The Dream of a Musician

[Dr Nihil]

The Jam Session seemed an appropriate place to share this thought.

I don't have dreams of immense wealth being a working musician. Regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it, I simply don't care if I can't afford a multi-million-dollar home and 28 cars with phat spinnaz. I already know my band and I can bring in a full week's pay out of playing shows. It is hard work in its own right, traveling and finding gigs, but it works. Based on how popular we get, the rewards and expenses would (I assume) simply multiply themselves. Variables such as a manager, royalties to promoters/venue owners, techs, transportation, etc are debatable, some of which are based on the level of our (in)dependence.

So, what better way to show appreciation to your fans than simply give them your music? Digital distribution, privately owned website/servers, home recording and producing, no label, copyrights, etc. We would of course charge an appropriate amount for shows--being a working, touring musician essentially means you have to devote 100% of your time to the job, traveling almost constantly...not to mention it costs money simply to play and turn a profit. I'm sure most of you already know this.

As far as I know, every popular or mainstream band, musician, or artist basically relies on record sales to fund (in lots of cases) ridiculously expensive lifestyles. In some ways, I see this as unnecessary greed. I don't think of music as a product, but a simple idea or expression and if people like it enough, I want them to have it--they don't need to give me or a major corporation money to do that.

So, what do you think? Is my idea doable? Or is it the ticket to failure?

[hotpants_67]

i read in an interview that rise against sold 100000 copies on their last album, which you think would amount to a lot of money right? wrong. apparently the band didnt get as much money as they thought they would. maybe their record label ripped them off? i dunno.

[DougJI]

Bands make about 10c per record sold.

[mullets suk]

i thought it was even less then 10c, also big bands like rise against usally have more levrage when it comes to getting money for each cd. Also bands make money from ticket sales, and merch.

Also i think yor idea is doable. yet it will take alot of work esp. since you dont have any management backing you. I would love to be a touring musician like you, but my band would never get that good i dont think. If we could even do a summer tour thing that would be sweet.

[Moseph]

Typically, large mainstream acts are given an amount of money upfront as payment for their record. That's usually how they get that money to fund those lifestyles. It's also why music acts typically burn out and go broke: they use up their one large payment on stupid stuff.

Musical acts typically make very little in terms of record sales percentage. The majority of a mainstream acts money comes from touring and merchandise sales. Larger acts also make money off of endorsements, etc.

The cut is usually better for the artist on an indie label, but the sales volume is also normally a lot lower.

[Thehorn]

I get £3 per record I sell beacause we put it out with a DIY label.

[Moseph]

To Dr Nihil: if you're in the States, this website might help you:

http://www.creativecommons.org/

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Gigs are a much better source of income for artists than record deals.

[mullets suk]

The cut is usually better for the artist on an indie label, but the sales volume is also normally a lot lower.

i read some where that indie labels are most of the times much more worse then larger labels...they may of been talking about the major label's "indie" labels though, so im not sure.

[Dr Nihil]

Interesting site, Moseph.

I originally assumed bands received payment upon signing a contract. It's just that when you've become so popular and you have these incredibly loyal fans (Tool is as good an example as any), why enter into a contract that puts a price on your music? Since bands already produce the majority of their income through shows and merchandise, it comes across as a sort of arrogant greed to sign into a contract. The way you describe it, a contract is largely useless to a working musician.

Popular musical acts that thrive on television (the types my idea ultimately targets) seem to do their fans a disservice. They make an album, play very few half-assed shows to promote the album, then basically just live it up for the rest of the year. People form an emotional bond to music and treating them like tools for wanting to experience it is extremely distasteful in my eyes.

Maybe that's what I'm after? To form some sort of independent, working musician conglomerate? No contracts, no managers; supporting various genres for up-and-coming acts, free digital distribution, touring 7-9 months out of a year. I don't know how that would work without some form of management.

Oh, well. Thanks for the input, all of you. =D

[Moseph]

Don't forget about the distribution and exposure benefits. Major labels can get music to many, many more venues and mediums than independent organizations (commercial or not).

If you're hoping to spread your music to as many people as possible (which isn't necessarily a goal based in greed), that's the smartest way to do it.

[Dr Nihil]

It's not a matter of wanting to travel the world and share my music with every living soul so they can feel what I feel, man. We will travel, we will play; if people like it, I want them to have it; if they don't, fine. In the case that our popularity grows, the fans that flock to the music are the ones I want to share it with. Major media exposure or international distribution are things I am not concerned with. But you are right: a major label is the most efficient way to achieve such goals.

Loyalty to the fans that come out and pay to see us play, that pay our bills and buy our equipment. Though certain people have made the idea quite cliche, that is my motivation for making music, second only to my simple love of doing it. It is not my wish to endulge in unnecessary greed and legal entanglements.

[mullets suk]

what would be great would be if you could form a label, that was actually fair to the musicians, while at the same time doing what the big labels could do like distribute music, (there main goal in my mind). of course thats the ultimate goal, but i wonder how possible it would be.

[Merkaba]

Even decent bands don't usually make alot from album sales. The labels do though! I dont ride on the "album sales are evil lets give everything away, napster, metallica, etc, bandwagon" By the time you pay for your lawyer, manager, touring expenses, and buy backs, you have to sell half a million to break even. Plus I want to have two kids and a house of my own with money to live on when I hit fifty.

[Dr Nihil]

Even decent bands don't usually make alot from album sales. The labels do though! I dont ride on the "album sales are evil lets give everything away, napster, metallica, etc, bandwagon" By the time you pay for your lawyer, manager, touring expenses, and buy backs, you have to sell half a million to break even. Plus I want to have two kids and a house of my own with money to live on when I hit fifty.

I'm on a similar 'bandwagon', but that's not the one. Close, though. *_*