[jazz_guitar] FW: Touring Collapsed In 2010.
akmbirch
* Gross receipts: Down 26.6%
* Attendance: Down 24.4%
* Number of Shows: Down 16%
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/news/e3i3a15dfaab86484fbb73d67d8a21e3ae7
Comment: Remember when we were told that as sales of recording declined that touring was the future for musicians??
------------------------------------
<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
jazz_guit...@yahoogroups.com
jazz_guitar-...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Bob Hansmann
>
> Comment: Remember when we were told that as sales of recording
> declined that touring was the future for musicians??
I think that disc-jockey, Joey Reynolds was right on point when he said
that the current way the business is being handled has caused the public
to lose respect for the artists. The trend at this time to try to turn
it around may help if it remains a sustained effort. But I don't think
we'll see positive results for some time, no matter what. Every piece of
recorded music is available for free download somewhere on the Internet,
which, if memory serves me, nullifies their copyright.
For most working musicians, "touring" is not an option anyway, so those
who proclaimed it as "the future for musicians" were talking nonsense.
I still see the problem as having been caused by musicians themselves,
who were (and still are) gullible enough to want to give away their
music for free. What we're seeing now is the effort to get the horses
back in the barn after the barn door was left wide-open for a really
long time. I really should stop trying to drive this point home, because
my words fall on primarily deaf ears.
All I can suggest is that those interested in pursuit of a career do a
boatload of research on their own (most "new music business" books are
crap), studying the models of musicians who are actually succeeding at
doing what is that they themselves want to do. There are success stories
out there, and it's important to see how they are going about it in depth.
A few general hints, though:
Firstly, do not publish anything on the Internet. Ever.
Secondly, do not let grass grow under your feet - practice, and study
under someone good, and keep current, and practice some more.
Thirdly, develop an image that people will be attracted to - people see
you long before they hear you. If they don't like what they see, odds
are they will not give you a listen at all.
Fourth, maintain a healthy, friendly attitude toward people. Bad
attitudes are a sure sign of mediocrity. Don't even hang out with
musicians who think that they are better than their audience.
Fifth, network as much as you can as often as you can.
Sixth, realize that 100% of nothing equals nothing. Try to connect with
the best lawyers and industry people that you can, and realize that they
are going to charge you. You can try to be "chief, cook, and
bottle-washer", but you will fail - guaranteed.
Lastly, remain faithful and optimistic. It's easy in this environment to
give up. Success in the music business has always been about persistence
and hard work. The only thing that's changed is that now it takes even
more persistence and more hard work.
best,
Bobby
Dave Woods
Excellent advice Bobby! I sent a copy of this post to my son George Woods who has just graduated from Berklee.
birdsinthewoods.com I'm on the way out, he's on the way in.
Dave Woods
<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
rguitarjj
This is motivated by the following observation. The players I know who gig regularly for decent money are extremely highly skilled. Not just highly skilled. Extremely.
These are players who can play many styles, can read anything and always sound great. They have big, big ears, great groove, great time and know a lot of tunes because their great ears makes learning tunes easy.
A recent example: I was at a rehearsal (my teacher was the pianist). The bassist, a young guy, has never seen the chart before. It's at a very brisk tempo and the arrangement has multiple hits, some roughly akin to the breaks you might hear in a salsa band. Not that simple. While nailing the hits on an open D string, hits he's never seen before, he casually reaches over and tunes the string. In music college he tested out of the 3 semester ear training class by passing the final -- before he took the class. This is not a famous player, although he could become one.
I can think of other examples. A guitarist is called up on stage by a well known composer/guitarist. The composer plays the first chorus of a complex tune (using very unusual voicings) while the other playerjust sits there looking at the chart. Next chorus, he nails. Later, he told me that he listened to what the composer played for the first chorus and made mental notes where he varied from the chart. Next chorus, he knew exactly when to ignore the chart.
Of course, you don't have to be at this level to make a living, but you really do have to have an extremely high level of skill. I have encountered a number of players who didn't seem to be aware of just how good one has to be to succeed at this.
------------------------------------
<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
Bob Hansmann
Hi Dave,
I just checked out this site and it looks great! I've got to get out early to get some teaching in before the snow brings it all to a sudden stop, but I'll explore it more in depth later on (between shovels full of the white stuff).
best,
Bobby
__._,_.___
Dave Woods
I don't have a Spam folder at all, so when my program (Thunderbird)
accidentally suspects an otherwise fine piece of email, it mrerly asks
me what I want to do with it. Perhaps deleting your Spam folder and
setting your program to do this will help.
best,
Bobby
Thunderbird!!??, don't drink that stuff! It puts housemaids knees on your
kidneys.
Dave
Bob Hansmann
> and sometimes your posts I see in my Spam folder ...
...methinks that some of my posts belong in your Spam folder....
:-)
Bobby
Chris Smart
from a particular address, such as the one for this group.
Most email programs have some sort of rules-based sorting feature.
jem18rc
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Bob Hansmann <bobbybmusic@...> wrote:
> A few general hints, though:
> Firstly, do not publish anything on the Internet. Ever.
Bobby will you elaborate on this point?
Brian Kelly
Same here...I never see my posts until someone replies, or unless I go to the
online forum. Makes me wonder if I'm missing others.
Terry
__._,_.___
<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Blake Wilson
know this doesn't constitute "publishing on the internet", but aren't
libraries great ways to seek out fans?
Also, I have several friends in the non-jazz world who have made tidy sums
of money "publishing on the internet" via iTunes, etc. This certainly counts
as Internet publishing.
I think Bobby means "don't give it away" on the Internet, right?
Also, with all due respect, there's no formula for success in any event.
Blake
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Chris Smart <chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> At 07:07 AM 12/26/2010, you wrote:
>
> > > Firstly, do not publish anything on the Internet. Ever.
> >
> >Bobby will you elaborate on this point?
>
> Yeah, don't hold back man. :)
>
> Ok seriously, I think he means 1. once you give it away free,
> forget asking anybody to pay for it. and
> 2. forget any idea of ownership of your material once it's out
> there circulating online...
>
> that's what I took from the comment anyway.
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Blake Wilson
http://www.odysseysounds.net/
Chris Smart
What is "thunderbird" in your part of the world, some version of
malt liquor?
Chris, having bad flashback to drinking too much Olde English (no,
not the furniture polish!)
Bob Hansmann
> It puts housemaids knees on your
> kidneys.
hmm......
If their knees are on my kidneys, where are there other body parts. This
could be a good thing...
best,
Bobby
Bob Hansmann
> So don't give copies of your latest to all the libraries in your area? I
> know this doesn't constitute "publishing on the internet", but aren't
> libraries great ways to seek out fans?
A library, or, for that matter, all of the libraries in the country,
doesn't have a 1/1,000,000 of the circulation power of the Worldwide
Web. There is just no comparison to be made. When music is supplied as a
free item around the entire planet, it is assumed that that is what it
is worth.
> Also, I have several friends in the non-jazz world who have made tidy sums
> of money "publishing on the internet" via iTunes, etc. This certainly counts
> as Internet publishing.
Those "tidy sums" are how much, exactly? I think I read here from
Alisdair that the average yearly income from these venues was around
$600, but even if that is incorrect, I know that the contracts were
built around the old Record Club royalty schedules. Considering the huge
mass distribution of the Internet, and that the Record Club pricings
were intended to be the exception and not the rule, this is inadequate.
> I think Bobby means "don't give it away" on the Internet, right?
Right.
> Also, with all due respect, there's no formula for success in any event.
Maybe so, but there sure are a lot of sure-fire-failure formulas. Long
before "Al Gore invented the Internet", I saw the majority of musicians
applying them. The Internet merely gave them an exponentially more
powerful and efficient way to fail that much sooner. I have no problem
with this - these guys would fail as shoe salesmen, but through their
failure, everybody suffers. "Do what you think you gotta do" certainly
applies here, but if a schmuck is ruining my and my fellow real
musicians' ability to make a living, then he can expect that I will not
be polite.
Most uploads on sites like Youtube are covers, so these guys are not
even giving away that which is theirs. If someone published his version
of my work on the Internet, regardless of who he was (including list
members here), I would sue, and I would win. After my lawyer's fees I
might not walk away with a dime, but someone new would be living in his
house, even if merely out of principle.
best,
Bobby
Bob Hansmann
> Ok seriously, I think he means 1. once you give it away free,
> forget asking anybody to pay for it. and
> 2. forget any idea of ownership of your material once it's out
> there circulating online...
>
> that's what I took from the comment anyway.
yup
John Amato
Isaiah 55:11
From: Terry Petty <drg...@hotmail.com>
To: jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 26, 2010 11:39:15 AM
Subject: RE: [jazz_guitar] Problems Posting ...
Same here...I never see my posts until someone replies, or unless I go to the online forum. Makes me wonder if I'm missing others.
Terry
__._,_.___
<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
akmbirch
[snip]
>
> Also, I have several friends in the non-jazz world who have made tidy sums
> of money "publishing on the internet" via iTunes, etc. This certainly counts
> as Internet publishing.
>
Blake
They are very fortunate and must have sold an IMMENSE number of
99¢ recording on iTunes to have any money. (But they will have made
Apple a nice sum!).
For an artist to earn the US monthly minimum wage of $1,160 they
must sell 12,399 99¢ down-loads on iTunes.
So to earn say $70,000 they would have to have 748,216 downloads.
See:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
Alisdair
akmbirch
> > So don't give copies of your latest to all the libraries in your area? I
> > know this doesn't constitute "publishing on the internet", but aren't
> > libraries great ways to seek out fans?
>
> A library, or, for that matter, all of the libraries in the country,
> doesn't have a 1/1,000,000 of the circulation power of the Worldwide
> Web. There is just no comparison to be made. When music is supplied as a
> free item around the entire planet, it is assumed that that is what it
> is worth.
In the jazz world we have a very good example of the impact
of the internet.....
The Real Book
Back in the day it was created, it was put together for use by
music students @ Berklee. Of course, it was technically illegal
as no permissions had been sought to publish nor would any
royalties be paid to the composers or publishers.
But interestingly enough, many of of the songwriters were supportive of the real book because it was felt that music college-level students having learned to play the tunes, they would also potentially
record theses tunes and/or perform them. From these recording and performances royalties would be due. The distribution of these books was small, out of the back of a van, and generally limited to musicians who were aspiring to become pro-level players.
But of course what had not been forseen by the supportive
songwriters was that the ease of reproduction would increase
and the reproduction costs decrease with newer technology.
With the advent of the internet and the mass distribution of scanned books and pdfs the distribution became a tsunami, there was no longer
any gating factor to their distribution.
Now the general public could obtain these books freely and no
royalties would be paid to the songwriters.
Furthermore, aspiring amateur musicians would often make their recorded renditions of these tunes available on sites such as Youtube and no performonace or recording royalties would be paid.
An overall devaluing occurred.
akmbirch
Did people not attend because the ticket prices were too high?
Or did they not attend for other reasons?
Does reducing the ticket price, devalue the value of the music?
Does lowering the ticket price mean they will have to cut the
pop music visual spectacle, lights, video, theatrics etc?
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheap concert seats due after cruel summer of 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101226/ap_on_en_mu/us_concert_ticket_prices
LOS ANGELES – Concertgoers sick of ballooning ticket prices should have some extra pocket change to rattle with their rock 'n' roll in the new year.
2010 was tough for the concert business as high prices kept many fans at home. Promoters now say they plan to make shows more affordable in 2011. But they'll also try to sell more T-shirts and other merchandise to make up for lost revenue.
Heading into last summer, usually the busiest time of the year, prices were set too high despite the sluggish economy. Managers and promoters believed fans would keep paying for the one or two concerts they see on average each year.
Instead, many stayed home and dozens of shows were canceled. Lots of venues filled seats with fire-sale prices.
Now, rather than charge lots early and offer discounts later, some promoters say they'll offer cheaper tickets from the start, partly because they know fans will spend as much as usual on beer and tchotchkes when they arrive.
ZZ Top, for one, expects to set prices below the 2010 average of $55. Some tickets will go for as little as $10.
"It's time to give the value back," said Carl Stubner, manager of the long-bearded rock band from Texas. "We'll find other ways to make money."
That doesn't mean all acts will be cheap — not even Cheap Trick, whose tickets for 2011 are selling for around $80 with fees. Fans of hot performers including Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga also shouldn't expect to get much of a break.
Neil Diamond, for instance, who's continuing his comeback tour in New Zealand in February, said he'd like to bring ticket prices down, but can't because of the size of his production.
"As the shows get bigger, the expenses get bigger, so it's got to be translated somehow to the ticket price," he told The Associated Press. "If I just used the guitar it'd be a lot simpler, but then I'd have to put 50 people out of work."
Overall, though, more artists than ever are going out on the road to make up for falling CD sales. With more tickets on sale and consumers still pinching pennies, the pressure on prices is down.
Concert attendance fell 12 percent in the first half of 2010, compared with the same period a year ago, according to trade magazine Pollstar. The world's largest concert promoter, Live Nation Entertainment Inc., said attendance from July to September dropped 16 percent from a year ago, even after it slashed fees and prices for dozens of acts, including Rod Stewart.
"It's just getting too expensive," says Michael Nemcik, who lost his job as a stockbroker in 2009 and now works as a bartender in Los Angeles. He went to about a dozen concerts in 2010, about half as many as the year before. Paying more than $200 for decent seats to see A Perfect Circle in November was just too much.
"I'm a little more hesitant on spending money than I used to be," he said.
Concert ticket prices had climbed steadily until recently, beginning in the 1990s when promoters began moving from one-price-fits-all ticketing to a tiered model that charges much higher prices for seats close to the stage.
North American concert ticket prices rose from an average $26 in 1996 to a peak of $67 in 2008, an increase four times faster than inflation. That doesn't include ticket fees for everything from "order processing" to "convenience," which can tack on $10 or more.
In 2009, ticket prices came down by about a buck, as managers braced for the worst of the recession. Fans responded by buying 12 percent more tickets than in 2008. Promoters figured fans were coming back for more in 2010 and raised prices. It backfired.
That's when the promoters had to offer deep discounts to fill seats. The average ticket cost a little less than $61 in the first half of 2010. Second-half numbers are expected to show a drop, too, because the discounts have continued.
"People felt they could go back to pushing the envelope again," Pollstar editor-in-chief Gary Bongiovanni said. "The economy has proven that a lot of people probably reached too far."
Although the average isn't expected to fall drastically in 2011, there'll be bargains at the back of the house.
Prices for front row seats may actually go up as part of Live Nation's bid to grab revenue that might otherwise go to ticket resellers. But the company has said it wants to cut prices even further for the cheap seats to let in more fans.
When Live Nation cut prices in 2010, fans spent about the same amount as always — nearly $18 in North American amphitheaters — on beer, merchandise and other stuff, all of which helps the company's bottom line because it owns major venues including the House of Blues in 13 cities.
Live Nation also is developing a long-overdue shopping basket for its websites to lure fans to spend their ticket savings on CDs, clothes and other items, and it recently rolled out an iPhone app that could be used in the future to sell merchandise.
None of those extra businesses works unless fans buy tickets, though.
"We know that if you lower the price, they'll come," Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino told investors in November.
But some of the most powerful managers in the business are motivated to secure as much money as they can for their artists, and Live Nation faces pressure to outbid rival concert promoters by paying artists more. Artists struggling to make up for income lost to plummeting CD sales also may push fans to pay more. Those factors can cause prices to inch up.
Rapino said the company may simply have to walk away from some deals and hold fewer shows, especially ones that have low or no profit margins.
Demi Lovato, whose Camp Rock 2 tour with the Jonas Brothers had to cancel a dozen North American shows in 2010, told the AP recently that she'll do her best to keep prices reasonable for a solo tour planned for 2011 to promote her third album. (Her camp says the tour is still on track, despite her entering treatment for "emotional and physical issues.")
"I have best friends that aren't in the industry and are dealing with just buying groceries and things like that, so I want to do my part," she said.
Bob Hansmann
> Did people not attend because the ticket prices were too high?
Experience has taught me that if ticket sales are down, the solution is
not to lower, but to raise ticket prices.
best,
Bobby
Bob Hansmann
> In the jazz world we have a very good example of the impact
> of the internet.....
>
> The Real Book
Hi Alisdair,
There is something else to consider in the case of the Real Book(s).
Many composers were signed to publishers who failed to make the music
available because of costs (not justified, btw). I remember in the 80's
trying to get a copy of "Giant Steps" for a student, only to be told by
the publisher, "New Number, Not as yet in Print". So in this way, the
Real Book at least put it out there.
But the Real Book (and all fake books, for that matter), still had
limited distribution, not worldwide distribution for free of, not just
the sheet, but every single recorded version for free. The hope that
licensing fees would be paid for new recordings and performances of the
works were thoroughly crushed by the Internet.
I think that that is what you were saying, but just in case anyone
misunderstood you, I felt I'd try to add some clarity.
There is a guy on this list who I actually like, who posts "his music",
and who actually thinks guys like Bob Dylan was a real hippie. I have
been, and will continue to be, respectful and polite to him. But,
frankly, he deserves none of the respect I offer him freely. I just
consider him to be representative of the prevalent attitude of people
who actually consider themselves to be artists, but who, in reality, are
hacks.
best,
Bobby
Blake Wilson
meditation CD using Tibetan bells. It was entirely self-produced and
recorded at home. He printed 1000 copies and gave away about 1/3 at those
types of events (new age retreats, etc); he sold the rest of the printing at
those very events, via his own website, CDbaby, a sympathetic distributor,
etc....and also sold digitally on iTunes. He has since gone through another
2 pressings of 1000 each and is doing another larger pressing, and maybe
getting it picked up by a label that deals with that sort of thing (it's a
popular genre title, apparently). He has made about $10K off this simple
record in the past year, and a part of it (maybe 10%) has come from iTunes
and, I believe, Amazon's download service.
Does he have a day job? Of course. Would he still undertake his art if it
paid nothing? Probably, because he loves it. Is this "good money"
considering the circumstances? Who would say no?
Is the jazz guitar realm different? Of course. But I do believe that a
quality product (and boy can that term be flexible!) can bring in money to
the artist via the new distribution protocols, and that a certain amount of
non-monetary humility helps as well. The artist I'm talking about is the
most humble man I've ever met, and sees his music as an offering of love and
not merely a fungible product (which I how I see music discussed on these
pages too often). His is somewhat stunned that he has made "a tidy sum"
from this project.
Blake
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM, akmbirch <akmb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com <jazz_guitar%40yahoogroups.com>, Blake
> Wilson <mbw@...> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Also, I have several friends in the non-jazz world who have made tidy
> sums
> > of money "publishing on the internet" via iTunes, etc. This certainly
> counts
> > as Internet publishing.
> >
>
> Blake
>
> They are very fortunate and must have sold an IMMENSE number of
> 99¢ recording on iTunes to have any money. (But they will have made
> Apple a nice sum!).
>
> For an artist to earn the US monthly minimum wage of $1,160 they
> must sell 12,399 99¢ down-loads on iTunes.
>
> So to earn say $70,000 they would have to have 748,216 downloads.
>
> See:
>
>
> http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
>
> Alisdair
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Blake Wilson
http://www.odysseysounds.net/
------------------------------------
Chris Smart
>Well, let me illustrate a particular instance. A friend made a new-age
>meditation CD using Tibetan bells.
Neat example.
that isn't the guy over at www.quietmindcafe.com is it?
I'd imagine the competition is fierce in that genre though, with
people like Chopra selling similar things.
akmbirch
> meditation CD using Tibetan bells. It was entirely self-produced and
> recorded at home. He printed 1000 copies and gave away about 1/3 at those
> types of events (new age retreats, etc); he sold the rest of the printing at
> those very events, via his own website, CDbaby, a sympathetic distributor,
> etc....and also sold digitally on iTunes. He has since gone through another
> 2 pressings of 1000 each and is doing another larger pressing, and maybe
> getting it picked up by a label that deals with that sort of thing (it's a
> popular genre title, apparently). He has made about $10K off this simple
> record in the past year, and a part of it (maybe 10%) has come from iTunes
> and, I believe, Amazon's download service.
Your friend was very smart. As was illustrated in the link I posted
going "old music industry" pressing CD's, distributing and selling a
physical product can generate more revenue. (Even taking into account the cost of pressing 1000 CD's generally in the range $1.50 to $2.00 per CD.)
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
I was responding to your initial assertion that you could easily earn good money using "new music industry" distribution models such as iTunes and Amazon downloads.
For your friend to earn $10K from iTunes alone he would
have 106,888 99¢ down-loads on iTunes.
For 10% ($1,000) he would have 10,688 99¢ down-loads on iTunes, and that is going sum. But great if he has done that....
>
> Is the jazz guitar realm different? Of course. But I do believe that a
> quality product (and boy can that term be flexible!) can bring in money to
> the artist via the new distribution protocols...
I agree a good quality product deservedly bring in money for an
artist. It is just that the MP3 downloads on corporate web-sites such as iTunes and Amazon, bring in very little, but maybe be useful in terms of publicity. "Old music industry" pressing, distribution and selling CD's is still a more viable option.
Palmer
AKMBirch wrote:
>…the MP3 downloads on corporate web-sites such as iTunes and Amazon, bring in very little, but maybe be useful in terms of publicity.
Always reminds me of the bar owners that want us to play “for the exposure” and the response that one can die of it…lol
John
Reciprocity
__._,_.___
<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
funkifized34
Should You Give Your Music Away?
The Great Debate.
by Andre Calilhanna on March 15, 2010 · 81 comments
in Promotion
No one's arguing that the changes in the music industry haven't tipped the scales in favor of the independents. Not only can you forge a path to success without the help of a label, you can choose from a variety of means to achieve it. But that leaves a number of questions on the table, including whether or not you ought to give your music away for free.
As an indie, CD and download sales can be a huge part of the equation in regard to your income. But building a rapport with new and existing fans and widening your reach by means of song giveaways is an easy and obvious way to get people to listen – and isn't that ultimately what you're trying to do?
For the indie artist, the scales seem to be tipping toward "yes!" on the question of free tracks. But before you go headlong into a giveaway frenzy, it's worth listening to voices from both sides of the fence. And it's always best to have a larger plan in mind. What follows are excerpts from a couple of books and blog posts that address some aspects of this debate. And we're eager to see what comments come in from you, our intrepid readers. (I couldn't help but insert a few of my own comments below).
(Do it!) Your Music Is Your Marketing
Excerpted from Music 3.0, Making Music in the Internet Age, by Bobby Owsinski.
The major marketing tool for an artist today is your music. It's no longer the major product that the artist has to sell (although it still is a product), so it has to be used differently and thought of differently as a result.
Perhaps recorded music was never the product we were led to believe it was. With a vinyl record or CD, the container that holds the music is the product. While the songwriter always made money when a song was played on the radio, the artist never did, and the artist made only a small percentage of CD and vinyl sales (10-15% of wholesale, on average). [Keep in mind, he's talking about the major/indie-label model here, not the indie/CD Baby model where you're keeping all the proceeds from your gig sales and 60% or more of your retail sales.]
In fact, the artist made the most money on concert tickets and merchandise while touring. There was a cost involved in the manufacturing of the container that transported the music (physical material costs, artwork, and so on) that had to be recouped, as well as the production costs of the music. But if you look at music in terms of the advertising world, you see music in a different light.
If you're selling a soap product, for instance, the production cost for a commercial to broadcast on television or the radio is trivial. It's the total ad buy (the agency purchasing the radio or television time for the sponsor) where most of the money is spent. Even then, it's considered part of the marketing budget of the product, which might be about 3% of total sales.
If you consider the music-production costs as part of the marketing budget in the same way as a national product, it takes on a whole new meaning. [That's a mighty big leap, IMO.]. Since the music is considered the major marketing tool for an artist, it should be considered a free product, a giveaway, an enticement. Give it away on your website, place it on the Torrents for P2P, let your fans freely distribute it. It's all okay. Since most millennials already feel that music should be free and have lived in a culture where that's mostly so, don't fight it. Go with the flow! Just as it was during the past 60 years, the real money in the music business is made elsewhere anyway. [Again, not necessarily for the indie artist.]
Further, just because you're giving it away doesn't mean that you can't charge for it, either at the same time or at sometime in the future. There are numerous cases in which sales have actually decreased for an artist's iTunes tracks when the free tracks have been eliminated.
One such musician is Corey Smith. After six years, Corey has built his gross revenue to about $4.2 million, and free music has been the basic building block of his tribe. You can buy his tracks on iTunes (he's sold more than 400,000 so far), but when his management experimented by taking the free tracks down from his website, his iTunes sales went down as well! The free music Corey offers allows potential fans to try him out. If they email and ask for a song that's not available for free, he just emails it back to them. He's tending his tribe!
Another example of reaping the rewards for giving it away for free is the techno and electronica artist Moby, whose "Shot in the Back of the Head" became the best-selling iTunes track after he gave it away for free on his website for two months! Of course, you can charge for your music with enhanced products like box sets, compilations, special editions, and other value-added offerings. But the initial releases for an artist on any level (except for the already-established star) must be free to build a buzz.
(Don't Do It!) The Value of Music
Excerpted from The Plain and Simple Guide to Music Publishing by Randall D. Wixen.
Music is a unique commodity with the ability to touch the soul or evoke an emotion or feeling. In a film, it might take minutes of dialogue or visual exposition to create a mood or tell a story, while music can instantly convey a mood and give cues to the director's vision. Likewise, some sports – figure skating, for instance – would not be possible without music. Restaurants and stores set the ambiance for you by playing background music.
Yet in the music publishing industry, no day goes by without someone who recognizes the value of music nonetheless belittling its value, complaining about its cost, and trying to pay less than a fair fee. It is important that writers and publishers stand tall and recognize and respect the value of their own property. If they themselves fail to recognize the worth of their product, how can others be expected to see its worth and pay a reasonable price for it? [Mr. Wixen is speaking mostly about publishing with a focus on recognizable content in this section, but there are a lot of relevant points as they relate to you as artist devaluing your music.]
The media is full of articles about "file sharing" and how it hurts the music industry. What a nice euphemism, file sharing! Sharing is good, right? We are taught to share from the time we are little. But why does the media not do stories about the theft of intellectual property or copyright infringement? "File sharing" sounds so much more innocuous than "willful copyright infringement," which, by the way, is a felony. If I steal your car, is that "ride sharing?" By spinning articles and headlines in this manner, the media contributes to the devaluation of songs and artists.
This is not a simple problem, with only one cause and one solution. While piracy and copyright theft each play an important role in this phenomenon, and while overpricing makes theft feel more justifiable, writers and publishers who lack enough self-respect to value their songs appropriately contribute to the problem.
"This Is a Low-Budget Production." Almost every license request a music publisher receives includes somewhere in it, "This is a low-budget film, TV show, ad campaign, etc." No one ever sends license requests that start off with, "This is a big-budget film, with two stars who are each getting $20 million and a director who won the Academy Award last year. We would like to use the `cherry' of your catalog and pay you a really nice fee for doing so." Budgets are low because people set them low. If there is no money in the music budget of a TV show, it is because the money they put into catering and hairdressing and makeup artists dwarfs the money allocated for music. Don't stand for it! [Except of course, that if you turn down the opportunity, another act will step up and take it in a heartbeat.]
If you tried the same tactics in real life that are used in licensing music, you'd be laughed at. If you went into a Bentley dealership and said, "Gee, I sure like that $375,000 Azure, but I only have $30,000 to spend on a car, so do you think you could accept that?" you'd be shown the door along with some shoe leather. The idea that music has no intrinsic value leads to the proposal that "you should price your product according to our budget." Don't do it – especially if the song being inquired after is a standard, was a major hit, or has a lyrical or other connotation that is truly special. The situation may be different, though, if someone is inquiring about a generic punk song and the artist and song could be easily interchanged with many others. [Aha! That warrants a lot more consideration. Not to mention that none of your songs are generic, right?]
"It Will Be Good Exposure." Once they get done telling you how low they've set their budget and how you have to conform to what they've predetermined, they will pull out the old "good exposure" argument. While the licensers themselves are only working for real dollars and maybe profit participation, they would like you to please take your compensation in the form of good exposure.
Vaudeville entertainer Sophie Tucker, so the story goes, was once offered a gig at far less than her normal fee. The reason she should do it, the argument went, was that it would be good exposure. "Exposure?" she is said to have replied. "Isn't that what you die from?"
The worst cases of "licensing by exposure" lately seem to be in the realm of video-game music licensing. With games selling for $30 a pop and shipping 4-5 million units, you'd think they'd be able to spare more than $5,000 as a flat fee to license a song. Let's do some made-up math.
Let's see, that's around $150 million in gross over-the-counter revenue, and maybe half filters back to the game developer. And paying $5,000 for each of 50 songs would be $250,000. And double that fee to clear the master recordings, so we're up to $500,000 out of the $75 million. It doesn't seem fair, does it, when music is so integral to the game? Why not at least pay a royalty instead of a flat fee? We're just now starting to see meaningful royalties on video games in lieu of flat one-time buyouts.
Unfortunately, some potential users will not be willing or able to pay a fair fee. But for the long-term health of the music, it is important not to devalue the song by licensing it for whatever a user offers. Bentley would go out of business if its dealers negotiated car sales that way, and so will you.
(Do IT!) Free Music = Free Advertising = Smart Business
Excepted from blog posts by Dexter Bryant, Jr
Free music is free advertising. Think of free songs as product samples: the music-buying public samples your product at no cost. For those who don't care for your music (no matter what the reason) they can easily sever their relationship with you and your product right then and there.
For the people who like your product, they can easily dig deeper and sample some more of your music to get a better feel for your identity and what your brand represents. From there they can decide whether their values align with yours and if they would like to continue their relationship with you. If you and a potential fan are birds of a feather (so to speak) then chances are they will be ready to forge a deeper bond with you and take your relationship to the next level.
Free music increases the potential for engagement with audiences because anyone can participate. Free eliminates risk and lowers the barrier to entry for consumers. If I may use a food-related metaphor, your songs are the appetizers that will lure audiences to dine with you for a full meal – free mixtapes/EPs/CDs/whatever. [Sounds good, but restaurants charge for appetizers, too!]
A full meal provides your audience with a clearer picture of your overall vision and your artistic identity. If people really enjoy your meal(s) then they will seek yet another option (or options) for consuming the deliciousness that you offer. These additional options for engagement with you include live music, merchandise, premium products, and any unique experiences that you can offer your hungry, eager fan base.
In short, free songs lure consumers to sample your free mixtapes, and free mixtapes are the bait to lure fans to spend money on live music, merchandise, deluxe edition mixtapes, and premium-priced music products and experiences. At every stage in this chain your product must gratify whatever desires your audience is seeking to fulfill, otherwise they may be inclined to discontinue their relationship with you. [This all speaks to having a larger plan in mind.]
Give the Customers What They Want. When a song or artist has captured someone's interest enough that he or she seriously considers a purchase from that artist, many of us will download the music for free before we buy it. This allows us to become intimately familiar with that piece of music so we can be absolutely sure that buying it will be worthwhile. However, as you all know, downloading one simple song can sometimes be a more frustrating process than need be –navigating through treacherous, spam-infested illegal download sites and P2P software for just a few minutes of free music to put on your iPod.
Eliminate this pain point for your customers and you will endear yourself to them. Let your fans have the option of downloading for free or purchasing downloads from you and make it easy for people to download your music for free right from the same online destination they can buy it from: your website.
Read more: Should You Give Your Music Away?The Great Debate. — Echoes - Insight for Independent Artists http://blog.discmakers.com/2010/03/should-you-give-your-music-away-the-great-debate/#ixzz19Rl7aUep
akmbirch
>
> One thing I'd add as advice to young people thinking about a career in music is to carefully evaluate their
> skill level.
>
> This is motivated by the following observation. The players I know who gig regularly for decent money are
> extremely highly skilled. Not just highly skilled. Extremely.
>
> These are players who can play many styles, can read anything and always sound great. They have big, big
> ears, great groove, great time and know a lot of tunes because their great ears makes learning tunes easy.
>
IMO was true in the past ... But today ....
IMO, You are correct that many underestimate the capabilities of good working musicians and the skills needed to play at that level...I am that fortunate that I work alongside some of the top NYC players, many are former session players from the halcyon session days of the 60/70/80s, often private functions, all types of music. Many of these players, are only known to other musicians, often they are not in the spotlight as they rarely play the badly paid public/restaurant/club gigs, as these don't pay the bills!.
Occasionally "name players" work with us, and I and my colleagues are often shocked at their lack of skills. Often they are OK in their narrowed genre but ask them to read/play/improvise on something not in their genre and they are a like a rock swimming! Today, mainly because of technology many can get away with honing a set of material, recording it, digitally editing it, packaging it, building an image, marketing etc and building a reputation. As one of my friends put it, "today anyone can call themselves a jazz musician, put a web-site together etc." In the past reputations were built through live playing, in many situations, today they are built by marketing/blogs and edited recordings put on web-sites.
Marketing and the internet is king today. Many great musicians have no interest or desire to market themselves, nor in the internet, but focus instead on music (and hence why they are good at music!). In the past, managers and record companies would take a talented musician and package and promote them. In the jazz world, pianist, Bill Evans, is a good example. IMO, today, unless a musician does extensive self-marketing and likes self-marketing they are unlikely to get a name with the public. Sadly, today, we would probably never hear of Bill Evans and today, there are many other musicians that the public will never get to know and hear.
The working world of the highly skilled musician is not the same as it was years back. There is virtually no session work, or not enough
to make a sustainable living alone. Orchestra's, Broadway and other institutions are cutting back.
I'm not saying that musical skill is not important, on the contrary it is, things do happen when preparedness and ability meet opportunity, but in today's music world there are many other factors.
>
> A recent example: I was at a rehearsal (my teacher was the pianist). The bassist, a young guy, has never seen the chart before. It's at a very brisk tempo and the arrangement has multiple hits, some roughly akin to the breaks you might hear in a salsa band. Not that simple. While nailing the hits on an open D string, hits he's never seen before, he casually reaches over and tunes the string. In music college he tested out of the 3 semester ear training class by passing the final -- before he took the class. This is not a famous player, although he could become one.
>
This is great and good to hear. But just to comment....
Assuming the testing was good it also points to the fact that he must have received extensive early ear training. Fortunate indeed.
There are musicians who a blessed with great ears from an early age, but without some-one teaching them the standard music terminology they would be unable to pass out of a college-level ear training class.
Research has shown that early musical involvement contributes greatly to the development of a good ear. In my own development, I started very early in music, sang extensively, played in orchestras/quartets/bands and could often hear more than other people. But for many years I was weak in the theory and standard music terminology. I could hear tunes, transcribe them and notate/write them down, but I did not know terms like secondary dominant, minor 7th interval etc. I found music theory and terminology "boring", difficult and avoided learning it. Had I been tested, I would have failed!
Then the light bulb went on and I realized that they were simply labels to auditory events. So, it was a matter of applying labels to what I already heard. In doing this, it expanded my own hearing and helped my identify weaknesses within my own hearing. For me learning the labels was the hard part. Learning the standardized music labeling system for auditory events, has helped immeasurably in my own musical development. This really helped spring-board my own musical development to greater levels of auditory understanding and opened up whole new vistas of music.
Today, I find that many "musicians" know all the musical terms, but often can't hear what these terms mean. As I often put it, they have an extensive (but experience devoid) music vocabulary, they can describe a fruit such as an orange extensively, but they have never eaten one.
>
> Of course, you don't have to be at this level to make a living, but you really do have to have an extremely
> high level of skill. I have encountered a number of players who didn't seem to be aware of just how good one
> has to be to succeed at this.
>
I wish it was as simple as that! But, I'm glad you appreciate the level of skill that some players have! :)
akmbirch
Ticket Sales Fell 12% Globally in 2010; High Prices Jeopardize One of Industry's Few Bright Spots
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576049972873921068.html
"In the latest blow to the beleaguered music industry, revenue from its chief bright spot, concert tours, declined sharply in 2010, as strapped consumers stayed away in droves and aging acts failed to make up for a thin crop of young superstars."
"In North America, the average price declined $1.55, or 2%, as concert promotion giant Live Nation Entertainment Inc. engaged in widespread last-minute discounting.
Despite those efforts, the number of tickets sold declined both world-wide and in North America—and even more steeply than the number of shows did, suggesting weak interest among fans.
Ethan Smith says that concert ticket sales are fizzling, a troubling sign for what had been one of the music industry's brighter areas.
Throughout the world, concert-goers bought 38.3 million tickets this year, down 15% from 2009's 45.3 million. The 26.2 million tickets sold in North America represented a 12% drop from the 2009 level of 29.9 million. The ongoing slump in recorded music sales has been a major hurdle to getting top acts to accept less money for concerts, as concerts have become an important financial cushion.
Some in the concert industry had argued that because a live concert is a unique experience that can't be duplicated digitally and downloaded, their business would be immune to the problems that have pushed down recorded music."
"U.S. album sales are down 13% this year compared with 2009, to 319 million, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Sales of CDs, which are often more profitable for record labels than cheaper digital albums, are off 20% so far this year. Sales of individual digital songs have ticked up a mere 1% compared with 2009, to just over 1.1 billion.
Those shifts have hit many acts in the pocket book, and older acts with established fan bases turned increasingly in recent years to concert tours, with regularly rising prices, to steady their finances.
Irving Azoff, Live Nation's executive chairman and the manager of numerous major acts, last year told The Wall Street Journal that recorded music represented as little as 6% of some clients' income—down from 50% a decade ago."