ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940
|
Post by ericn on Sept 11, 2017 7:23:05 GMT -6
That and the lack of financial support for anything that doesn't look like it'll turn an immediate profit to the bean counters and ad men who are presently in control of the means of distribution and promotion. I understand that all of Bob Dylan's seminal early albums (before the motorcycle accident) lost money for CBS but they kept him on and promoted him because having him on the label attracted many more profitable acts. You won't see that these days. In fact you won't see any Bob Dylans getting signed at all... I'll second the notion about CBS Columbia Records' philosophy of long term developement of their artist roster in the 60's-70's. They signed their artists to long term deals and expected to develope an artist's talent and experience over that period. Blue Oyster Cult's first album in 1972 sold about 100k over the first year, but that was enough to do the second, and then the third, which stairstepped up in sales even in the absence of an AM radio hit. Our first gold record was the forth one, a live album, and the first platinum was the fifth, the one with the Reaper on it. Of course we were doing our part, touring relentlessly and promoting ourselves as we could. But if Columbia could never quite figure out how to market us, they certainly could deliver the product to retail when we finally hit. And I'm grateful to the label's then-philosophy of maintaining a long term relationship with the artists. One thing, Columbia never lost money on 100k sales. They recouped their expenses for recording and advances and promotion with those numbers. I would bet they did with the early Dylan records too. But the artist didn't recoup those expenses, for which they were charged every penny and then some. The label made more per disk than the artist did. Don you guys were lucky to come up when you did! Radio,labels & promoters as dirty as they were at least knew they need the artist to keep it going. The difference my friend is you know you guys are lucky / blessed , so many of your contemporaries don't understand it's a brace new very scary world!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 11, 2017 13:25:38 GMT -6
At least in 2012 when I last was doing live sound, bands that play in SF had to sign 30 day contracts with venues that prevent them from playing in a certain radius, ruling out San Jose / pennisula and east bay as an option, which is where there are 2-4 million people living. So bands usually play that one gig in SF, travel to Sac or oregon, or LA. So much untapped market going to waste. Everyone in the audience has to fight hours of traffic and pay outrageous parking (get car broken into) just to see a small show in SF because its not convenient for a band on tour to perform and build a following where they live. :/
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 11, 2017 14:37:36 GMT -6
I'm thinking of even smaller venues aimed at high school kids. College is too late.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 11, 2017 14:39:40 GMT -6
At least in 2012 when I last was doing live sound, bands that play in SF had to sign 30 day contracts with venues that prevent them from playing in a certain radius, ruling out San Jose / pennisula and east bay as an option, which is where there are 2-4 million people living. You have Bill Graham to thank for that abomination. His greed killed music in the SF Bay area.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 11, 2017 15:27:33 GMT -6
I'll second the notion about CBS Columbia Records' philosophy of long term developement of their artist roster in the 60's-70's. They signed their artists to long term deals and expected to develope an artist's talent and experience over that period. Blue Oyster Cult's first album in 1972 sold about 100k over the first year, but that was enough to do the second, and then the third, which stairstepped up in sales even in the absence of an AM radio hit. Our first gold record was the forth one, a live album, and the first platinum was the fifth, the one with the Reaper on it. Of course we were doing our part, touring relentlessly and promoting ourselves as we could. But if Columbia could never quite figure out how to market us, they certainly could deliver the product to retail when we finally hit. And I'm grateful to the label's then-philosophy of maintaining a long term relationship with the artists. One thing, Columbia never lost money on 100k sales. They recouped their expenses for recording and advances and promotion with those numbers. I would bet they did with the early Dylan records too. But the artist didn't recoup those expenses, for which they were charged every penny and then some. The label made more per disk than the artist did. Don you guys were lucky to come up when you did! Radio,labels & promoters as dirty as they were at least knew they need the artist to keep it going. The difference my friend is you know you guys are lucky / blessed , so many of your contemporaries don't understand it's a brace new very scary world! The thing about those "dirty guys" back then was that you knew what they wanted and you could deal with it. And if you were local you could often bypass the "dirty money" aspect (unless they smelled big bucks) by visiting the station, getting friendly with your favorite jocks and maybe the program director and schmooze you way into getting a few plays on a trial basis - if there was call-in reaction (which you could often manipulate if you could get a bunch of your friends to call in) and/or a response in local sales you'd probably get added to the rotation and all the old Top 40 stations in a region paid attention to what the other guys were playing. Maybe some of the jocks and/or PDs were assholes but nearly every one I ever came it contact with was pretty friendly. These days it's all centralized and in some cases totally automated and even if you try visiting the station they probably don't want to talk to you - and it wouldn't do any good anyway because of the rigid centrally controlled playlist selected by Mad Ave oriented focus groups and computer algorithms.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940
|
Post by ericn on Sept 11, 2017 16:18:30 GMT -6
I'm thinking of even smaller venues aimed at high school kids. College is too late. There your danceable argument rules, totally dominated by Hip hop and Gaga, Katy Perry Taylor Swift, to the point they seam to expect national act production standards, the space for local / regional fame is now nonexistent !
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 11, 2017 17:46:44 GMT -6
It needs to start all over!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 12, 2017 6:37:26 GMT -6
The whole situation is ripe for a reboot. Madison Ave has done it's best to maintain status quo.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 12, 2017 9:34:36 GMT -6
Madison Avenue predicted the demise of radio, records, and movies in the early 1950s...
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 12, 2017 11:42:46 GMT -6
I'm thinking of even smaller venues aimed at high school kids. College is too late. That would go a long way toward correcting the current problem. There is, however one major problem that must be dealt with for this to be viable, which is where would the financial backing for such venues come from. In the '50s and '60s a large part of this came from the schools and churches, which made their facilities available gratis for secular youth events. However at present many school sytems have difficulty finding adequate funds for basic educational services whith essentially nothing available to be allocated for "extracurricular activities" with the exception of the ever popular athletic programs, and even those are struggling in some areas. Without an increased government committment to increased funding for schoopls - and a wider breadth of "non-essential programs" receiving this funding - help from the educational sector is almost certainly a non-starter, and given the political climate of the last several decades this isn't likely to change anytime soon. Thank you, Ronald Reagan, "trickle-down economics" has served us well. The situation with organized religion doesn't look much better. The religious groups with the best access to funding are mostly highly conservative organizations that actively hate popular music of a secular nature, and religious organizations in general are not highly popular with the majority of young people these days. The outlook in the commercial sector for youth venues doesn't appear to very optimistic, either. Skyrocketing rents and other essential expenses in many areas place a great deal of pressure on business owners to maximize cash flow and for most of them that means sales of alcohol. '60s New York style coffe houses might provide some sort of solution, but a large part of their appeal and success at that point in time depended on the post-beatnik social climate of the time and a social scene of that nature would probably require some significant changes in today's youth attitudes. And then there's the post-internet, post "smart" phone shift in teen society which is causing large numbers of young people to be less inclined to public social activities in general - kids are spending a lot more time at home, interacting on their phones, pads, and various other cyber devices. And even on occasions when they do go out in public they're still glued to their phones, even when they're ostensibly out on date. How many times do you see a young couple sitting across from each other at a restaurant, both tapping away obsessively on their phones? Even the rate of teen sex is significantly lower that it was even a decade ago, as reflected in lower teen rates for pregnancy and STDs, and a lessened demand for birth control in the teen sector. This is exacerbated by general perceived worstening of social in conditions in many urban and semi-urban areas. We need to reverse the political trend for defunding of "non-essential" programs in schools as a starting pont in reversing this trend - which will NOT be a quick fix as there's a half century of accumulated damage that must be undone. And some solution must found to increase face-to-face social activity back to normal levels among the young. Again, this probably should start in the schools. And something must be done to reverse the current alarming trend toward home schooling, which discourages socialization among young people in their formative years. We also need to take steps to break up the mega-monopolies in all areas of entertainment and communications which will help to normalize conditions regarding such things as ticket prices and will help restore diversity to our media outlets. Is this even possible? Probably, yes. If so, when will we see constructive change in the music sector and similar industries? Not soon. It's probably too late for our generation - there's just too much cumulative damage that needs to be corrected. Does that mean that we should just throw up our hands in despair and write it off as a lost cause? HELL, NO! It's something well worth doing, if for no other reason than to preserve the human spirit, even if we're not likely to benefit directly. Somebody's gotta do it. And besides, you never know - something unexpected might happen.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 12, 2017 11:43:40 GMT -6
Madison Avenue predicted the demise of radio, records, and movies in the early 1950s... Looks like they were off by about 50 years!
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Sept 14, 2017 19:10:53 GMT -6
On my recent long trip, I had an Uber driver who turned out to be an indie film director/writer/actor who does work with someone who played a lead role in an installment of a big 80s film franchise. This is a guy with a decent amount of IMDB credits. Looks like the indie film world isn't doing much better. The other day I read an article about men's wages being stagnant since 1973. A lot of this is due to allowing too much corporate control as you all know. Letting all these banks and media companies consolidate everything. The 2008 crash didn't help either. As far as I can tell, it was never really fixed. You need the extremely low interest rates to keep things stable and from what I've read, it has to stay this way indefinitely. And so much of this government funding is only possible because of the dollar's world reserve status, which a lot of countries want to end in favor of some economic hitman IMF global currency. I'm referring to the Confessions of An Economic Hitman book. Supposedly 2018 is the year everyone's been targeting for the reserve switch. We'll see. These politicians are anything but honest and responsible, so, trillions of dollars coming back from countries who no longer need them is probably not something they're very concerned about.
Are the younger people even forming bands much? I think it's true that a lot of them just play with their gadgets. A lot of that is probably due to a lack of resources. I notice that a lot of people hit a bottleneck with jobs because so many people can't or won't retire. Maybe the people who have the money prefer to spend it on vacations and jewelry.
Anyone ever go to the Museum of Pop Culture? They have all these jam rooms with instruments and stuff. People were really into it. They had some exhibit where you could try and mix 8 tracks of Sweet Dreams on their little console. Very unintuitive but kinda cool. They had a real console Hendrix and Kramer used behind some glass. No idea what the echo knob did on it. Think it went up to 30 tracks after some kinda mod. There should be more places like this museum out there, I think it would really stir up interest in doing music with a human element again. There really aren't many places you can just go and jam at.
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Sept 14, 2017 21:06:03 GMT -6
Went here last month for an Ableton Concert and toured the museum. There were displays that went through the years from the late 1800's to present day. When it got to the 1960 displays they were interactive, you could jam on different instruments. The building also housed the headquarters for N.A.M.M. www.museumofmakingmusic.org/visit
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 15, 2017 7:55:51 GMT -6
A lot of people don't realize that it often takes ten years to raise investment for each feature film. The reason Spielberg, Lucas, and Coppola could make films right out of USC was a brief period in the '70s when doctors and lawyers could finance films, albums and even recording studios taking a 100% credit against the federal income tax they'd otherwise need to pay. It was a golden age for some but it also killed the studio business.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 15, 2017 11:44:06 GMT -6
I'm thinking of even smaller venues aimed at high school kids. College is too late. There your danceable argument rules, totally dominated by Hip hop and Gaga, Katy Perry Taylor Swift, to the point they seam to expect national act production standards, the space for local / regional fame is now nonexistent ! The thing is, Gaga is actually an excellent musician and songwriter who is forced to sell herself as spectacle in order to have a viable career. Dunno about the other two - I liked Taylor Swift a lot better when she was just starting out.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 15, 2017 12:13:22 GMT -6
There your danceable argument rules, totally dominated by Hip hop and Gaga, Katy Perry Taylor Swift, to the point they seam to expect national act production standards, the space for local / regional fame is now nonexistent ! The thing is, Gaga is actually an excerllent musician and songwriter who is forced to sell herself as spectacle in order to have a viable career. Dunno about the other two - I liked Taylor Swift a lot better when she was just starting out. I worked for Lady Gaga for one live gig, and you're totally right about her being an excellent musician. She really is talented, even If I don't care for her music. But I wouldn't say she's being forced into a spectacle, she seems to very much embrace the over-the-top image, at least imho.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 15, 2017 14:24:51 GMT -6
The thing is, Gaga is actually an excerllent musician and songwriter who is forced to sell herself as spectacle in order to have a viable career. Dunno about the other two - I liked Taylor Swift a lot better when she was just starting out. I worked for Lady Gaga for one live gig, and you're totally right about her being an excellent musician. She really is talented, even If I don't care for her music. But I wouldn't say she's being forced into a spectacle, she seems to very much embrace the over-the-top image, at least imho. If you're gonna do it, you may as well do it right! But how much of a career would she have these days if sho only did solo piano gigs and duets with Tony Bennet?
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 15, 2017 15:28:01 GMT -6
I worked for Lady Gaga for one live gig, and you're totally right about her being an excellent musician. She really is talented, even If I don't care for her music. But I wouldn't say she's being forced into a spectacle, she seems to very much embrace the over-the-top image, at least imho. If you're gonna do it, you may as well do it right! But how much of a career would she have these days if sho only did solo piano gigs and duets with Tony Bennet? I agree with you there, but the same could be said of many great artists, from this decade all the way back to 60's and before even. Its showmanship, its over the top, its sometimes excessive, but it works, so I'm not going to be the one to judge. Would Michael Jackson have had the same career without his dancing? Or Bowie without the theatrics? Or Freddie Mercury? Or Kiss without the makeup, Pink Floyd without the light show? The performance aspect of music (lights, costumes, special fx etc) does a lot to make a show exciting and engaging. Don't get me wrong, we all know artists that are more show than substance. But to your point, I think with lady gaga she not only embraces the image, but does alot to prove herself to her musical peers. If wearing a meat suit made me an extra million I'd do it in a heart beat!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 15, 2017 21:23:29 GMT -6
If you're gonna do it, you may as well do it right! But how much of a career would she have these days if sho only did solo piano gigs and duets with Tony Bennet? I agree with you there, but the same could be said of many great artists, from this decade all the way back to 60's and before even. Its showmanship, its over the top, its sometimes excessive, but it works, so I'm not going to be the one to judge. Would Michael Jackson have had the same career without his dancing? Or Bowie without the theatrics? Or Freddie Mercury? Or Kiss without the makeup, Pink Floyd without the light show? The performance aspect of music (lights, costumes, special fx etc) does a lot to make a show exciting and engaging. Don't get me wrong, we all know artists that are more show than substance. But to your point, I think with lady gaga she not only embraces the image, but does alot to prove herself to her musical peers. If wearing a meat suit made me an extra million I'd do it in a heart beat! I don't know if I'd want to pay money to see you in a meat suit....
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940
|
Post by ericn on Sept 15, 2017 21:34:47 GMT -6
I agree with you there, but the same could be said of many great artists, from this decade all the way back to 60's and before even. Its showmanship, its over the top, its sometimes excessive, but it works, so I'm not going to be the one to judge. Would Michael Jackson have had the same career without his dancing? Or Bowie without the theatrics? Or Freddie Mercury? Or Kiss without the makeup, Pink Floyd without the light show? The performance aspect of music (lights, costumes, special fx etc) does a lot to make a show exciting and engaging. Don't get me wrong, we all know artists that are more show than substance. But to your point, I think with lady gaga she not only embraces the image, but does alot to prove herself to her musical peers. If wearing a meat suit made me an extra million I'd do it in a heart beat! I don't know if I'd want to pay money to see you in a meat suit.... I don't know if I would pay to smell anybody in a meat suit!😎
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Sept 16, 2017 11:09:20 GMT -6
Starting over means performing in living rooms and lofts. Bill Graham created the current live music business out of living room bands in around five years! The thing is that you've got to begin at the begining which most people aren't willing to do. Until you can reliably fill a living room you have no business in larger venues.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Sept 17, 2017 17:41:26 GMT -6
Great posts.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940
|
Post by ericn on Sept 17, 2017 17:47:03 GMT -6
Starting over means performing in living rooms and lofts. Bill Graham created the current live music business out of living room bands in around five years! The thing is that you've got to begin at the begining which most people aren't willing to do. Until you can reliably fill a living room you have no business in larger venues. Starting small scale means an evolutionary process, not sure we are patient enough Bob.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 17, 2017 19:18:59 GMT -6
The good news is that there is a hell of an opportunity for creating new venues. If you're in an "A market" you are competing with large corporate interests like AEG/Live Nation and landlords with large massive real estate holdings. I disagree. If you're in an "A-Market" the big guys aren't really interested in competing with you. What they WILL be interested in is cherry-picking your top acts for openers. You have to be in it for the lopve of music, not the love of money. If you're in it for the love of money, get the HELL off my lawn! No. You have have totally missed the point. You need to build and support a local scene, not rely on outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 17, 2017 19:22:02 GMT -6
Starting over means performing in living rooms and lofts. Bill Graham created the current live music business out of living room bands in around five years! The thing is that you've got to begin at the begining which most people aren't willing to do. Until you can reliably fill a living room you have no business in larger venues. Starting small scale means an evolutionary process, not sure we are patient enough Bob. And so the industry dies. Greed. Big greed, little greed, it's all greed and it's no way to build a music industry. Love of MUSIC, not love of MONEY.
|
|