Do bands not worry about being rich and famous anymore?

musicismylife78

In Spin, Moby states this “as music becomes less profitable, music becomes a lot better. The old days of starting a band because you want to be rich and famous are falling by the wayside”

What do you all think of his assertion?

There is no question the business model has changed in the music industry. That’s why I think its so silly of bands and labels and anyone else to talk about how people who download music are jerks, criminals or worse. I mean, lets face it, people are going to download music no matter what. The floodgates were opened when Napster burst the dam. Even if Ed came out and said “we feel downloading is illegal and wrong and will prosecute and go after people who download our music” you can bet thousands if not million would still download music.

And there is no question the music business is struggling. Its almost a given, every month Rolling Stone has an article about the decline of the CD, and how sales are down. This happens nearly every issue. There is no question, CD stores are struggling, and there is no question that more than 100,000-200,000 people obtain copies of the latest chart toppers (that seems to be the numbers of physical cd’s most big time bands sell in first week sales). But does that equal music being better? I don’t know.

I don’t know how I feel about the assertion that bands aren’t in it to make money and be rich and famous anymore. Seems like the opposite is true. Most bands these days make most or all profit from touring and merch sales. And it seems like most big bands these days also don’t worry about being labeled sell outs. The Postal Service is featured on a UPS commercial and their cd is available on the website, but at the same time, they aren’t compromising their stances and ethics. The popular thing of using songs in tv sitcoms and dramas (Josh Radin in Scrubs, Iron and Wine on Greys anatomy, Death cab on the O.C.) also is another example of this. At the same time, do I think Sam Beam or Ben Gibbard or James Mercer or Isaac Brock give a damn about mainstream success, no I don’t. I don’t get the feeling those guys really want to sell a million copies and I don’t get the feeling any of those guys are eating caviar and lounging on high priced jets drinking champagne.

Whats your take on all this?

pjoasisrule

Not true at all. Although there still is alot of new music that I like, I would say that music is at its worst right now.

GreenTeaDisease

pjoasisrule wrote:

Not true at all. Although there still is alot of new music that I like, I would say that music is at its worst right now.

I agree. well, I don't think it's the *worst* but I don't think it's great. bands still need funding from record companies to tour and promote their music. with the record companies struggling, that's not going to be easy.

the thing is too, even when the record companies ran the show, very few bands actually become rich. Most bands actually owe their record companies for their advances. it takes a really long time and very high sales to do (or so I have read).

Jeremy1012

All I can say is that when a guy from the other side of the world in New Zealand told me that he had been blasting a couple of my songs, that he had downloaded for free because I let him, in his car to his friends, I was a lot happier than I would've been if I'd heard that 10,000 faceless people had bought those songs and I was getting a 2% cut or some shit like that.

As for the state of music today, only the mainstream is shit and it always has been. Nothing new there. There has never been a bad time for music for people prepared to seek it out. Only for lazy people.

soclose

Jeremy1012 wrote:

There has never been a bad time for music for people prepared to seek it out. Only for lazy people.

Well said.:)

A number of bands I like have licensed music for commercials and TV recently, and frankly it doesn't bother me. If what is said is true, this may be the only way musicians can get by nowadays. For the smaller bands it's all about survival, not compounding huge fortunes.

Just today I was reading an interview with Gary Louris (formerly of The Jayhawks) in No Depression magazine. He said that during the 90's The Jayhawks were asked to write a song for a jeans commercial in the style of the already existing song "Waiting for the Sun." At the time Gary saw that as a sell out move and they turned the offer down. Today he says he'd probably go for it - because times have changed.

stevieraveon

I think the same revenue stream and fame is still there, it's just shifted it's source. While I don't doubt that CD sales will continue to decline, I think it's never been easier for good artists to get their name out there and make back the money doing live concerts.

Gone are the days where you could only listen to the same top 40 songs on your local radio or only watch videos of bands MTV deemed "buzzworthy".

I can't tell you how many bands I've gotten into lately that I never would have heard of because of:
-Song on a friend's myspace page
-Searching out videos on youtube
-Hearing stuff on satellite radio

All the money I've saved on downloading cd's illegally I"ve spent on concerts I never would have gone to before.

brain of c

pjoasisrule wrote:

Not true at all. Although there still is alot of new music that I like, I would say that music is at its worst right now.

i disagree.

DriftingByTheStorm

pjoasisrule wrote:

Not true at all. Although there still is alot of new music that I like, I would say that music is at its worst right now.

There is NO way that music has been worse in the mid 2000s than it was in the mid-late 90s.

Do the words CREED, Britney, Matchbox20 and Ricky Martin mean anything to you?

I think the post-grunge Pop revivalism and mainstream Rave culture gone wrong were the absolute pits.

I mean it didn't get anyworse than having Smashmouth and other absolutely shit bands shoved down my throat endlessly through every source imaginable AND not only that but the internet really was not much to look at yet, so getting media from independent sources was nearly impossible.

The web and downloading has probably saved music, because all these new bands that actualy do NOT suck are able to get their music out to people who are probably weary to spend $20 on ANY cd at this point, because if its popular enough to be on a poster in the local record store, it probably IS shit.

But you see someone post "Wilco is the shit!" or "Goddamn, the Gutter Twins album is amazing!" and you are like, mother fucker, let me check that out!

So i can't agree.
I'd MUCH prefer the 2000s to the late 90s where the only real way to check out bands was to either spend your life in the record store (or have an indie freak friend who owned every cd imaginable) or listen to the radio and hear hour after hour of utter shit.

:(

pjoasisrule

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is NO way that music has been worse in the mid 2000s than it was in the mid-late 90s.

Do the words CREED, Britney, Matchbox20 and Ricky Martin mean anything to you?

I think the post-grunge Pop revivalism and mainstream Rave culture gone wrong were the absolute pits.

I mean it didn't get anyworse than having Smashmouth and other absolutely shit bands shoved down my throat endlessly through every source imaginable AND not only that but the internet really was not much to look at yet, so getting media from independent sources was nearly impossible.

The web and downloading has probably saved music, because all these new bands that actualy do NOT suck are able to get their music out to people who are probably weary to spend $20 on ANY cd at this point, because if its popular enough to be on a poster in the local record store, it probably IS shit.

But you see someone post "Wilco is the shit!" or "Goddamn, the Gutter Twins album is amazing!" and you are like, mother fucker, let me check that out!

So i can't agree.
I'd MUCH prefer the 2000s to the late 90s where the only real way to check out bands was to either spend your life in the record store (or have an indie freak friend who owned every cd imaginable) or listen to the radio and hear hour after hour of utter shit.

:(

I meant that as the last decade basically, 98-00 were the worst years for music since rock and roll started.

pjoasisrule

Jeremy1012 wrote:

All I can say is that when a guy from the other side of the world in New Zealand told me that he had been blasting a couple of my songs, that he had downloaded for free because I let him, in his car to his friends, I was a lot happier than I would've been if I'd heard that 10,000 faceless people had bought those songs and I was getting a 2% cut or some shit like that.

As for the state of music today, only the mainstream is shit and it always has been. Nothing new there. There has never been a bad time for music for people prepared to seek it out. Only for lazy people.

The mainstream is shit and always has been? Pearl Jam are mainstream. Nirvana were mainstream, The Beatles were mainstream, Led Zeppelin was mainstream, Public Enemy were mainstream, Run DMC were mainstream. Up until this decade, alot of the best bands were getting radio play and even television exposure.

red mos

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

I agree. well, I don't think it's the *worst* but I don't think it's great. bands still need funding from record companies to tour and promote their music. with the record companies struggling, that's not going to be easy.

the thing is too, even when the record companies ran the show, very few bands actually become rich. Most bands actually owe their record companies for their advances. it takes a really long time and very high sales to do (or so I have read).

In many cases this is true. Actually the Tom Petty documentary, "running down a dream" even states this, as unfortunately, Tom Petty had to file for chapter 11 Bankruptcy. I'm sure he is probably more than financially ok now, but only after a really big court battle mess pertaining to artist' being given publishing rights and royalties for their music, and even some bands still don't get the royalties they are old. The music biz is just another episode of Money = Greed.

Joe2TheRevenge

pjoasisrule wrote:

The mainstream is shit and always has been? Pearl Jam are mainstream. Nirvana were mainstream, The Beatles were mainstream, Led Zeppelin was mainstream, Public Enemy were mainstream, Run DMC were mainstream. Up until this decade, alot of the best bands were getting radio play and even television exposure.

i agree with you 100000%

In the past, bands could have credibility AND mainstream exposure.

It seems today they have to make a sacrifice and have one or the other. You're either original and make no money, or tread prior ground and get rich.

There are exceptions, but that is basically how it goes. Your record company makes you, and make you millions, or you try and do it alone and possibly wind up with nothing.

But even the ones who make millions end up owing millions more to their record company and end up broke anyway

that is why i download. let's detroy the asshole killing our art. every executive that loses his job raping the arts is a step in the right directions. i do not feel bad for millionaires who are removed from this industry. they already won while we're still losing.

Julien

artists (like Moby) say that money is not important AFTER they get rich...
Easy to say that money isn't important when you have millions of $$$$$ on your bank account.

FinsburyParkCarrots

I think this is all bollocks. There are plenty of starving musicians who were wary of the industry, but have no way of making money at all now, thanks to millionaire twats announcing that music is "free" nowadays.

Anyone who makes music purely for the love of it is either rich to start with, or a complete fool.

reeferchief

As an artist, the art is the most important part, but you cant afford to make it with out money.

Jeremy1012

pjoasisrule wrote:

The mainstream is shit and always has been? Pearl Jam are mainstream. Nirvana were mainstream, The Beatles were mainstream, Led Zeppelin was mainstream, Public Enemy were mainstream, Run DMC were mainstream. Up until this decade, alot of the best bands were getting radio play and even television exposure.

There are of course exceptions. Fact is, most mainstream bands when PJ were around, with the exception of a handful, were shit. Most mainstream rock bands in the 70s, besides the obviously classics, were shit. We're talking Journey and REO Speedwagon here.

And Run DMC were always shit. And yes, I love hip-hop, old-school as well.

markymark550

Do bands worry about becoming rich and famous? Interesting question and I have no idea. I will say that most, if not all, of the bands that I enjoy listening to achieved fame and fortune as a byproduct of their work. Sure, the members of those bands probably wanted to be successful (who doesn't want to be successful?), but I don't think they made money and fame priority #1. They all were musicians who enjoyed creating and playing music first and foremost. It just so happened that others started to like their music, which led to the money and fame.

pjoasisrule

Jeremy1012 wrote:

There are of course exceptions. Fact is, most mainstream bands when PJ were around, with the exception of a handful, were shit. Most mainstream rock bands in the 70s, besides the obviously classics, were shit. We're talking Journey and REO Speedwagon here.

And Run DMC were always shit. And yes, I love hip-hop, old-school as well.

I have a pretty shit memory but I dont remember hearing really any really bad bands on 90s alternative radio with the exception of Everclear, Bush, and a few others. I would take the corporate rock bands of the past over the corporate rock bands of today anytime.

Murderers.

This isn't true. A lot of bands make music that deliberately appeals to wider audiences simply to make more money.

Julien

Murderers wrote:

This isn't true. A lot of bands make music that deliberately appeals to wider audiences simply to make more money.

yes. And moby (cited in the 1st post) is a good example (if you compare what he did 10 years ago and the music he's doing now, I think he clearly wants to make music for large audience, for much money)

muppet

Julien wrote:

yes. And moby (cited in the 1st post) is a good example (if you compare what he did 10 years ago and the music he's doing now, I think he clearly wants to make music for large audience, for much money)

Didn't Moby lisecense all of the songs on "Play" for commercial use?

I don't understand why people get pissed at a band when they give their songs over to commercials. It has nothing do with me, and does not effect me in the slightest.

JaneNY

radiohead33 wrote:

In Spin, Moby states this “as music becomes less profitable, music becomes a lot better. The old days of starting a band because you want to be rich and famous are falling by the wayside”

What do you all think of his assertion?

Maybe what he means is people solely interested in money/fame are less likely to get into it, so the people that do get into music are those that want to do it at any cost. Getting rich aside though, I think that many people would like to make a *living* doing what they love, which doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to want.

appliedlesson

The first sentence pretty much explains the 80's hair bands.

Jerzdevil

Jeremy1012 wrote:

As for the state of music today, only the mainstream is shit and it always has been. Nothing new there. There has never been a bad time for music for people prepared to seek it out. Only for lazy people.

100% on the mark with that statement.

augustwest

In Spin, Moby states this “as music becomes less profitable, music becomes a lot better. The old days of starting a band because you want to be rich and famous are falling by the wayside"


hmmmm...if less profitable means more accessible, to everyone on the planet for free, then i think i'd have to say that that can only be a good thing for music. i'm not sure it will get better, overall, quality wise, with less profitability associated with it.

as far as bands wanting to do it to be rich&famous i'd say that aspect of rnr will still exist, just like some people will always want to work harder to get further ahead in whatever they do, job wise.

Jack_C_Gregory

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Anyone who makes music purely for the love of it is either rich to start with, or a complete fool.

The Minutemen were definitely not rich and were definitely not fools. That was a band that did make music purely for the love of it. Those guys had their day jobs and then they rocked it at night trying to prove that the everyman could have a band. Music shouldn't just be left up to the elite, rich, Mtv type. It should be accessible for everyone and I believe they proved that.

Pauk

I think it's reaching the target audience that makes music better. In ye days of olde small bands could only reach out to places a driveable distance away and even then have to rely on people to come to gigs. Therefore the only bands to make it big were the ones who appeal to the mainstream. I don't mean that in a condescending 'pop is rubbish' way, but niche bands couldn't reach enough people to ever be vaguely famous. Nowadays with the internet any band can reach 10s of 1000s of people, so more niche music is out there appealing to a very narrow demographic. Therefore, there's a wider variety of music out there, you're more likely to find a band that precisely caters to your taste and thus better music. I guess you could relate that to "less money = better music" but I think the less money is more of an effect than a cause.

And then there's my rant about people who say modern music sucks... people are still hooked on the old fashion idea that if the official charts suck then music must suck, but really, who listens to the charts anymore?! Last time I checked the charts must have been in the late 90s...
Personally, I think anyone who says modern day music is rubbish is a pessimistic lazy fool.