The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
How to rebuild a sustainable music economy
Old 25th June 2012
  #1
Gear Addict
How to rebuild a sustainable music economy

Here is a very simple premise:

At grass roots it is next to impossible, even for credible bands and artists with genuine potential to generate any income. Wherever you look, acts are falling over themselves to perform for nothing or peanuts - an arrangement which suits venues and promoters, because what they are servicing is not demand for music, but demand from musicians to be heard. The net result is a marketplace which is completely saturated, with any notion of normal market conditions completely warped and distorted. There is no barrier to entry, it is quite literally a free for all.

Here in the UK - and a lot of other countries, there is a minimum wage. The question is, should it be applied to all musicians performing in licensed premises, so they are at very least paid from load in to load out? I would speculate that this would have the effect of exerting something closer to normal market conditions.

Venues which exist principally to exploit the unending stream of acts who will play for nothing, while bringing fans (i.e friends and family) to buy alcohol and/or tickets, will exit the market - it will simply not be profitable to put on the standard meat-grinder 4 bands a night.

Those venues that remain will have to compete with each other, requiring a much higher level of commitment - active talent spotting to find better acts, better stage shows, sound, lights, promotion and marketing - which can only be good for musicians.

With less venues, it will become much, much harder to get gigs. Acts will have to genuinely compete, meaning more time writing, rehearsing and developing their music, recording standout demos; and of course many simply won't make the grade - some acts will never get to gig outside of community centres or house shows.

It will also protect nascent local/regional music markets by reducing the flow of small scale touring acts - the system where local bands sell gig tickets, effectively to pay for a headliner will shrink significantly, making it harder for labels with national and international reach to package acts off on unmerited and pointless tours which would otherwise run at a catastrophic loss.

Those that do break through will have scope to develop careers based on the solid foundations of a local and regional market, exposed to an audience which genuinely seeks out new music - not just family and friends who'll come along to support new acts for as long as it has novelty value.

Those that progress beyond their local/regional market, be it independently, or with the support of a label will be responding to real demand for their music.

The bottom line is creating a barrier to entry, not just for musicians, but also venues and promoters, by ensuring that the people who create and perform the music are always paid: that their effort has tangible and inescapable £$€ value.

Right now, there is a big bubble of wealth at the top of the industry, a shrinking middle class floundering in an over-saturated, hyper competitive marketplace, and a vast sea of hopefuls making nothing, but utterly distorting the marketplace for music and quite possibly obscuring the next generation of artistically/commercially worthwhile acts. There is no point waiting for the fortunes of the majors and big indies to improve so we can get back to trickle down business as usual economics. Change has to start at the grass roots with application of normal rules of supply and demand: if you play, you get paid.

-------------------------------------
Eye Dog Eye Records
Old 25th June 2012
  #2
Noble goal, but it seems like you're almost trying to mandate and codify things that are essentially quite vaporous and intangible, like the emotional draw that some musicians but not others are able to exert to influence the behavior of audiences-- i.e., make it a priority to go see their show.

What is the difference between decreeing that any band should get minimum wage and setting the prices that the bar must charge for drinks? Or how many/few drinks a patron must buy? You're talking about decisions that result from an entire eco-system of factors. Not to mention the glaring, obvious one: pursuing a career as a band is entirely voluntary, with its universe of unique satisfactions and stumbling blocks and inequities.

This is a "leisure time" arena. I don't know if the approach of trying to control it is going to be the best of all possible approaches.
Old 25th June 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
John Suitcase's Avatar
 

I think you hit it right near the beginning of your post. Bands will play for free because they are the ones that the clubs are selling to. This is true of the whole industry, right up until a band gets popular enough to create demand for its music and performances. It seems like these bands are diluting the market, or maybe being exploited, at first. But think about it like other similar endeavors. Consider baseball. No one gets paid to play baseball, until they are so good that a pro team wants them (because in almost any field there are people that want to see, or hear, the best.) They actually have to pay, every year, to play in a league. People come to the games (friends, family, maybe some baseball lovers, and even a scout or two, once the buzz around a player or team builds.) But the whole thing is designed to allow people to play a fun game, primarily. The same is true of music. The industry is really about allowing people to make music. Only the very last step is about selling music to fans.

It's the same with art, or theatre, audio engineering, or computer programming. People do it, perhaps with hopes of getting a good job someday, but until they are good enough that there's demand for their skills, they have to pay to learn, intern for free, write programs without compensation, record bands for free, etc.

It's just the way of the world.

Every band wants to believe they are creating music that is good enough to create demand, but in reality, they are the customers, buying time on stage, in the spotlight. From a business angle, the money is there for anyone who enables people to pursue their dreams, and for anyone that can exploit the skills of the very best. But there's no money to be made playing baseball or doing theatre, or recording bands, or playing music at the amateur or semi-pro level. Always been that way, I think...
Old 25th June 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

In my opinion 90% at least, or a vast majority of bands and musicians playing for free should be..They simply aren't good enough to warrant paying yet. That said, people can't seem to recognize the difference between the mediocre majority and the few that are much better. So nowadays, no one gets paid and the gigs are full of ****ty bands and musicians playing for free and most of the people that I know who can bring is have just said, screw it, I'd rather stay home,. This is what you have now en masse! ESPECIALLY so in the bar scene across the country..I can't even stomach listening for more than a song and it's maybe 1 out of 1000 bands that are decent. That said, here in Nashville you have a couple rungs higher a musical standard, even in the touristy places on Broadway yet they STILL mostly play for free!!..
Old 25th June 2012
  #5
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
I think what's happening is, social media is conditioning what people normally expect. everything in the PR and marketing space is also moving to social media. I hear the mantra again and again 'the customer is now in control'.

I can only see this situation getting more normalised. I think bands who want to be paid, have to figure out how to get an audience to make the venue (pay) the band or get the venue to see value in paying the band. for that I guess it's the same as it ever was. you have to have an audience that generates more revenue than 4 circles of family and friends of 4 bands playing for free.

that's not going to be as easy as it stands and it already doesn't sound easy. the promoting world is generally linking brand promotion opportunities with events. It's quite possible to do this yourself as a band. at least you can choose who you want to be associated with as a band. the guardian group is doing that kind of thing with love live. I don't see why a band can't contact them and ask them for advice.

this isn't a general solution to a general state of affairs but if you think you can fight off the lobbying power of a huge PR & marketing industry who are dead set on leveraging the emergence of social media to totally re fashion much of what we are used to, I wish you well.

in the web world, links are becoming likes and finds are becoming friends. people are going to start making decisions based on friend recommendations rather than google searches. for local nights out that's going to mean .. (local) & (social) media networks.
Old 26th June 2012
  #6
If there were a way to get venues to pay bands, we would have found it by now.
The problem is, bands are more hassle and more expensive than meagre bar takings can make up. A bar can make the same money, arguably much more, by showing sports on tv, or hiring a dj.
I like the minimum wage idea. It would be fair. But I think the problem of financing grass roots, innovative bands goes beyond paying each member $30 a month (how often can you gig your immediate area?).
Old 26th June 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
It's been done before. It was called the Musician's Union. When I was a kid, we got union-carded all the time by thug looking dudes who would often threaten to bust places up that hired scabs.

It eventually became something of a mob style protection racket, because that was the only way to exercise any amount of control. That faded as the old guard retired and died off.

The union is dead, and it will never return. There's no money in it anymore, because nobody supports the play-for-free culture more than most of the musicians (term used loosely) around here.

It ranges from open mic nights in tiny bars to the biggest legitimate festivals. A month ago, my band was offered two gigs at a large festival. One, open for a 90's popular band and get paid. Two, open for a big current hit band and play free. We got paid, a ton of bands lined up to play for free. Saps.

It's only going to grow, as long as the abused class supports it.
Old 26th June 2012
  #8
Lives for gear
 
John Suitcase's Avatar
 

Well, I think we're confusing two groups here. There are professional musicians, who have built their repertoire, and expect to make a living performing. Some of these are artists performing their own material, but most are playing familiar tracks, either as cover acts, tribute bands, or playing events like weddings, etc. They generally get paid pretty well, these are the guys unions used to 'protect.'

Then, you have what I'll call artistic/recreational acts. These bands are doing it for a whole host of other reasons, personal expression, ego, hopes of hitting it big, meeting girls, etc. Generally, no one wants to watch these bands until they've heard of them. And the bands want to play at any opportunity. It makes sense to let them play for free (assuming they don't drive away your customers!) or even charge them to play.

It's like I said before, this is recreation for most musicians. Just like a guy playing basketball at the park might dream of making the NBA, he doesn't expect (or deserve) to be paid to play pick-up ball, and if he wants to join a league, he has to pay. If he builds his reputation to where people want to come out and see him, he can start to think about going pro, making some money, maybe a lot of money. But for 99.99999% of the guys playing, it's just fun and dreams.

I should say that I was the dreamer, playing in bands, gigging for free, touring on a shoestring, etc. Never played in a 'professional' gig, never did covers. I had a great time, but I never thought I was being taken advantage of. If I got to open a big show, I was clear that the crowd wasn't there to see me; in fact if there were no openers, I suspect the gate receipts would have been exactly the same.

I'd love to say everyone should be able to make money from playing music, but most shouldn't. Just like basketball, baseball, chess, acting, comedy, etc, etc, etc...
Old 26th June 2012
  #9
I think you are wrong.
You don't become a professional with a repertoire overnight.

I went full time at 18 years old.
At first I lived very poorly, playing once every couple of months in a no budget original band.
To avoid getting a day job, I took a position playing in a professional cover band three days a week. On the other days I pursued original projects.
Eventually when I was 22 I found an original band that was working enough that I could just play with them and pay my bills.

Between 18 and 22, I hovered above the breadline, while playing on and off original music and covers.
Old 26th June 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
John Suitcase's Avatar
 

I didn't mean to imply that you did!

I was saying that someone playing professionally is generally doing a service to the bar or the event planner, etc. Someone playing in an all original band is doing a service to themselves, first. If they can build that into something that pays, that's fantastic. But most people in bands doing original music aren't really in it for money. If they were, they'd do the cover gigs, or look for slots in established original bands.

I'm just saying that no one should expect be paid while they are in those early developmental years of an original act. Even the group you joined that was doing originals and making money didn't likely start off with paying gigs.

Of course, there may be artists who spend their time and money doing original studio work, and building a following via radio, or other channels before they look for live gigs, but that's kind of a rarity, I think.
Old 26th June 2012
  #11
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
It's been done before. It was called the Musician's Union. When I was a kid, we got union-carded all the time by thug looking dudes who would often threaten to bust places up that hired scabs.
I'm definitely not suggesting a union - there's no mileage in that whatsoever. Its more a point of employment law, or even at a much more elementary level, conditions of granting a license to sell beer.

The question is: what is the functional difference between somebody serving beer, and somebody on a stage entertaining, and quite possibly bringing in the customers who buy the beer? I'd say that they are both working, contributing at an integral level to the capacity of a business to generate profit.

Licensed premises are amongst the most regulated types of business, and there are already many ways in which this impinges on music... noise levels, the ages of band members, entertainment licenses, electrical safety, public liability, near mandatory PRS membership (in the UK). It is not necessarily a big step to require that performers are paid at the very least the minimum wage from load in to loud out - it could quite possibly be enacted at a local level as a condition of license.
Old 26th June 2012
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed View Post
The question is: what is the functional difference between somebody serving beer, and somebody on a stage entertaining, and quite possibly bringing in the customers who buy the beer?
Nothing, I agree.
But I think you'd find pubs and clubs would stop booking bands if they had to pay a minimum wage.
Old 26th June 2012
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed View Post
... what is the functional difference between somebody serving beer, and somebody on a stage entertaining...
The first person's function is harried, anonymous, overwhelming and exhausting, and the second person's function is gratifying, center-of-attention-istic, invigorating and they get to decide which songs they're going to play. Unless this is a bar where the waitstaff gets to choose what to serve who and when, and the singer must play tunes from a list patrons have selected from a menu...?

It's not "day and night," but which one do you suppose is yearning to trade places with the other?
Old 26th June 2012
  #14
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If there were a way to get venues to pay bands, we would have found it by now.
The problem is, bands are more hassle and more expensive than meagre bar takings can make up. A bar can make the same money, arguably much more, by showing sports on tv, or hiring a dj.
I like the minimum wage idea. It would be fair. But I think the problem of financing grass roots, innovative bands goes beyond paying each member $30 a month (how often can you gig your immediate area?).
But.... this might fall under licensing conditions, or employment law, so if pursued successfully at a political level it's hard to see bars breaking the law and/or license conditions - establishments that do that, get shut down.

The point is, let the market decide. Maybe a substantial number of so called venues would just stop doing gigs. Would that be a bad thing? Is it not better to have a smaller number of venues with a genuine commitment to developing their businesses through music? The kind of bars that took this route would understand that to develop a reliable regular clientele, they would need to consistently put on music which reflected their customers' outlook and expectations. These venues would have to directly compete with each other, which certainly in other fields of business stimulates innovation and improvement - so why not in grass roots venues?

The flip side is the musicians - who would also be subject to competition. Those that were driven and dedicated and delivered music people wanted to hear would easily find much more than one local/regional gig a month at £36 each a night. So a four piece band doing just one gig a week, within a 50 mile radius of their home city would generate nearly £7,500 a year. Add to that another £20 per gig from PRS (or similar), and a bit of merch at each gig, and all of a sudden its over £10k a year. And for those that are genuinely committed, register for VAT (sales tax), and that £10k becomes effectively £12k. And then because its a business, offset personal expenditure, running costs and anything else tax deductible, and that £12k is effectively £16k .... which is easily equivalent to a very decent indie deal.

The kind of acts that could take advantage of something as simple as being paid for performing at this entry level are exactly the kind of acts the business needs: talented enough to consistently attract and build an audience; driven enough to have the stamina to maintain it; savvy enough to reinvest and develop; and ultimately from a solid foundation, some will attract label/publisher investment to move up the ladder.

But the point is all of this relies on letting the market decide. Right now it is a near universal truth that except for the top end of the market, money flows away from the people who make music. The simple reason for this is that the barrier to entry is at the doorsteps of established major and indie labels and publishers. Yet, it makes no sense to have the barrier to entry half way along the path - to have a functioning music economy from top to bottom it needs to be at the point of entry: the place where aspiring acts first intersect with commercial exploitation of music, and that is in bars, pubs and clubs.
Old 26th June 2012
  #15
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
The first person's function is harried, anonymous, overwhelming and exhausting, and the second person's function is gratifying, center-of-attention-istic, invigorating and they get to decide which songs they're going to play. Unless this is a bar where the waitstaff gets to choose what to serve who and when, and the singer must play tunes from a list patrons have selected from a menu...?

It's not "day and night," but which one do you suppose is yearning to trade places with the other?
I meant function as in their part in making the business profitable. In many cases, without music and the accompanying customers, the bar staff would of course be very relaxed, and very soon unemployed :-)
Old 26th June 2012
  #16
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
minimum wage is only for employees of employers. self employed have no protection really.

That's why you'll get companies only employing people under self employed contracts and
those practices allow companies to bypass minimum wages.

Parcelnet exploitation of vulnerable workers - YouTube

I'd expect the venue would argue they aren't even employing anyone at all.
it would be interesting to see if social media had any role in these people deciding
to perform at these events.
Old 26th June 2012
  #17
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Nothing, I agree.
But I think you'd find pubs and clubs would stop booking bands if they had to pay a minimum wage.
I think its interesting to speculate how this would actually play out. My guess is that a lot of venues would exit the market, but what was left would be based upon a genuine commitment to music as an integral part of the business.

How do venues like this differentiate from their competition? Consistent quality of music; active talent spotting; developing niche genres; resident artists; up scale sound system and stage show; letting acts rehearse and refine their shows in the premises out of hours; stocking and selling the acts CD's and merch products; tie ins with local labels; proactive marketing and promotion ... there is a host of possibilities....
Old 26th June 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
John Suitcase's Avatar
 

It's true that in most cases, bands aren't employees of the bar. They're contract labor, if that. They could really be considered patrons of the bar. Much as a couple of guys playing darts are patrons of the bar. The bar is doing them a favor by allowing them to get up and try out their tunes in front of a crowd that they (the band) didn't bring in.

In the case that a band CAN bring in a significant crowd (bigger than the bar can do with no/or unknown bands) the equation changes. If a band can bring in several hundred people to a place that normally would have 30 people, they can demand 100% of the door, plus the bar picks up sound and provides the band with drink tickets, food, etc. In this case, the band is effectively employing the bar, to provide a venue for their performance. The bar benefits from selling food and alcohol to hundreds of people. In fact, this is what is happening in the 'free' scenario,' too, except the bar is generously letting the band use the venue for nothing.

Trying to portray playing a gig as an unknown (or unpopular) artist as some form of 'work' is silly. If someone comes to you and says "we need you to play top 40 covers for 6 hours, in 45 minute sets" that's work. You should (and will) get paid for that.

Who's hiring who? Is this bar calling up unknown bands and saying "Come play for free!" or is the band calling the bar and saying "We want to play!"

If the band has something the bar wants (a large draw) the bar will be calling that band, again and again, and paying well. If they don't have a draw, they won't get calls, because that's the commodity they offer to the venue. Entertainment is secondary, from their perspective.
Old 26th June 2012
  #19
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

I think the argument can be made that the bands are customers of the bar. Otherwise, maybe Gearslutz can pay people minimum wage to publish posts here as well.

EDIT: John Suitcase beat me to it.
Old 26th June 2012
  #20
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
I think the argument can be made that the bands are customers of the bar. Otherwise, maybe Gearslutz can pay people minimum wage to publish posts here as well.

EDIT: John Suitcase beat me to it.
You dont need to make the argument - its pretty much a fact. What I'm asking is can that be changed?
Old 26th June 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
John Suitcase's Avatar
 

If you're looking for a way that a band with no (or a very small) following can get paid to play music, there is: Do covers.

If you're asking can a band playing original music get paid to play, there is: build a following.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a situation where it would make sense for a bar or venue to pay an original band that has no draw to perform.

The real question, which is the hardest to answer, is how do you build a following that will come out to see you? There are answers there too, but they are complicated.

Social Media plays a small part in that, but at its core, it's about playing really good music, that resonates with an audience that will come out to shows. Putting on a great show, something so good that the people who see it are compelled to tell everyone they know. Be amazing, and you will get paid.
Old 26th June 2012
  #22
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Restaurants and bars need to start demanding that their tenders and cooks bring in 50 people a night. Time to take the heat off the band.
Old 26th June 2012
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed View Post
I think its interesting to speculate how this would actually play out. My guess is that a lot of venues would exit the market, but what was left would be based upon a genuine commitment to music as an integral part of the business.
They wouldn't exit the market, they would (unfortunately) make more money by switching to televised sports or dj's.
Everywhere I've ever lived, the grass roots music scene has survived by playing multi-use venues - which is small pubs and clubs.
You're right, The Bottom Line in NY, or The Roxy in LA aren't going to stop putting on bands if they have to pay a minimum wage, but you have to be a full time professional of a certain standing to appear at those venues in the first place.
A local pub, boutique brewery or club will simply stop booking bands if it costs them more money than it does now.
Comedy nights, Monday Night Football and DJ's are all much cheaper and waaaay less hassle.
Old 26th June 2012
  #24
bands just don't "happen". it takes capital investment to build a band to a level where they can command the fees. historically this has been done by record labels front loading investment risk, in exchange for master ownership, while still paying the band royalties.

however, from the labels investment the artists can monetize their new found celebrity for endorsements, publishing money, increased revenues from touring, etc.

when the incentive for capital investment goes away, the entire ecosystem fails, which is what we are seeing.

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren’t more Musicians Working Professionally? | The Trichordist
Old 27th June 2012
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
bands just don't "happen". it takes capital investment to build a band to a level where they can command the fees. historically this has been done by record labels front loading investment risk, in exchange for master ownership, while still paying the band royalties.
That's not really true. Bands don't need a label to build a following and command a fee, especially 'historically'.

And generally, for a band to get a label to invest, they need a following and a track record first. And the reason they needed a label was because making and distributing and marketing a recording was next to impossible without them.

If a band gets good, records their own material, builds a following live and online, there really doesn't seem to be a need for a label at all.

I think that's the scenario that would be most appealing to most bands going into the future.
Old 27th June 2012
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Suitcase View Post
If you're looking for a way that a band with no (or a very small) following can get paid to play music, there is: Do covers.

If you're asking can a band playing original music get paid to play, there is: build a following.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a situation where it would make sense for a bar or venue to pay an original band that has no draw to perform.

The real question, which is the hardest to answer, is how do you build a following that will come out to see you? There are answers there too, but they are complicated.

Social Media plays a small part in that, but at its core, it's about playing really good music, that resonates with an audience that will come out to shows. Putting on a great show, something so good that the people who see it are compelled to tell everyone they know. Be amazing, and you will get paid.
This

And I don't think it's an either or situation that musicians will get paid more if there are no free venues. The competetion and need to be at the top of your game is already there for the paying gigs

If there is no bar scene where you can cut your teeth and build your live chops then how do you make the jump to being in a for pay cover band to build your musicianship while you develop your original material and from there become a superstar. I can't imagine that a band just waking up one morning and being a super tight live outfit that can command a huge following for it's original material without any lower level live playing experience.

I don't believe that cutting out the bar scene will change how much professional musicians get paid.
Does anyone go to a local pub and expect to see U2 or someone playing in the back for free.
There's an expectation built in at every level. If there is no free local kids playing at the local bar, I'm not all of a sudden going to start going to high cost gigs instead, I'm going to go to the pub and listen to the free tunes on the stereo instead or watch the TVs. I'm certainly not going to pay a large cover charge to go see a bunch of nobodies play a bunch of navel examining original stuff that I've never heard before in the back corner of the local pub
If I go see a $10 tribute band at the canyon club, I have an expectation that the show is going to have a better level of performance than some local guys in the bar but ultimately If that goes away I'm not going to go to a $100 gig at the Hollywood Bowl instead.
If there were no bar scene I don't think many people's paid music venue behaviour would drastically change. I know personally that whether or not there was free/cheap music available at local free/cheap venues, I'm still only going to go to 6 or 7 high cost big concerts in a year. I'm not going to pay $70-100 every weekend to go to the Greek theater or somewhere for a beer if there are no more local bar bands.

Also some of us just love the opportunity to play, I'd never pay to be on a stage in a bar, but sometimes after a 60+ hour week getting up with some local musos and belting out a few numbers that everyone knows is huge fun. the stress release and sheer joy of being a part of that is payment enough. If there were no more free venues, where would the 90% of people who perform music just for the fun of it go?
Old 27th June 2012
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray View Post
That's not really true. Bands don't need a label to build a following and command a fee, especially 'historically'.
That's wrong.
Bands start without a label, but they can rarely (if ever) command a fee.
Bands DO need finance to keep going. Even to rehearse and physically get your gear to a venue, costs quite a bit of money.
The actual historical timeline is, band develops their sound and builds a repertoire by playing local gigs for virtually no money.
Band either self records and self release an EP, or more often signs a small deal with a local independent label.
band then starts to get noticed outside the local area.
Bigger label hears buzz, hears indie EP, and goes to see band play live.
If all the signposts line up, band signs to bigger label.

Quote:
If a band gets good, records their own material, builds a following live and online, there really doesn't seem to be a need for a label at all.
Like who?
The bands you mentioned yesterday (Arctic Monkeys etc) have all progressed to labels. Even Amanda Palmer has just signed to a UK label.
Old 27th June 2012
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
That's wrong.
Bands start without a label, but they can rarely (if ever) command a fee.
Absolutely 100% not wrong. If you are talking major tours and huge fees, than yes, I suppose labels are typically involved.

Quote:
Like who?
The bands you mentioned yesterday (Arctic Monkeys etc) have all progressed to labels. Even Amanda Palmer has just signed to a UK label.
I'm not saying that it's happening now, but logically, in the future, based on the changes in recording technology and distribution, a traditional label seems like it will become unnecessary, and it would certainly seem logical that many artists, if possible, would just as soon not sign to one. Perhaps labels will transform into agents/publicists/organziers that an artist will hire and control to do the secretarial work.
Old 27th June 2012
  #29
Oh I seeeee. Not real observations (again), but more crystal ball gazing.
let me know when you finally start posting real points, based on real world situations.

Have you ever toured in an unsigned band?
Old 27th June 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post

Have you ever toured in an unsigned band?
Yes I have. Played gigs, got paid, sold CDs, got paid.

Let me know when you grow up.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump