The live aspect of the music biz can save...or is the whole thing doomed?

[equallyscrewed]

So, after banging my head against a wall and coming against discrimination that would make any civil rights court shriek in another thread...I'm punting this out there.

Who here still holds the opinion that artists will always lose money from tours and that the only way to "save" the industry worldwide is to stop piracy so the artists can get the whole dollar that they got before from a $17 album.

As i say in all the threads : I'm 100% ANTI piracy, i dont think any one has the right to steal anyone elses art.

I do however see touring as a valuable life line for most bands. Dont take my word for it though...

"The top 10% of artists make money selling records. The rest go on tour," says Scott Welch, who manages singers Alanis Morissette and LeAnn Rimes.

- Taken from Forbes.com - Magazine Article

So what do you guys think????

Anyone can post in this thread regardless of position, experience or age. Except Digitar or DrBill untill they e mail me their CV (email address available on PM)

xcx

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

So, after banging my head against a wall and coming against discrimination that would make any civil rights court shriek in another thread...

Mate, you are really pushing the boat out with a claim like that.
Many of us disagree with each other's point of view on such an important issue, and I think it's just silly to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is discriminating against you.
Your question is also incorrectly put.
No one is suggesting 'artists will always lose money'.
Actually I did a tour a couple of years ago, two months around America and the artist lost money.
What I have said right from the start is three things.....
1) Please don't forcefully take away one of my revenue streams (record sales and copyright).
2) Don't assume every recording (some of them adventurous and fabulous) can be supported with a revenue rescuing tour. In addition, will touring remain lucrative once every musician and their mother has to tour repeatedly to replace income from recording.
3) Don't force me out on the road, when I don't currently have to tour to make ends meet, and I might be putting my health and family relationships in jeopardy.

Touring is not the panacea (IMO) that will save the industry from piracy.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Mate, you are really pushing the boat out with a claim like that.
Many of us disagree with each other's point of view on such an important issue, and I think it's just silly to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is discriminating against you.
Your question is also incorrectly put.
No one is suggesting 'artists will always lose money'.
Actually I did a tour a couple of years ago, two months around America and the artist lost money.
What I have said right from the start is three things.....
1) Please don't forcefully take away one of my revenue streams (record sales and copyright).
2) Don't assume every recording (some of them adventurous and fabulous) can be supported with a revenue rescuing tour. In addition, will touring remain lucrative once every musician and their mother has to tour repeatedly to replace income from recording.
3) Don't force me out on the road, when I don't currently have to tour to make ends meet, and I might be putting my health and family relationships in jeopardy.

Touring is not the panacea (IMO) that will save the industry from piracy.

I think we might as well push every single thread in this forum into one big free for all. Honestly, Ive had it with this site dude, its becoming saturated with the things i dont like about working with music.

But while im here...

I dont object to disagreeing, but when some one puts conditions on who can post in what threads based on experience (or more accurately...age) ...that crosses a big line with me, especially when they arent prepared to step up to the mark when i have on many occasions.

Pour example :

I think if you want into the fight, you should be a pro, have larger than 25% of your income be derived from writers or artist royalties, and be in the business longer than 5-10 years.

To say that IMO is bull. A third of my life working in the industry, 100% of my earnings from it, to be spoken to like that from someone who doesnt even support all areas of the industry. Childish. Maybe you'll say what I'm writting just now is childish, well im addressing what you said. Thats the end of it.

Now back on topic.

1) Please don't forcefully take away one of my revenue streams (record sales and copyright)........ Read my first post. THATS WHAT I'M SAYING. you can still have that revenue, but the reality of the world is that that revenue is shrinking. If you can survive on that smaller income, fine. If you cannot you must look for alternative methods of making money from the industry. THATS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT - exploring one of the biggest revenue streams.

2) Don't assume every recording (some of them adventurous and fabulous) can be supported with a revenue rescuing tour. In addition, will touring remain lucrative once every musician and their mother has to tour repeatedly to replace income from recording.
No one mentioned touring to support recordings. This is an independant revenue stream. One of my all time top ten vocalists tours with his band, then does world tours himself acoustically. This is making the most of the live scene to maximise income. What about the other members of the band i hear you cry out in anger? They play in other bands as session musicains on the side as well as producing other bands.

3) Don't force me out on the road, when I don't currently have to tour to make ends meet, and I might be putting my health and family relationships in jeopardy. If you dont have to tour to survive - what are you complaining about? The fact is, many bands HAVE to. See my quote in my first post. The top 10% of artists make a living from record sales alone. Everyone else has to work that bit harder. This is one avenue and IMO one of the biggest.

Please read the article i cited before commenting...it makes the whole thing seem a lot smarter...


Regards

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Please read the article i cited before commenting...it makes the whole thing seem a lot smarter...

Everyone knows live playing can be a valuable component of surviving in the industry.
The argument/debate on this forum over the last couple of weeks is this.....
Should we give up the fight against piracy, and/or move to a new system where recorded music is given freely? And would any lost revenue from recorded music be made up by increased touring or live performance?

Everyone knows you have to 'work a bit harder'. I think most have been doing that since the 90's (at least).
I just keep seeing live touring being put forward as the answer to the future of the industry, and I'm sorry I don't really buy it (for the reasons stated above). I also don't think the music industry is doomed.
And by the way, many bands I've worked with (who incidentally survive just fine) cannot play 5,000 seater venues 4 or 5 times a week.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Everyone knows live playing can be a valuable component of surviving in the industry.
The argument/debate on this forum over the last couple of weeks is this.....
Should we give up the fight against piracy, and/or move to a new system where recorded music is given freely? And would any lost revenue from recorded music be made up by increased touring or live performance?

Everyone knows you have to 'work a bit harder'. I think most have been doing that since the 90's (at least).
I just keep seeing live touring being put forward as the answer to the future of the industry, and I'm sorry I don't really buy it (for the reasons stated above). I also don't think the music industry is doomed.
And by the way, many bands I've worked with (who incidentally survive just fine) cannot play 5,000 seater venues 4 or 5 times a week.

This is all good man, and your input to the thread is appreciated.

I understand the arguement thats taken place on the forum over the past few weeks all too well. But thats not the arguement here.

This thread is about exploring the live route as an alternative financial stream. The basis behind this being that you cannot "pirate" live performance.

It can also be used to encourage the sales of CDs. Buy this album, get priority or discounted tickets.

One major cell phone company here (o2) uses gig tickets to get new customers. If you get your phone from them, theres tickets for gigs in the (former millenium dome) o2 arena. One of the biggest ones was a prince gig.

I think your remark about touring bands not being able to fill 5000 seaters may be geographical.

Here, major acts fill arenas no problem, and the live scene is properly thriving (its how i make most my money). Perhaps thats why our opinions differ?

xcx

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Here, major acts fill arenas no problem, and the live scene is properly thriving (its how i make most my money). Perhaps thats why our opinions differ?

I was domiciled in London for the past 25 years.
I was talking about bands I've worked with like Julian Cope, The Waterboys, World Party.
They've survived very comfortably over the years, and have rarely if ever risen to the level of playing 5,000 seaters regularly, even in America.
Many of these type of bands can tour for about two or three months a year also. That's not going to pay many wages.
And yes, if I was talking geographically what are you saying - no more bands from Australia and New Zealand, because there are half a dozen major cities and you can only play them once or twice a year?

Anyway, I get your point.
It's obvious at the moment that touring is taking up the slack from record sales.
I still don't think it's the general answer to falling revenues though.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Here, major acts fill arenas no problem, and the live scene is properly thriving

And if you look around the web you'll see several rock tours and music festivals cancelled due to poor ticket sales.
There are either too many events, or it's the slowing economy, or most likely both.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I was domiciled in London for the past 25 years.
I was talking about bands I've worked with like Julian Cope, The Waterboys, World Party.
They've survived very comfortably over the years, and have rarely if ever risen to the level of playing 5,000 seaters regularly, even in America.
Many of these type of bands can tour for about two or three months a year also. That's not going to pay many wages.
And yes, if I was talking geographically what are you saying - no more bands from Australia and New Zealand, because there are half a dozen major cities and you can only play them once or twice a year?

Anyway, I get your point.
It's obvious at the moment that touring is taking up the slack from record sales.
I still don't think it's the general answer to falling revenues though.

I think the key is to spread yourself out over as much of an area as possible. If theres amazing demand for a particular area, put on another date asap at that date. More than one date in a smaller venue (1500 capacity x 2 nites rather than 3000 capacity x 1 night) can increase your GP percentage due to smaller costs involved. Also, festivals have spread like wildfire in the UK. Before we had T in the Park, Leeds + Reading, and Glastonbury. Now add Live at Loch Lomand, Rock Ness, Bestival, and Big In Falkirk to name a few in the past few years. Festivals are HUGE money spinners, with headline acts earning upwards of £100,000 for smaller festivals.

Of course its not the silver bullet, however the general consensus seems to be that its totally unvalid because it doesnt fit in with all genres of music.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

the general consensus seems to be that its totally unvalid because it doesnt fit in with all genres of music.

Not the 'general consensus', but I agree that touring doesn't suit all music artists I enjoy listening to.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

So, after banging my head against a wall and coming against discrimination that would make any civil rights court shriek in another thread...I'm punting this out there.

So why'd you take you ball and go home???

Whatever.

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Who here still holds the opinion that artists will always lose money from tours and that the only way to "save" the industry worldwide is to stop piracy so the artists can get the whole dollar that they got before from a $17 album.

As for the above :

I'm in. thumbsupthumbsup Prosecute those greedy bastard pirates!!!!

I'm with Chris. If every band toured, the touring market would TANK. All the music fans in the would would need to commit to seeing live music 5 days a week, pay top dollar and even then, the market would tank. Not enough venues, not enough $$ for fans to see live music, not enough time to see it all. I can listen to 17 different artists on my way across town during traffic in 1 afternoon. That would take me a YEAR to see all of them live.

Sorry, not gonna work in this thread any better than it did in the other thread. Nope, I think you're equally screwed whichever thread you push this idea in.

[Volodia]

Originally Posted by drBill

I'm with Chris. If every band toured, the touring market would TANK. All the music fans in the would would need to commit to seeing live music 5 days a week, pay top dollar and even then, the market would tank. Not enough venues, not enough $$ for fans to see live music, not enough time to see it all. I can listen to 17 different artists on my way across town during traffic in 1 afternoon. That would take me a YEAR to see all of them live.
.

It's already happening . The media is repeating the mantra that artists are making money touring ( so it's not importatnt that people download) but it's definetely not the case . here, a lot of big artists have had failing tours ( 2/3 empty venues) . Specially when their record don't sell . Too many artists are on the road at the same time ( because of loss in sales) and the audience money is limited .

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Volodia

It's already happening . The media is repeating the mantra that artists are making money touring ( so it's not importatnt that people download) but it's definetely not the case . here, a lot of big artists have had failing tours ( 2/3 empty venues) . Specially when their record don't sell . Too many artists are on the road at the same time ( because of loss in sales) and the audience money is limited .

Thanks for the perspective Volodia! Sorry to hear it though...

[chrisso]

People regularly lose money on tours.
It's a bit of a crap shoot for most. You are relying on people to buy tickets. You will have embarked on the tour before it become apparent whether the tour is going to be successful or not. If it isn't as popular as you hoped, then the only options are to cancel shows or soldier on.
It's pretty obvious that sales of the 'Bat Out Of Hell' album has funded Rundgren's solo work for years (recording and touring).

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

So, after banging my head against a wall and coming against discrimination that would make any civil rights court shriek in another thread...I'm punting this out there.

Honestly man, I just dont even know where the music industry stands anymore. Is it dying, and the only ones who make what ever is left in the cookie jar the ones who have been around like Radiohead, NIN, Janes Addiction.

Or is there life for a new band or producer still?

I am 101% against piracy, but I dont think its going to stop people from ripping off new albums and sending them back and fourth to people.

I just hope the "Art" form of music is still one that will allow artists to make money, rather than fully fully do it for the passion of doing what they love, like 90% of artists/painters in the world.

[equallyscrewed]

Hey guys, sorry ive not been on...ironically enough, im just back from a mini tour.

I'd like to pick up on point Chris made about the bands having to rely on selling tickets to make money. Ive seen it done differently here that seems to work ok.

This is where the venue guarentees the band $x for playing. Just a flat fee, even if no one turns up. The venue takes 100% of the ticket money until the audience count reaches a pre determined amount, then it moves on to a ticket split with the money for each ticket over the pre determined amount.

This means the venue take the risk... If the band dont attract a crowd, the venue looses. But the venue also has the safety net of bar takings that the acts dont have. So they are less likely to be running at a loss if it's 2/3 empty than the band are.

Ever seen that in your area where ever you all are? i reckon its a good system... The band get paid so will never make a loss. The venue takes a slight risk but has a better chance of survival because of wet sales and profits from other gigs (provided the bookers know whats going to sell in the area). The band can also earn if they pull a big crowd and from merch.

The only way the venue can loose out is if the gig TOTALLY bombs and no one turns up. Could happen for a few reasons. The biggest one being bad booking and promotion.

xcx

[drBill]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Hey guys, sorry ive not been on...ironically enough, im just back from a mini tour.

I'd like to pick up on point Chris made about the bands having to rely on selling tickets to make money. Ive seen it done differently here that seems to work ok.

This is where the venue guarentees the band $x for playing. Just a flat fee, even if no one turns up. The venue takes 100% of the ticket money until the audience count reaches a pre determined amount, then it moves on to a ticket split with the money for each ticket over the pre determined amount.

This means the venue take the risk... If the band dont attract a crowd, the venue looses. But the venue also has the safety net of bar takings that the acts dont have. So they are less likely to be running at a loss if it's 2/3 empty than the band are.

Ever seen that in your area where ever you all are? i reckon its a good system... The band get paid so will never make a loss. The venue takes a slight risk but has a better chance of survival because of wet sales and profits from other gigs (provided the bookers know whats going to sell in the area). The band can also earn if they pull a big crowd and from merch.

The only way the venue can loose out is if the gig TOTALLY bombs and no one turns up. Could happen for a few reasons. The biggest one being bad booking and promotion.

xcx

Haven't seen that for a long time. It would be nice for that to be the "standard", but I suspect it's an anomoly in your area. One can hope though....

PS - I'm still not touring though.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Ever seen that in your area where ever you all are? i reckon its a good system...

In my experience it's often the opposite.
Venues are asking bands to take the fall if the gig isn't successful.
Musicians almost have to pay to play, as at the grass roots sports on tv, or a DJ are very cheap to provide and (unfortunately) popular with punters.
NB: I've worked at this level over the last couple of years. Honestly, the promoters and venue owners are acting as patrons, supporting and financing local bands through gig bookings.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by drBill

Haven't seen that for a long time. It would be nice for that to be the "standard", but I suspect it's an anomoly in your area. One can hope though....

PS - I'm still not touring though.

It's the best one I've seen, although its more used by the acts who are signed by majors or are really big in the indie scene. If you dont want to tour, thats dandy - just as long as you've got food on the table. Like i said - this is just one option that artists have to make more money, i was just shocked at the amount of people who dont see it that way.

Originally Posted by chrisso

In my experience it's often the opposite.
Venues are asking bands to take the fall if the gig isn't successful.
Musicians almost have to pay to play, as at the grass roots sports on tv, or a DJ are very cheap to provide and (unfortunately) popular with punters.
NB: I've worked at this level over the last couple of years. Honestly, the promoters and venue owners are acting as patrons, supporting and financing local bands through gig bookings.

Venues asking the band to take the fall for gigs is absolutly disgusting. I think this shows poor management and promotion on the venues side. I'm not too sure what you mean with the other comment though dude...i must be missing something. Is it a thumbs up or down for the venues?

xcx

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Venues asking the band to take the fall for gigs is absolutly disgusting. I think this shows poor management and promotion on the venues side.

No, it shows their power. If all revenues from recorded music dies, and touring becomes the only way to survive for musicians (for those who can tour), venues will be able to dictate how and who can do this and that. Venues will always be a scarce resource, and they know it. And they WILL abuse that power, make no mistake.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

I'm not too sure what you mean with the other comment though dude...i must be missing something. Is it a thumbs up or down for the venues?

I'm simply reporting my experience from the grass roots.
Smaller venues (which is where new bands blood themselves) have seen that cheap forms of entertainment get results.
Over the last 10 to 15 years, pubs and clubs have been packed on DJ nights, and for sporting occasions shown on large tv screens. The same venues are often less packed to the rafters for live music (which is more expensive to put on).
You must know this right? I mean this is my experience from the UK and Australia.
Venues will also offer a share of the door once expenses are covered.
Many bands will have members of their crew count punters as they come into the venue, because promoters and venue owners routinely round down the number of paying customers leading to a lower payment to the band. This is normal, not poor management or promotion.
Also, most support bands pay to get on a bigger tour.
There's no free lunch for smaller bands (in my experience).

[Volodia]

Originally Posted by spaceman

No, it shows their power. If all revenues from recorded music dies, and touring becomes the only way to survive for musicians (for those who can tour), venues will be able to dictate how and who can do this and that. Venues will always be a scarce resource, and they know it. And they WILL abuse that power, make no mistake.

It's happening for festivals already . If you're not a big name you're paid nothing . A friends band who sold 10k albums and whose videos were played a lot on TV was offered a gig in a festival for ....100€*all included (the band,the food,the travel) .

[juanpz]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

So, after banging my head against a wall and coming against discrimination that would make any civil rights court shriek in another thread...I'm punting this out there.

Who here still holds the opinion that artists will always lose money from tours and that the only way to "save" the industry worldwide is to stop piracy so the artists can get the whole dollar that they got before from a $17 album.

As i say in all the threads : I'm 100% ANTI piracy, i dont think any one has the right to steal anyone elses art.

I do however see touring as a valuable life line for most bands. Dont take my word for it though...

"The top 10% of artists make money selling records. The rest go on tour," says Scott Welch, who manages singers Alanis Morissette and LeAnn Rimes.

- Taken from Forbes.com - Magazine Article

So what do you guys think????

Anyone can post in this thread regardless of position, experience or age. Except Digitar or DrBill untill they e mail me their CV (email address available on PM)

xcx

-------
I'm a live audio taper, and most of the music that I listen to was downloaded for free from archive.org
There is big name artists in the arhives such as; Jack Johnson, 311, Umphreys Mcgee, and Death Cab For Cutie. All of these artists allow tapers to record their live shows and post them, which creates a buzz on the forums from loyal fans who follow their shows closely.

Now I know that downloading these free shows doesn't constitute piracy by any means, but I think that it brings up a good point. Here we have these popular performing artists who regularly tour and allow really high quality recordings to be made and distributed for free, but yet still manage to put out a studio album almost each year and sell the shit out of it.

With new technology driving consumer trends in the distribution of media, there a never ending ways for an artist to gain revenue. Musical artists and composers today are lucky in comparison to those only centuries prior.

p.s.
I've always been under the impression that most artists make the majority of their money selling merchandise while touring.

[bigdoghat]

For the last few months I've been reading articles in one of the main music magazines, not sure if I'm allowed to say which one - anyway it's geared towards musicians doing mostly electronic music - they have 'how to's' for indie acts in terms of how to build your fan base, how to raise your profile on the web and every single article says somewhere you should give away your music - not all of it but some of it - that way you can build your fan base and make money on the road - which comes back to the same question - what if you can't go out on the road due to family commitments or financial commitments - what if you're strictly a studio act, like someone who only does electronic music and could not ever reproduce your music alone and don't have the means or the technical know-how to put together a band that can reproduce what you have recorded for the live realm.

This month's main pro industry magazine had several articles devoted to the subject of smaller acts getting music out there and again the same thing. Give your music away - I understand the idea behind it, it is a good way to build your profile but personally, I feel very concerned that this is being voiced over and over by so many 'experts' in this essentially uncharted territory and I really worry that this is just the tip of the iceberg - that within a matter of moments because so many people are giving away music it will snowball and eventually nobody will want to pay for anything.

Now every article also says that when you give away a couple of tracks you'll gain fans and maybe next time they'll be open to paying a few dollars for your songs or your CD - in my mind that's a big maybe for this trend that's now being touted as the way things should be done.

And I have yet to see an interviewer ask the interviewee - "but what if the act doesn't tour or can't tour" - which I think is something that needs to be asked.

Let me also say that I'm not a person who does electronic music that can't be reproduced - I engineer and I play music for the joy of playing with a friend doing small local gigs and that brings me much happiness - however, for everyone else out there who is serious about a full time career in recording and selling their music, I have a bad feeling about where this model is going to lead all of us. What do you guys think?

[Bob Olhsson]

I haven't a whole lot of use for most of the advice in the gear selling magazines. What's that old saying? "Those who can do, those who can't teach, those who can't teach sell."

Giving music away for "exposure" is a total waste of time and money unless you have some kind of merchandise (including CDs) or tickets available at the same time for people to buy. Fame is always fleeting. It means nothing to anybody who isn't in a position to capitalize on their fame immediately.

The live aspect has been slowly falling apart since the mid '60s. It's mind-boggling that today many seem to believe that record labels created all of the music stars. This has always been a myth. Unfortunately it became fashionable to be a musician and the folks who run venues have exploited people's dreams of stardom and in the process destroyed the quality of grass roots live music. The result has been justifiably low expectations for live music on the part of the average person.

Performing live used to be a path out of poverty and the best way for progressive music to reach an audience outside the dictates of Madison Avenue and commercial radio. That business infrastructure, the one that created most of the American music we've all loved for the past eighty years, has been destroyed by greed. Record labels are the least of this problem because they only exploited the performers that the live music scenes created.

What can we do about this? Putting on great shows at home would be a beginning. Prince moved his house parties into ever larger local hotel ball rooms until he had created a huge following all by himself. I think this is the REAL DIY opportunity, not buying recording gear and giving away recordings of yourself. If it were only about making a great recording of a great "commercial" song, a label could simply hire Dianne Warren and David Foster and be done with it.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by bigdoghat

And I have yet to see an interviewer ask the interviewee - "but what if the act doesn't tour or can't tour" - which I think is something that needs to be asked.

Oaft...Dont start that again, its the point of contention in most of the biz threads now.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

What can we do about this? Putting on great shows at home would be a beginning. Prince moved his house parties into ever larger local hotel ball rooms until he had created a huge following all by himself. I think this is the REAL DIY opportunity, not buying recording gear and giving away recordings of yourself. If it were only about making a great recording of a great "commercial" song, a label could simply hire Dianne Warren and David Foster and be done with it.

Hurrah, at last real suggestions.

100% behind you there!

xcx

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

its the point of contention in most of the biz threads now.

Simply because it's the 64,000 dollar question that remains unanswered.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Simply because it's the 64,000 dollar question that remains unanswered.

Well for the win, id say "in the case of artists not willing/able to tour, they have to find another source of income to offset the losses incured by piracy".

I'm willing to open up the thread for alternatives to live music as an alternative source of income.

xcx

[drBill]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

Well for the win, id say "in the case of artists not willing/able to tour, they have to find another source of income to offset the losses incured by piracy".

Not acceptable to me personally, and I'd guess to about 70% of songwriters/composers/lyricists who are the grist that the mill runs on.

Keep thinking......

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by drBill

Not acceptable to me personally, and I'd guess to about 70% of songwriters/composers/lyricists who are the grist that the mill runs on.

Keep thinking......

I know you may hold the opinion of "stop piracy or allow 100% of record sales to go to artists" and i'd agree.

Unfortunatly, this thread is designed to explore alternatives while the piracy problem is (hopefully) solved.

Untill then, what are your suggestions in the meantime?

Keep thinking......