will the industry renew itself ??

[manning1]

songs like here for the party by gretchen wilson and girls lie too
by terri C is it ? i love this song. makes me laugh.
so - i ask - will these type of songs lead to a new industry resurgance with the consumer, and tempt the consumer like the old days to buy ? OPINIONS ?

[biggator6]

IMNSFHO..
the industry will need to see some type of obvious correlation to finding good, quality talent and good quality songs = making a ton of money. At the same time, they'll have to see that going for the quick buck, no-talent Ashlee Simpson types = less money.

Until the record-buying public stops supporting the stuff that the industry can make for CHEAP... why would they stop?

To put it bluntly:
If I'm a record exec - and I can develop a band over several albums.. put them with good producers, in good studios.. give them time to grow into themselves. But I KNOW they'll sell a ton over time.

OR

I can find some hot 19 year old girl, have some hot producer-du-jour write a catchy tune (just one, that's all we need), record her in his house for peanuts, autotune her to death.. and make a ton right NOW.

Which would I do? Speaking strictly from a money standpoint (which is how the industry runs now).

[boody]

well, the obvious problem is that developing a new act costs years, but the targets for A&Rs is set higher each year. So, if an A&R suceeds in developing a great act over say 3 years and makes a ton in the release year, then for the next year his target is set on last years profit plus 15%. Wich he can't make ofcourse because it takes at least 3 more years to develop the new act. So, instead of signing a few acts and put loads of time in them, they rather sign a celebrity, or sign a band and leave them be until they accidently come up with something good. Anything to meet the target, otherwise they're out...

Another thing is that the industry still focusses on kids, but the kids are no longer the ones investing in the market. Over here you needed to sell 150.000 singles to have a number one hit. Now you need to sell 3000

And they still didn't change the business models...

[manning1]

what i dont understand is years ago labels used to have in house songwriters on staff and all sorts of support people didnt they ?
so....from the above posts are they just "shell corporations"
now ? i often wonder how the scenario would play out if say the beatles or the old motown talented groups were to hit the market NOW instead of when they did years ago....would the
consumer buy in the millions ? what if deep purple came out NOW ? the reason i ask is if the public is not even willing to buy good acts - then indeed,sadly, the industry is in very deep trouble.

[biggator6]

manning -
if you can find it (I think it's available to watch online) - PBS's show 'Frontline' did one called 'how the music died'.. I found it

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/
]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/
[/url]

It explains that all the record labels were independent - then, after CDs came out - people were re-buying their collections, and there was an artificial spike in music sales. The big conglomerates bought in - and suddenly they weren't independent anymore.

Where they used to be able to let an artist take their time... suddenly they had to meet quarterly earnings.

It's a great show... sad, but great.
"-)

[manning1]

so robert. you feel it will be a bottom up "roots revival" ??
rather than a top down majors led revival. ??
i'm not sure. it looks to me like total chaos will reign for a long long time.

[boody]

Originally posted by manning1

so....from the above posts are they just "shell corporations"
now ?

The major labels used to have interns for songwriting etc. But that was a long time ago. Now majors are multinationals. They are only bound by global trade rules and their target is economical and financial growth. To reach that they need to: -sell mass products -cut as much as possible expenses. So; no more interns, no more factories, no more investments in developping artists. Same as with Nike: they don't make shoes (they don't own a single factory) they just market them. In fact: the only thing they do is sell a lifestyle. They leave the actual shoemaking for a factory in the third world, where they don't have to care about human rights and social circumstances so the costs are as small as possible.

I think the majors will become mass marketing & distribution machines, selling the musical sentiments rather than the music itself. The actual development of new music will go underground with the small labels and private initiatives. and ofcourse; everyone that sticks out enough to be mass selling will then be swallowed, drained and spit out totaly exploited by the majors.

[manning1]

boody. what a sad sad state of affairs.
but i think your analysis is spot on.
my concern is with the young songwriters coming up, and the next generation. ive come across so many that are talented,
and having difficulty getting heard above the noise.
a lot give up in frustration. so the consumer never gets to hear this new young fresh talent.
on another point - do talent scouts even exist now at major labels ? like in the old days ? or - is it - band de jour, and make as much as you can off them, then out with them, and get another
band.

[gear chick]

Originally posted by boody


I think the majors will become mass marketing & distribution machines, selling the musical sentiments rather than the music itself. The actual development of new music will go underground with the small labels and private initiatives. and ofcourse; everyone that sticks out enough to be mass selling will then be swallowed, drained and spit out totaly exploited by the majors.

I believe this is true, though I'm not sure how I feel about it. It appears the majors feel the artists can produce their own product and test market it, and then take the product and test marketing results (showing 10 to 20,000 sales) to the majors. The majors then can cherry pick from artist that meet that criteria ie image, unit sales. It seems to make sense from their point of view to cut down on R&D costs and promote a product that is ready to hit the ground running.

From the artists point of view, they have more creative control and make alot more money as they are more likely to get more of the publishing, and not have that big advance to pay back from the recording process. I guess this would seem to cut out the middleman ie Hit Factory, Cello etc. When the artist is finally spit out as few make it beyond that second or third album. they might actually land on their feet with a good chunk of change to live on, and a good reputation to tour on. I think I could live with these terms. The artist meets the major label half way, and the label meets the artist half way. Thanks Boody, I think this has clarified the process a little better for me.

[boody]

Originally posted by manning1
do talent scouts even exist now at major labels ? like in the old days ? or - is it - band de jour, and make as much as you can off them, then out with them, and get another
band.

Over here there are no intern talent scouts, and I think worldwide that is concidered a free lance job. I think you need to find a manager or producer with the right contacts first before you can be properly introduced to a major or medium size label.

As for the band, please note that my statement was about the character of multinational labels. In the end you still deal with people and they're not all bad. Some will support a band in rough times if they truely believe in their music. The policy however is to serve the shareholders with higher profits, and in the end that's what realy counts. People will be replaced, the policy won't.

Over here everyone who considers him/herself a talent participates in the realisation of their cd. By not asking a large amount of money, not asking any money at all or even paying half of the poduction costs (I mean the actual manufactoring of the cd). With that cd they try to get a distribution and marketing deal. Recent local example is Sarah Fairfield (gearchick: I think you 'll like her music). She started to make a cd out of her own pocket, got involved with a small local label and has got herself an american management and a possible distribution deal in the u.s. with the finished product.

So; today, I think what every talent needs is someone who can help them put their music in good quality on a cd and help them with finding their way to the public. If they have potential enough they will be picked up by a medium/major label along the way. I still think you'll need their marketing power to reach a big or international audience.

[Bob Olhsson]

From my perspective, our biggest problem is the loss of local, reasonably priced performing venues that pay artists well enough that they can devote their full time attention to learning how to entertain an audience.

People are griping about the major leagues while ignoring the fact that we've all allowed the minor leagues that produced most of our icon artists to die.

[gear chick]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
From my perspective, our biggest problem is the loss of local, reasonably priced performing venues that pay artists well enough that they can devote their full time attention to learning how to entertain an audience.

People are griping about the major leagues while ignoring the fact that we've all allowed the minor leagues that produced most of our icon artists to die.

That's an interesting point Mr. Olhsson. While there may be a decrease in venues that pay well, there is a increase in other options. House concerts are becoming more popular even for more established artists. It's a whole different vibe than the club atmosphere. I prefer it. It's a more intimate experience between the artist and audience. There's definitly a better connection and you sell to most everybody. It also pays very well compared to a club. If you feel there is a shortage of venues, you can start your own. It's all the rage. There is a guide on how to do this on my link page.

It would probably also be an excellent way to network with new clientele. Support the music that you want to support you guys. Start your own venue.


Boody- I tried to access Sarah's site, but your link wasn't working, and google doesn't know her.

[NeoVXR]

from what I hear, the shareholders' content industry is going to take control of live music business, because of poor CD sales...
so, will only the sony-bmg venues be cool, and have all the hot gadgets and laser shows, while all these fees (taxes, police, city, fireguard) rising ever more, and other halls and clubs stay empty and go bankrupt?

[boody]

well, our biggest stage is the Heineken Music Hall, so when you go to a concert it's like being in a real Heineken commercial

[Geetar]

Originally posted by gear chick
Boody- I tried to access Sarah's site, but your link wasn't working, and google doesn't know her.

It's just a case of correcting the link's spelling....should be:

http://sarahfairfield.com/sarah/index1280.html

[boody]

thanks Geetar

[GilWave]

I think Robert is right-on.

As for the future, all of this suff is cyclical. 25 years ago, when music was mired in Disco and lots of "manufactured" groups and music, Van Halen came along and blew a breath of fresh air into the mix. Dire Straights, The Cars came along, the 80's ushered in New Wave and a resurgence of Metal (Maiden, Priest, Ozzy) simultaneously. In the 90's Grunge catpulted Seattle into the music scene, and now it's 2005 and we're back in the doldrums again.

Not to worry, some one (or ones) will come along and blow out the cobwebs and capture the imagination (and pocketbooks) of the record-buying public. Heck, they could be in the studio right now, making the record that kicks everyone's ass later this year or next.

-g

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by gear chick
That's an interesting point Mr. Olhsson. While there may be a decrease in venues that pay well, there is a increase in other options. House concerts are becoming more popular even for more established artists. It's a whole different vibe than the club atmosphere. I prefer it. It's a more intimate experience between the artist and audience. There's definitly a better connection and you sell to most everybody. It also pays very well compared to a club. If you feel there is a shortage of venues, you can start your own. It's all the rage. There is a guide on how to do this on my link page.

Let's see - my best guess is that the number of live club venues have fallen by more than 75% in the last 20 years (and the only town I know the details of has lost ALL of their 6 night a week clubs - down from maybe 15 in 1975). What does this mean? It means that in 1975, I could (and DID) make a living playing music full time, in a small city in West Texas. Today, there are NO professional musicians in that town. Tell me that's a good thing.

House concerts are indeed cool - and I've been at Bob Olhsson's house listening to a room full of song writers. It's neat. But those only work for certain kinds of music - quiet music. Once drums enter the picture, house concerts quit being fun. Somehow, I can't picture Green Day playing in someone's living room. Or the record I did this week, which was a jazz quartet backing a vocalist. Unless the living room in question has a grand piano, it wouldn't work. For that matter, ANY jazz combo - have you ever BEEN in the same room with a screaming trumpet? It hurts.

Let's use the recent Grammy's as a starting point for bands that could play a house concert; How many of the performers that did the Grammys could do their show in someone's house? John Mayer, maybe - and that lovely interlude that Bonnie Raitt and Billy Preston did (even though a full show by either Billy or Bonnie would rock too hard and be too loud).

While you say that there has been an 'increase in other options', that increase has NOT made up for the loss of venues that actually pay money. Plus, larger venues allow young performers the chance to learn how to perform (as opposed to just singing). Of course, we're into the second generation of singers who don't know HOW to perform, to entertain, to rock their brains out, that might not be important anymore. But for me, it was the difference between Joss Stone and Melissa Etheridge on the Grammy's - Joss sand, Melissa rocked. See the difference? If so, you ought to think about WHY the old bald bald lady rocked so much harder than the 'fresh young vocalist'.

And if you don't see the difference between those two, then we may never be able to bridge this communication gap.

[GilWave]

I've always liked Dave Martin, now I like him even more. Nice post, Dave.

Way back in 1982 I took a job as Northeastern Sales Director for Sunn Musical Equipment Company (a great company in its day - founded by the Sundholm brothers of The Kingsmen - Louie Louie fame). Our promotional shtick was a bumper sticker with the Sunn logo that said "Support Your Local Musician"

Some of the folks the preferred Fender or Marcshall would cut out the Sunn logo and keep the rest, put it on their car or guitar case or what have you.

Part of my job was to go to local venues at sound check and chat up the musicians and sound engineers, offer to loan some gear and come back during the gig. There used to be a lot of "local venues" to go to. Not anymore.

That little bumper sticker (which I wrote off as chotchka) was actually a call to action that very few people rose to the challange of. The bottom line is, there is a lack of live music venues because a lot of people stopped going out to see live music, period.

Whether it be because of television, video games, or other home-entertainment choices, people stopped going in sufficient numbers to keep those places alive.

If Pro Tools and home recording killed the commercial recording studio, and Guitar Center killed the local mom and pop music store, should we be surpirsed that live music venues are also suffering?

On the other hand, look at the growth of House of Blues and BB King's Blues Clubs. Granted, these are typically in major cities - but they are relatively new and people are supporting them.

It seems people prefer, like with restaurants, to go with "brands" they recognize rather than local clubs.

[NeoVXR]

younger ones behave like older ones - how sad. they are not eager to discover something, they consume brands. kind of "clueless" thing (you know the TV soap and the movie).

[biggator6]

Whether it be because of television, video games, or other home-entertainment choices, people stopped going in sufficient numbers to keep those places alive.

This made me think of something else completely unrelated - yet important.

Most people (not musicians, but music buyers/concert attendees, etc) have had their resepective 'free time' hours dwindle significantly over the last 20 or so years.

When I was a kid, the family ate dinner together EVERY night. Dad rarely had to work late (other than the occasional business trip) and being at work until 7 or 8 o'clock at night was unheard of.

Now - anybody out there who HASN'T been at the office at 8pm? Anybody that hasn't done it a few dozen times? Heck, those hours were the NORM for me for a long time - same for my wife.

I'm sure that this lack of 'free time' certainly eats into people's 'go to catch a band' time.
"-)

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by GilWave
I've always liked Dave Martin, now I like him even more. Nice post, Dave.

On the other hand, look at the growth of House of Blues and BB King's Blues Clubs. Granted, these are typically in major cities - but they are relatively new and people are supporting them.

Thanks, Gil - But concernting BB's....

The local version of BB King's seems to change management every couple of months, and every new manager wants to cut the pay to the local acts. The last I heard, management wants the band to play 4 hour nights for $500. Some of y'all might think that's pretty good, but it's half of what they started at, and in the cold light of dollars, it doesn't work.

Here's why - many of the good bands that worked there when it opened were made up of session musicians. if you are in the studio all day, you kinda have to have cartage set your stuff up. So out of your $100 cut of the pay, there's $50 or $60 off the top. The local club is down town, so parking is $10. If you sound check and then go home to eat, change or whatever, you'll have to pay to park again. (Alternatively, you could eat dinner at one of the downtown restaurants, which would be more than the second parking fee...) All of a sudden, the gig is now netting the musicians $20 or $30 dollars for a 4 hour night. That blows.

Interestingly, some friends told me about another gig they did at an Irish pub here; trio, and the players involved are WAY into doing celtic music right. This trio consists of fiddle, accordion and guitar. After the first night (where they made $75 each), the owner told them that eh LOVED the band, but couldn't see any sense in paying that much when most of his crowd would be there anyway.

How can you fight that sort of logic?

The live scene is FAR worse than it used to be, even if only those of us who have done it for 30 years know it...

[boody]

Originally posted by GilWave
It seems people prefer, like with restaurants, to go with "brands" they recognize rather than local clubs.

Well, that's how we are raised isn't it? I mean; we don't buy a pair of trousers because they fit well, do we? It has to be branded so we know who we are... sad.

I think everybody should read "No logo"...

Good post, by the way

[boody]

Originally posted by biggator6

I'm sure that this lack of 'free time' certainly eats into people's 'go to catch a band' time.
"-)

Over here it's more like you have to give rest to your ears for a year after one concert. Most bands play so loud the public watches from the farest possible distance.

[GilWave]

Originally posted by Dave Martin
Thanks, Gil - But concernting BB's....

The live scene is FAR worse than it used to be, even if only those of us who have done it for 30 years know it...

Okay, I agree that that sucks, but that's a separate item from people actually going out to clubs.

Disney is blamed in New York for ruining the payscale for Broadway actors and dancers, yet "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast" bring in record crowds (tourists, mostly) and Disney's money has helped to "clean up" Times Square (although there are die-hard New Yorkers who preferred the character of 42nd St pre-Disney, hookers and drug dealers and all)

If BBs and House of Blues bring in the crowds again, this is a good thing. If they pay peanuts, this is in line with the smaller clubs that I've played at - $400-500 a night. In the tourist towns (my most recent knowledge is from talking with a friends band who plays in Destin Florida) the house band makes or breaks a club - in those cases they make great money.

Clubs playing shitty wages to bands has been around since day one I suspect - the ones that pay well are the exception I would think.

By the way Dave I am coming to Nashville for a super-double-secret meeting next week - wanna go to a club and see some live music?

-gil

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by GilWave

By the way Dave I am coming to Nashville for a super-double-secret meeting next week - wanna go to a club and see some live music?

-gil

Will you be shredded for mentioning the meeting out loud?

But you betcha. e-mail me when you're gonna be in, and I'll see what's around.

[JonCraig]

Originally posted by biggator6
This made me think of something else completely unrelated - yet important.

Most people (not musicians, but music buyers/concert attendees, etc) have had their resepective 'free time' hours dwindle significantly over the last 20 or so years.

funny... i was kind of thinking the opposite. i think it was dave martin who mentioned to me that video games/tv/(internet forums?) that are taking up a lot of time that, twenty years ago, might have been spent playing guitar, or drums, or nose flute.

did i get the main points right, dave?

--jon (dave's former intern)

[gear chick]

Originally posted by Dave Martin


House concerts are indeed cool -

Glad we agree. House concerts work best of course for the singer songwriter, but how it's defined is only limited by the sponsor of the event, and the limitations of their venue.

Of course I don't know all the reasons the venues mentioned have closed. I can only speak for myself as to why I stopped going: Ear shattering decibel levels. For whatever reason, if people we're interested in attending, these places would still be open. I'm not aware that there's a shortage of live venues in LA, but I do know club owners there for the most part are interested in one thing. Can you sell drinks? The muscian's job primarily is to sell drinks. Their job is to give tickets to all their friends and hope they show up and buy drinks. Some Bands even promise free product just to get people to show up.

In a venue short, muscian rich area, I would think one solution could be to start kind of a co-operative. Muscian's could chip in a certain amount and lease their own venue with bands playing every night and promoting their own shows setting admission price to what the market will bear. Every band would have their own fan base. A venue like this could be supported by thousands of people. Actors in LA do this as well. They Rent a theatre space and promote their show. Their co-op fee could well be off set by good profits from their shows if there is a demand for what they're selling. That's what it's all about in any business, demand for product.


Boody- I listened to sara. I like her stuff alot from the short clips I heard.

[GilWave]

Originally posted by Dave Martin
Will you be shredded for mentioning the meeting out loud?

My visit to Nashville isn't secret, just my meeting. Based on the results of that meeting, I may have a big announcement next month.

I'd love to come see you with a Lil FrEQ under my arm. Anyone else in Nashville wants a demo, PM me.

-gil