I would dissagree on some of these since I felt it on my "own skin". No offence Staffy, just my oppinion
I partly agree here. It is good to play live as much as possible, we all enjoy that, but we also have to have time for some private life. I understood that you're saying that music should be like job from 9am 'till 5pm everyday in order to make enough for living. I am supporting the idea of playing one 2 months tour in a year plus some festivals. That would make you profit for the next 6 months and the proper album sales for another 6 months until you release new album. We have to find some time for ourselves as well as for writting music at home, not on the road. You said people should buy our albums on the tour. How can one come to see the show if he doesn't know the songs from the new album. I would first buy the album then go to see the show. Just my oppinion.
Well, because of the situation, many don't play proper live shows. There is no competition anymore. I am seeing legends like Neil Murray from old Whitesnake as well as hundreds of famous guys all over London playing pub gigs for £70 per evening. That's really sad. How can I enhance the quality of my music if I don't have money to make good stuff in the studio? Studios are really expensive if you're going for something that can compare with top trends.
It is always cool to see your favorite band live but I hardly see my favorite ones. The ones that used to play in front of 100.000 people are now playing in front of 1000 or less people. The real examples are Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Whitesnake and rock legends like that. These bands are all from the UK and only 5% of people in this country nowadays know some of their songs. Because of the new "modern music revolution" no one is buying their concert tickets nor the albums. They can only have 5000 of more thousands of people in countries where they never played. That was proved in Serbia, Bosinia and Croatia where they had 10.000 people in each country a couple of years ago. I am 100% sure if they come again next year they wouldn't have 1500. That's more than sad. 7 days ago I saw Gary Moore in front of 300 people.
If I was trying to promote music myself (without my label), nobody would ever hear about me. For example in my case - my label's power, contacts, distribution, promotion etc... is something that they have been building for the last 15 years. There is no way I would be reviewed, interviewed and distributed in all world famous rock/metal magazines/webzines and countries without their help. I've tried this before and everytime my CD finished in a rubbish bin. When these guys send an email or a phonecall, things are done in a second. I wouldn't be able to manage that myself, that's just not possible.
To conclude. These independant labels with some history are a great help for artists. They do it all for you. You just cannot dream of getting publicity and distribution the way they can do it. The problem is that people don't buy stuff. People illegaly download music and artists suffer. I am not against internet distribution but please tell me, what does Itunes have to do with my music and why people have to buy stuff there? Just because Apple made good commercial campaign and now taking billions from artist's hard work - all that just because they're called Itunes. They didn't exist when Beatles were making music, now they are taking profit because they are selling their songs. I will never agree with that and that's why I will never buy an Ipod or an Apple Mac - even though I think their computers are great.
Nah, Im not sticky...
Its an interesting discussion, and we all have our thoughts about this... but I still dont agree to some of Your arguments, with no offense...
I can see the point in some of Your arguments, but I think the situation I speaking of will occur in the future, it has already begun here in Seden imo. My friends that was completely out of work in the 80's started to earn money again on just live gigs, playing "sophisticated" music like jazz & blues. And they even get paid! When I was touring back in the 80's we had lousy wages, we had to play the latest hit songs - which was impossible because of all fake production in the studios and no one was happy, nor we, nor the audience. If we shall speak of what really killed live music back then, its MTV. The music scene in my area has never been so active as at the moment, there is plenty of concerts with good bands. Deep Purple was here a while ago, playing in a small town, that would never happen 20 years back since they were just doing the arena gigs.
I think the main issue here is what You expect from music - there is really one big important question:
Are You playing music to be a millionaire or for the love of music? To do the first, You must be extremely lucky and have a good timing with the actual trends, even that You might be a superstar on Your instrument. Also music evolves much faster today than before, and You won't probably last for that long the "old" artists done. But if You are satisfied with putting food on the table, feeding the kids and have a decent living - then there is more opportunities than ever before in the music business imo.
To comment what You said in the beginning, I dont mean that it shall be like a 9-5 job, it has never been and will never be, but the musicians must find new ways to sell their music and new way's to make a living out of it. You are talking bout the "old" situation where bands tour a little, record an album and then had a vacation and then went from the beginning again. This is really obsolete imo. and must change, a musician today must be ready to play whenever its necessary in order to promote the music - otherwise there will be no record sales or tickets sold. The bands You mention is really bad examples imo. since they got out of date many years ago... (even that I personally love them and think its sad that a great guitar player like Gary Moore have to play in front of 300 people) I was trying to broaden the discussion to music in general and its future role in society.
The fact is really that the kids are downloading music for free, I dont personally support it - I buy the records I like in order to support the artists, but I'm thinking of sending the money directly to the artists instead of buying their records since their record labels are eating the money anyway. And i disagree with You about first buying the record and then see the band live - I believe that the kids today are most likely to see some cool vids on Youtube, download some songs illegaly and then watch the band. Maybe then at the concert they will buy the record.....
Also its not a big issue anymore to record a great album since the studio costs gone down drastically the past 10-20 years, in the 80's You paid bout 800/hour for a top-notch studio. Today You can get it for much less! I will say that it is possible to record an album for some 2-4000$ and that is peanuts today compared to what the marketing will cost. But hey! If we record the album, give it away free at the internet to promote our coming tour, maybe then would some people come and see us??? I think thats the way its gonna be, it wont suit everybody but at least there will be one unnecessary link removed - the big record companys.
I agree to You about the small independent labels though - and there will be much more room for them in the future, there's no need to have some Sony/CBS or Warner Brothers label to make a success, just some hard work, talent and good music. The future is to me very exciting and I see the Internet vs. the record industry as a big issue that will change the way music is consumed forever.
//Staffay