players and small amateurs like here. Some making millions while others not even can pay their rent.

« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2015, 12:57 »
0
when mp3 first came out, i knew blokes in our local network who were earning 0.00014 cts per dl . and 50cts per indie produced cd. they had fans writing them from poland, japan, holland, germany,etc . they thought they were awesome and supported these artists. but when the fans were told these blokes were paid 50cts for the cd they bought they said it was sheer exploitation.
these blokes were in the top 5 in electronics,  blues, and fusion charts regularly.
i remember one showing me her annual earning = $74  and this was a leading top 10 chart indie artist during the early days of mp3 in the 90s , way before they dumped all these artists who made them famous, and got tori amos, whatshisname from the old santana group,etc etc etc.
then mp3 wrote these indie guys to say they now had to pay mp3 if they wanted to stay .

I'm confused. Who's mp3 to be writing to people? Was there a platform called mp3?

« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2015, 13:08 »
+1

« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2015, 14:24 »
0
I'm confused. Who's mp3 to be writing to people? Was there a platform called mp3?

back in mid 90s, there was a platform started (quote) to provide level playing field for indie musicians ONLY.(unquote).  it was called mp3.
for many years only indie musicians were allowed. till they got big and famous...
then they dumped all the indies who made them popular.

it transformed into what is today the platform for popular artists.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2015, 01:21 »
+1
Doesn't indicate how much they make from people like me who listen to streamed music but will pay for a download if they really like it. 

for downloads of an average 1.99$ track on Beatport/Juno/ITunes the artist usually only earns 0.30 to 0.50$ as labels typically get 50-70% of each sale while the platform keeps 30-50% ... on the other side if you own your label you get 50-70% all for yourself but yeah it's still peanuts considering the production costs.




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2015, 01:26 »
0
You can't compare these type of business models. There is a difference between streaming music and using music for advertising or something like that. Streaming can compared with just viewing an image. So every time when someone see an ad with your picture you receive a small amount.

I can't believe that any music artist would give me the permission to use his song for advertising for just one buck like the dollar photo club do. Touring can be compared with traveling to do shots... so there are here also a lot of photographer which will lose money too.

downloading a song does NOT give you any further permission to use it on movies or videos.
that's a whole different ball game, you will need to pay the author a reasonable amount of money, while there's a market for licenced sounds and loops and even entire songs ... they're called Samplers or Sound Banks and they're sold specifically to producers that will use them for commercial purposes .. however i don't think they get rich with that as some as are as cheap as 10$ ... while the industry's top plugins for Film Music cost 1000s of dollars.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2015, 01:30 »
+1
more on Pandora :

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2015, 06:43 »
+1
DAVID BYRNE writes in his blogs against the dreadful situation of the music business, claiming he's too on his last leg financially.
http://www.davidbyrne.com/how-will-the-wolf-survive-can-musicians-make-a-living-in-the-streaming-era

IGGY POP confirms he's broke and can't live off music royalties anymore, he's now a DJ and fashion model !
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/when-iggy-pop-cant-live-off-his-art-what-chance-do-the-rest-have/article21154663/



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2015, 06:51 »
+1
trending : in 2014 90% of all the music sales in Norway have been thru streaming !
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/5876789/business-matters-norwegian-musics-revenue-spike-may


this is BIG ... imagine 90% of the stock industry based on the cheapest subs ?
if the same trend spreads all over the rest of the world it will be the last straw for musicians.

« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2015, 07:36 »
-2
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits.  It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again.  I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it  :)

« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2015, 09:41 »
-1
Indie labels publishing their MISERABLE payouts from the top streaming music services ... as low as 0.001$ per stream !!

This isn't comparable at all. This was more like if we got 0.001$ every time someone looks at one of our images. (Wow - even I would be rich then!)  :))


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2015, 10:00 »
+1
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits.  It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again.  I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it  :)

i think many so called rockstars are totally inflating their real value, and if now streaming is the leading way to sell music i'm not surprised they're feeling the heat and live gigs are their last way left to make some money, problem is that even doing gigs is not exactly enriching artists like in the past, there's a good reason way even the top sellers like ACDC are gigging left and right no stop to make quick bucks while they can.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2015, 10:02 »
0
Indie labels publishing their MISERABLE payouts from the top streaming music services ... as low as 0.001$ per stream !!

This isn't comparable at all. This was more like if we got 0.001$ every time someone looks at one of our images. (Wow - even I would be rich then!)  :))

i think we're having it a lot better than musicians overall, it's a lot easier to shoot a photo set than to write a song and producing the final product, not to mention the shelf life of a stock photo can be easily be in the range of 3-5 yrs.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2015, 10:05 »
+1
talking about Iggy Pop, but his story could be similar to many other rockers, there's this interesting transcription of a lecture he gave on BBC where he puts on the table some details of his financials and how he's been always scr-ewed by record labels in the past :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1DBxXYBDJLt2xZgxjzCkLRg/bbc-music-john-peel-lecture-iggy-pops-keynote-speech-transcript


« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2015, 10:59 »
+1
As usual, Bowie was way ahead of the curve with the $55m collateralization of the future earnings of his back catalogue in 1997 - the first time that most people had ever heard of (ETA: the sort of finance which ultimately gave us .. ) CDOs.

Bowie Bonds.

Is David Bowie to blame for the credit crunch?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 11:15 by bunhill »

« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2015, 13:39 »
0
there are a number of popular artists who go their own way. they distribute their music almost independently and even some say they don't care if their fans share their music , as they more or less live on concerts and paraphanelia (spelling???) sold at the concerts like tshirt poster caps etc
this is not new. remember during my kiddie days hearing my elders talking about the grateful dead doing concerts and not recording. everyone brought their tape recorders to tape their performances and jerry garcia actually encourage them to do so.
but not many artists can do that , go against the empire...same with stock photographers.

« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2015, 18:27 »
0
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits.  It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again.  I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it  :)


i think many so called rockstars are totally inflating their real value, and if now streaming is the leading way to sell music i'm not surprised they're feeling the heat and live gigs are their last way left to make some money, problem is that even doing gigs is not exactly enriching artists like in the past, there's a good reason way even the top sellers like ACDC are gigging left and right no stop to make quick bucks while they can.

A lot of them don't seem to have a problem getting on a rich list or paying huge divorce settlements, so I disagree with you on that one.  A dreadful glam rock star from the UK who is now quite rightly in prison is still allegedly making a small fortune from a few songs he wrote in the 70's.  Some of them were screwed by the record companies but if that didn't happen, we wouldn't have some great songs like this one.
<a href="http://youtu.be/kqVpk0qxmfA" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://youtu.be/kqVpk0qxmfA</a>

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2015, 19:35 »
+3
Excellent post by David Bryne. Sounds eerily similar to stock photography.

I've heard a lot of artists accepted some pretty bad deals over the years. [Promoter] "Hey you get to hear your music on the radio, fly jets to concerts, party all day and night, and live like a rockstar. No you don't get any royalties and yes you're signing over all of your music rights to us forever but that's normal! You wanna be a rock star or go back to being a nobody who's barely getting by doing odd jobs. Sign here now or we'll offer it to another band".

He's right though. How will artists be compensated? Things aren't headed in the right direction.

« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2015, 20:26 »
0
Excellent post by David Bryne. Sounds eerily similar to stock photography.

I've heard a lot of artists accepted some pretty bad deals over the years. [Promoter] "Hey you get to hear your music on the radio, fly jets to concerts, party all day and night, and live like a rockstar. No you don't get any royalties and yes you're signing over all of your music rights to us forever but that's normal! You wanna be a rock star or go back to being a nobody who's barely getting by doing odd jobs. Sign here now or we'll offer it to another band".

He's right though. How will artists be compensated? Things aren't headed in the right direction.

if you really want to hear a tragic story of a musician being scr*wed, read up on either Robert Johnson or Charlie Parker , the great bluesman and the great jazz man. One of them signed away his music for like 5 bucks or something. I think it was Robert Johnson because he could not read or something like that. But Bird (Charlie Parker) also got scr*wed by his reps as well in the early day of his career. That was what prompted Miles Davis to be cynical about dealing with the people in suits.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2015, 01:56 »
+1
Excellent post by David Bryne.

He's right though. How will artists be compensated?

they won't.
the new paradigm is that producing music is just a hobby unless you're Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Britney Spears, etc

as much as fans claim that artists will survive with live gigs this is only true for the top 5% musicians, at best.
the Stones are now selling tickets for as much as 350$ bucks but the run of the mill bands are stuck with 20-30$ tickets or even getting paid in beers ...

i've a friend of mine who's a songwriter for Sony and other labels, do you think he's getting rich ? NO ! he's got a day job in a music store and plays some gigs with his own local band, the royalties he's earning from downloads/streaming/radio are a pittance since he's just the songwriter and he won't see a single dollar from the gigs and from merchandising while in the meantime the artists playing HIS songs are getting filthy rich.

and he's F ing pissed at that, rightfully so, so much that he wants to give up with songwriting.

on the other side another of our friends who played with me and with him in the past now runs a studio and is making a decent living recording and mastering local bands as there's no shortage of fools dreaming to become rich and famous playing music and willing to invest 1000s of dollars to produce a professional quality Demo, he also helps these bands with e-commerce sites, merchandising, and more ... that's more money coming in, and he said he often makes more money with merchandising that with the studio which says it all ...

so, a very dark sscenario from any perspective if you ask me.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2015, 02:04 »
0
as David Byrne point pointed out, there's soooo many artists who are not cut for live shows, and i can say there are also many genres of music that cannot be played live due to the high production costs involved, what's going to happen once the only way to earn money is from streaming and a bunch of digital downloads ?

i can tell you what, they'll all stop playing music and go flipping burgers as producing music is NOT CHEAP nowadays and the cost/benefits scenario is totally stacked against musicians.



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2015, 02:13 »
+1
as for on-demand streaming :

it will kill the music industry itself because what's the difference between paying to download a few tracks and requiring 2-3 clicks to play back the music when i want compared to 2-3 click on Spotify to listen to the same tracks while paying 10$/month for unlimited access ?

it's exactly the same as long as i have a 3G connection but while the artist will get 0.50$ for each download he's barely earning 0.00001 dollar for each stream played on Spotify and that's a HUGE difference.

no wonder users LOVE streaming, it's a dream come true for them ... but it will kill music if the trend keeps going on and in particular it will kill Indie labels which are the ones actually scouting for talents before they later join the major record companies.

the only ones that will survive are the DJs as they don't play a musical instrument and they "play" somebody else music and have very small production costs ... even a cheap DJ asking 2-300$ per night can still be profitable but this is out of question for a live band or a single musician.

« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2015, 03:05 »
-1
Just for comparison:

I sold a file at alamy today. I received $60 for an editorial license for a maximum of 100,000 prints. So divide $60 with 100,000 prints that would be $0.0006 per print

You can also compare it with the shutterstock subscription royalties. I receive $0.38 for a subscription download. You can use this picture 250,000 times. Now divide $0.38 with 250,000 = $0.00000152 per use.

But Its for commercial use! Not for private use like the stream. A big difference!

And another point I can buy a license from a microstock superstar for just a few bucks for commercial use. Ask a music superstar if you can use his new song in your project for the same amount.
If I would receive $0.001 per view at shutterstock I would only need 380 views (streams) per image to receive the same amount I think this would be a really good deal!

If there will be a stream based offer in the microstock business I think we will receive about $0.00005 or less per view.

Generally I think its the same situation in the music industry and in the microstock business. You need to be really good and have your own style/sound to be a superstar both in the music industry and in the microstock business. There are also so much (copy-)amateurs in both businesses who will always complain that they cant make a comfortable living from their work. And you always have someone who earns good money but wants to have more or who live beyond his means.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2015, 06:21 »
0
Just for comparison:


yours is an interesting analysis but it's comparing apples vs oranges as stock images are meant to be licenced and their raison d'etre is to be paired into an article, a billboard, a poster, a postcard, a book, whatever, while music is "consumed" in the moment it's being played :

users are willing to pay to play music, but nobody would pay to watch an image unless we talk of framed photos in museums.

as for Alamy : fully agree, and while they give you 60 bucks you can bet the advertising in the next page earned them 500 or 1000$ ...

on SS : yes, but then again it only shows that commercially speaking our RF images are worthless and it's a buyers market, this topic been discussed to death a million times.

however, i don't agree we can compare it with "streams" as a users streaming a whole song and paying 0.00001$ for it are actually "consuming" and enjoying the final product while this is not happening for stock buyers, they will always need their designer to edit the image or the layout and blah blah blah ... what we sell is just one of the many ingredients they need to craft their final product, nobody buy our images to just print them out and resell them as postcards or whatever (i may be wrong of course).




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2015, 06:31 »
0
Generally I think its the same situation in the music industry and in the microstock business.

not yet, because the shelf life of a stock image can last a few years while the music market is so oversaturated that your window of opportunity is barely 2-3 months unless you're famous and backed by the top labels.

and while they can do gigs we could do exhibitions, vernissages, and art galleries but that's not the case for us unless we're into fine-art and established into the art market.

said that, i still feel better at the idea of earning 0.30$ for a sub than earning 0.50$ for a song on Beatport considering it takes me 1/100th the time to shoot a saleable image.

we're still having it a lot better than musicians in my opinion and it won't change anytime soon as musicians are the ones feeling the heat now along with journalists and writers, we're still in a sort of limbo but the industry is getting bigger not smaller not to mention that there's a growing need for imagery on the web while the demand for music is limited to multimedia and videos so it's a totally different ballgame as far as we're concerned.



« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2015, 08:29 »
-1
as David Byrne point pointed out, there's soooo many artists who are not cut for live shows, and i can say there are also many genres of music that cannot be played live due to the high production costs involved, what's going to happen once the only way to earn money is from streaming and a bunch of digital downloads ?

i can tell you what, they'll all stop playing music and go flipping burgers as producing music is NOT CHEAP nowadays and the cost/benefits scenario is totally stacked against musicians.
Most of the great musicians of the past didn't make any money until late in their careers and I think they made almost all their best music when they were skint.  Its unfortunate that most of them don't get properly financially rewarded for their music now but it isn't stopping them making great music.  Listening to a lot of music from the past year, the standard seems higher than ever.  They must be making music because they love doing it.  If 5% go on to make a lot of money, that's probably not much different to the other arts.

« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2015, 08:47 »
0
Most of the great musicians of the past didn't make any money until late in their careers ..

Equally much of the world's greatest photography has been done by photographers who were/are essentially amateurs. Or as the unrelated side-projects of people who were also professionals. And every time a new wave comes in via the counter culture it is almost invariably in reaction/against the established professionalism.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2015, 12:09 »
0
Most of the great musicians of the past didn't make any money until late in their careers ..

Equally much of the world's greatest photography has been done by photographers who were/are essentially amateurs. Or as the unrelated side-projects of people who were also professionals. And every time a new wave comes in via the counter culture it is almost invariably in reaction/against the established professionalism.

sure but there's a big difference in production costs.
an amateur can potentially produce gorgeous photos even with a cheap entry level DSLR sold at 3-400$.
on the other side to make a song nowadays you need a fast PC, a DAW software, plugins, knowledge about music, mastering, and a LOT OF TIME especially.

yeah there's an awful lot of free apps for music also, Reaper for instance is a top DAW and it's almost free, there are hundreds of decent free plugins too ... but again the time needed to master all this is a lot bigger than what's required to make a decent photo in my opinion.

the only exception is electronic dance music (now called EDM in the US for whatever silly reason) ... in that case you don't even need to know how to play an instruments and you can definitely use pre-made loops for 90% of the final product ... i've seen idiot DJs even taking pride of that and on top of this very few people noticed it and their "songs" received positive feedbacks .. we've come to this !!

but going back to the core issue : YES, with just a cheap laptop and free music software you can indeed make a good song today, i mean at least an instrumental song, the problem arises in case you need to record vocals ... you will need a good microphone, a mixer and pre-amp, at least a minimal home studio, and of course some good headphones or decent speakers + amp ... this doesn't come cheap at all.

as for the music itself : sure, technically we're now free to play any possible sound for free at this point, but despite this i see such a decrease in melodic productions in the last 20 yrs, very very few innovative stuff comes out and most of the staff being played is made with the same plugins, the same sounds, over and over again ... there's been almost no evolution at all in most of the music genres after the '90s and this is saddening considering nowadays even a 500$ laptop has all the raw power that in the past would have cost an arm and a leg.

everyone was complaining about the sheer complexity and costs of running an analog or digital studio, now you can produce good quality songs from top to bottom on the cheapest hardware and using mostly free software too, so no excuses regarding the technical side .. the issue as always lies in the lack of musical innovation and for this we can only blame the public which has been totally dumbed down and is now unable to appreciate good music after being brainwashed by MTV and Disco and Radios since birth.

« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2015, 13:05 »
0
Hobostocker, not liking new music is just a sign of getting old.  There's always people saying that new music isn't as good as it used to be but they just can't appreciate it.  And every generation steals from those that went before them, even the Beatles did it.  Here's a few examples http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-02-09/10-little-known-songs-that-inspired-beatles-classics/

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2015, 01:02 »
-1
Hobostocker, not liking new music is just a sign of getting old.  There's always people saying that new music isn't as good as it used to be but they just can't appreciate it.  And every generation steals from those that went before them, even the Beatles did it.  Here's a few examples http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-02-09/10-little-known-songs-that-inspired-beatles-classics/


i can tell you a few days ago i had the guts to listen to the entire iTunes top-40 and even the whole Beatport top-100 .. yes one by one ... i spent the whole day on it because i felt i had to "get up with the times".

it turns out i liked barely 5% of those songs and in a few cases i almost needed to throw up (Dubstep, Brostep, Trap, HipHop) and lower the volume to preserve my sanity.

sure, maybe i'm getting old but maybe this music just sucks despite being mixed and mastered very very good.

my impression is producers are totally clueless about what to do next, all they're doing is remixing over and over old stuff and cloning all the top-10 hits in the hope that something will stick on the wall, i mean even using the exact same sounds this especially visible on Beatport.

so, is it my fault being an old f-art or today's music is incredibly boring and predictable ? we'll see ... in the meantime i won't play that cr-ap anytime soon.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 01:05 by Hobostocker »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2015, 01:12 »
0
Most of the great musicians of the past didn't make any money until late in their careers and I think they made almost all their best music when they were skint.  Its unfortunate that most of them don't get properly financially rewarded for their music now but it isn't stopping them making great music.  Listening to a lot of music from the past year, the standard seems higher than ever.  They must be making music because they love doing it.  If 5% go on to make a lot of money, that's probably not much different to the other arts.

indeed, people will keep playing music even if they get zero financial rewards for it but the whole musical scene will turn into a bunch of hobbyists and amateurs, that's the ultimate result of all this mess.

only the few ones backed by the major record companies will have the resources and the time to produce professional stuff year after year.

but this means 80% of the hits on radio and streaming and downloads will be mostly cheesy commercial sh-it while the remaining 20% of the market will be made of a few diamonds in the rough produced by fly-by-night Indie labels, that's the way it is already.

should i listen forever to lady gaga or beyonce or Jay-z ? no thanks.
and in fact i'm not listening music much since more than 10 yrs, and if i do it's pre-90s stuff usually.
from time to time i take a look at the new stuff and all i get is the latest horrible cr-ap by lady gaga or Daft Punk or whatever "celebrity" that i couldn't give a F ck about ...


« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2015, 05:27 »
0
Hobostocker, not liking new music is just a sign of getting old.  There's always people saying that new music isn't as good as it used to be but they just can't appreciate it.  And every generation steals from those that went before them, even the Beatles did it.  Here's a few examples http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-02-09/10-little-known-songs-that-inspired-beatles-classics/


i can tell you a few days ago i had the guts to listen to the entire iTunes top-40 and even the whole Beatport top-100 .. yes one by one ... i spent the whole day on it because i felt i had to "get up with the times".

it turns out i liked barely 5% of those songs and in a few cases i almost needed to throw up (Dubstep, Brostep, Trap, HipHop) and lower the volume to preserve my sanity.

sure, maybe i'm getting old but maybe this music just sucks despite being mixed and mastered very very good.

my impression is producers are totally clueless about what to do next, all they're doing is remixing over and over old stuff and cloning all the top-10 hits in the hope that something will stick on the wall, i mean even using the exact same sounds this especially visible on Beatport.

so, is it my fault being an old f-art or today's music is incredibly boring and predictable ? we'll see ... in the meantime i won't play that cr-ap anytime soon.

I think people grow tired of new music because they don't listen to it all the time.  Music grows on you, the more you listen, the more you get in to it.  How many times have you listened to that old stuff?  And there's so much music around now, lots of the good stuff doesn't even get in to the charts.  Try these:-
St. Vincent (David Byrne is back)
Mean Lady
Sleaford Mods (not for the faint of heart!)
Metronomy
Lusts





Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2015, 06:14 »
0
I think people grow tired of new music because they don't listen to it all the time.  Music grows on you, the more you listen, the more you get in to it.  How many times have you listened to that old stuff?  And there's so much music around now, lots of the good stuff doesn't even get in to the charts.  Try these:-
St. Vincent (David Byrne is back)
Mean Lady
Sleaford Mods (not for the faint of heart!)
Metronomy
Lusts

thanks, i will check them out !

and yeah, probably old music sticks with us longer for many good reasons but i can guarantee most of what i'm hearing nowadays is just boring and predictable, i listen a song 10 seconds and i know already what's coming next, and i wonde "F it ... these songs one worth the other all the same like carbon copy" ...

again, this has nothing to do with the technical side, actually even the lamest mp3 demo is usually sounding very good and very clean, and if that matter i notice they're abusing FXs like compressors and sidechaining pushing the volume and the harmonics to the max which is not a nice development in my opinion.

THE problem facing music today is dealing with it's past : at this point all the major musical genres reached their maturity and are almost rotting on themselves, there's no way out, everything has been done to death in any possible way, every sound has been used and abused, every weird FX has been pushed to the limits, really one wonders what's left to try or to invent ... everybody is waiting for the "next big thing" since 20 years but there's nothing coming out that is radically new, even among the Indie labels that target the most unusual crowds.

and personally, having traveled in so many esotic countries i naively expected to "discover" some less known music genres played locally but i was wrong as even most of the folk music here in asia is the same sh-it over and over and in the mainstream there's a flood of cheesy chinese/korean/thai Pop ... India and Nepal are much more interesting in this regard and so is the Balinese Gamelan or the Cambodian Folk and Burmese traditional music and i could list a few other examples but all in all nothing spectacularly "new" or innovative from any perspective, actually it;s very sad since the pop culture here is becoming shamefully westernized with local musicians ripping off western cr-ap like Lady Gaga, i even heard Mongolian hip-hop for F cks sake ... hahaha ....


« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2015, 06:39 »
0
I listen to the first album by Jake Bugg and the 2 La Roux albums a lot.  Nothing groundbreaking about either of them and its easy to spot their influences but the music is good and listening to something more recent is refreshing.

Who cares if most of modern music is rubbish?  I think there's more music being made now than ever before and even if I only like 1% of it, that's probably more than I have time to listen to.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2015, 10:13 »
0
I listen to the first album by Jake Bugg and the 2 La Roux albums a lot.  Nothing groundbreaking about either of them and its easy to spot their influences but the music is good and listening to something more recent is refreshing.

Who cares if most of modern music is rubbish?  I think there's more music being made now than ever before and even if I only like 1% of it, that's probably more than I have time to listen to.

indeed there's an over-production of music nowadays, too much and who will ever have the time to listen ?
i'm sure there are many diamonds in the rough but i won't invest a whole night clicking here and there scouting for talent ... i'm not a DJ and i'm not an Indie label ... it's like if the whole market has been suddenly locked up itself after the 90s, i mean how many pop/dance/rock songs am i supposed to listen ? the umpteenth punk band "inspired" iggy pop or the ramones, the millionth cover of 80s hits ... no thanks ...

« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2015, 16:35 »
0
Its funny that young people often think old music is rubbish and older people think the opposite.

A lot of those 80's hits were covers of older song or were heavily inspired by them.  Sometimes I prefer the most recent versions, like "Barbra Streisand" by Duck Sauce that uses a sample from "Gotta Go Home" by Boney M that was more than a bit inspired by "Hallo Bimmelbahn" by Nighttrain.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2015, 22:53 »
0
Its funny that young people often think old music is rubbish and older people think the opposite.

hahaha good luck finding a modern band on par with The Who or The Queen ... keep dreaming, young guys, it's a creative desert nowadays.


« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2015, 23:45 »
0
Its funny that young people often think old music is rubbish and older people think the opposite.

not if you're a horn/pianist/guitarist/(jazz) or  guitarist / drummer (blues/rock or even metal)
the young players still look to the old masters. only the pop ones think old is crap, then again
pop has always been crap from 60s archies sam the sham to whatever is top today

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2015, 02:20 »
0

« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2015, 04:41 »
0
Its funny that young people often think old music is rubbish and older people think the opposite.

hahaha good luck finding a modern band on par with The Who or The Queen ... keep dreaming, young guys, it's a creative desert nowadays.
I prefer Muse to Queen.  There's maybe 10 Queen songs I really like, their last few albums didn't do it for me at all.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2015, 05:09 »
0
Its funny that young people often think old music is rubbish and older people think the opposite.

hahaha good luck finding a modern band on par with The Who or The Queen ... keep dreaming, young guys, it's a creative desert nowadays.
I prefer Muse to Queen.  There's maybe 10 Queen songs I really like, their last few albums didn't do it for me at all.

i've never played Muse songs but since you ask i will now take a quick look ... as for the Queen yeah not their whole portfolio is good but they were able to produce 5-10 songs that will be played FOREVER and ever .. i could go as far as say that the Queen are probably the best rock band ever because unlike The Who their sound is super classic and evergreen.


« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2015, 05:19 »
0

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2015, 10:23 »
0
Brian May likes them http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8304176.stm


talking about piracy .. among the first results on youtube if you search "Muse" there's a couple of their  albums, one of which has 1 million views ??

and the uploader has also the nerve to write this caption :

"No Copyright Infringement Intended: All rights reserved to the owners @ Warner Bros. Records & Muse || This is a Non Official Muse Greatest Hits Collection (2014). A non-profit fan made video, for purposes such as criticism & comment, a fair use permitted by copyright statute."

oh really ??? fair use on Warner Bros stuff ?

« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 10:28 by Hobostocker »

« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2015, 10:57 »
0
Muse only made $34 million last year according to Forbes, so you can see that having their music on youtube is hitting them  :)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2015, 06:00 »
0
Muse only made $34 million last year according to Forbes, so you can see that having their music on youtube is hitting them  :)


Muse are in the top-10 best sellers now, they're representing the 0.00000001% of musicians :)

by the way, interesting chart with the richest players of 2014 using Forbes data :
http://www.skyrange.net/highest-paid-musicians-2014-earnings-per-second

and now ... who the F is this DJ Calvin Harris making 66 millions ???????
this is totally unbelievable, never heard of this guy, he's even got some videos on Youtube with 80+ million plays ??????

we've finally reached the rock bottom if a DJ is making more bucks than established Billboard popstars !
this was unthinkable just a few years ago, what's next ?

let me reiterate the concept, this guy is NOT even playing a musical instrument nor singing a song, what the F is he doing exactly ? can't F ing believe it we've come to this, music is dead.


« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2015, 09:28 »
0
Just shows how out of touch with modern music you are if you haven't heard of Calvin Harris.  And it isn't always conventional groups that make music, nothing new there, remember Frank Farian?  He was behind Boney M and Milli Vanilli.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2015, 11:01 »
0
Just shows how out of touch with modern music you are if you haven't heard of Calvin Harris.  And it isn't always conventional groups that make music, nothing new there, remember Frank Farian?  He was behind Boney M and Milli Vanilli.

indeeed, definitely i'm out of touch ... too many songs coming out, it's impossible to keep track of even just the top sellers.

hahaha Milly Vanilli, excellent scam, their fans fully deserved it ...




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2015, 02:45 »
0
by the way, NO difference between Milli Vanilli and David Guetta :

"The Truth about David Guetta"
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U2I7Eza1v64J:http://axwell.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f%3D1%26t%3D2355%2Btruth+david+guetta&safe=off&gbv=1&sei=rb3yVJbvBsyzuASSwYGoBQ&hl=en&&ct=clnk

hahaha ......
only in google cache as the original has been deleted ?

and same for Tiesto using another "ghost producer" for many years ....there's an interview with him on Beatport and to top of it off he tried to make his own tunes but it was a total fiasco, no matter if the songs were "tiesto style" ... it just shows that without the backing of a famous brand the music in itself is worth nothing.

moral of the story : he's pretty happy doing ghost producing for other DJs now and claiming to make very good money too ... !

the music industry is rotten to the core and the more they throw buckets of sh-it in the face of their fans the more these idiot fans are happy and ask for more ??
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 03:00 by Hobostocker »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2015, 03:15 »
0
more on the top ghost producers :

http://whiteraverrafting.com/top-ghost-producers/2014/04/14/

nice to see there are web sites exposing these rascals.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
2487 Views
Last post July 17, 2013, 22:21
by Silken Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results