Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Blogs
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPlease Self-Release Me, Let Me Go

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 14>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
 Rating: Topic Rating: 3 Votes, Average 2.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 11:44
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 

Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Nope. That's not what the sentence means - the word "resource" is a little misleading perhaps.

Artists crave attention. An audience fulfills that need.
Hum...Maybe I'm out of my depth and shouldn't insist but...

If we say artists are meant to provide "food" (of an entertaining kind) yet crave attention (attention that results in people giving them money and fulfils their need for their life to have a meaning), it's like saying a cook would provide food yet they're hungry because nobody pays attention to the restaurant they're running, and they end up with no money to buy their own food (and their life being meaningless as well).

Anyway I hope everyone agrees that artists should work so as to gain some attention, but only in that it makes the World a better place, and not because they're in need of anything.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 08:05
Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 

Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Nope. That's not what the sentence means - the word "resource" is a little misleading perhaps.

Artists crave attention. An audience fulfills that need.
What?
Back to Top
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 07:14
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 

Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 03 2015 at 13:34
It's pretty evident we have a similar mindset and outlook so are are singing from the same song-sheet here Mark. Approve

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Although we have been speaking about an aggregate demand curve for all modern recorded rock (or prog) music, it is worth pointing out that a truly unknown indie artist actually begins with a demand curve approximating $0 per unit no matter what quantity they supply (great or small). 

  

The recorded rock music product is different from an agricultural product like corn, wheat, or livestock.  If you produce corn of 'reasonably acceptable' quality, it is relatively easy to convince a purchaser of multiple quantity/units that you have a functional substitute in the competitive marketplace.  Simply convince one wholesaler that you have adequate quality corn to sell and one wholesaler will purchase bushels and bushels of corn from you.

  

Such is NOT the case for recorded music.  Even with a very high quality music product (which is difficult to define I know but most of us can probably agree that at least certain basic attributes are generally appreciated among your target market)...  so even with a very high quality product (i.e. excellent packaging, sterling sound quality, etc.), it is still not at all easy to convince a wholesaler to purchase your product in bulk.  So indie artists typically must convince customers one at a time (or at least in very small groups at a time).

Until music consumers are convinced otherwise, they deem a unit of an independent artist's musical output to be worth approximately ZERO dollars.  That is the cold hard truth.

Stated in economic terms, there is a very pronounced and significant 'product differentiation' in the minds of consumers for the recorded music product.   Music produced by artists they already know and appreciate has a measure of known (or expected positive) value in their minds.  Music produced by an unknown indie artist at best has an unknown value and quite often labors under a dubious shadow of doubt that must be overcome before someone will 'buy in' as a 'fan' or as a 'purchaser/consumer' of their product.  

  

But wait... It gets worse!  Most consumers not only deem the musical output of an independent artist to be worth zero dollars.  They also deem this product as unworthy of investment of their precious time and attention. 

This is made even worse by the prevalent view that this product cost nothing to reproduce. It's the tiresome file-sharin' ain't stealin' fallacy and the countless equally tiresome and fallacious arguments that go to support it, such as I wouldn't have bought it anyway and I can't afford to buy every album I want.

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

I once heard a modern rock music fan refer to music played on commercial radio and/or released by professional labels as "REAL" music. Their only 'axe' to grind was that they were tired of indie artists pinging them in social media. It was really an off-handed remark. But the strong implication was that the music produced by independent artists and sold exclusively over the internet was not worth even recognizing as 'genuine'. I disagree strongly with that assessment and it is certainly an extreme viewpoint but it demonstrates some of the challenges an indie artist faces.

It's an interesting point-of-view, I wonder how widespread it is.

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

There are many different ways to attack this problem.
 
Sometimes an artist can manage to force captive members of their target market to pay attention to their music.  For example, perhaps these people paid money to see a 'headliner' and this artist has managed to land the gig of being the 'warm-up act'.  This is a classic and perfect opportunity.  You have (hopefully) a significant congregation of people who meet your target market demographic in one place and already 'primed' to listen to music.  Many of them don't want to "lose their place" or risk missing the headliner or are merely comfortably settled where they are so they are willing to submit themselves to this artist's music.  Even still, some of this captive audience won't PAY attention.  The artist still must do something to TICKLE their eyes or their ears.
I've seen too many support acts play to an empty hall or to a disinterested audience. The ones that interested me were those who rose above that and managed to grab the audience's attention, you don't need smart gimmicks for that, just a measure of professionalism.
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

 
Bottom line:  Before we can expect anyone to PAY money for music, we must first get them to PAY attention.  And even their attention rarely comes to passive artists for free.  Artists must actively work to EARN opportunities to garner the attention of their target market.

Another approach could be to force exposure to your music by having it played while they are doing another activity (like shopping or eating and drinking).  Again, the music will need to have some quality which attracts their attention- but if the quality is there, the biggest part of the battle is simply gaining exposure.

In both of these cases, the artist gains at least a precious moment of exposure time that represents an opportunity to EARN valuable differentiation in the estimation of potential paying customers.

Yet another way is to get exposure is to get 'thought leaders' to talk about or to write about your music.  This could be a reviewer at PA or an online radio station or even a member of another band with their own unique fanbase to talk, write, or play your music.

 

None of this is new.  Yet indie artists seem to expect these things not to apply to them.  For some reason they expect the world to come rushing to their web presence to buy their music.  It just isn't realistic.  You might as well buy a lottery ticket.

This echoes my sentiment too and emphasises many of the points I have been striving to get across in this blog. Your following summary pretty much says it all:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... This is true even for artists who enjoy large labels and promotion budgets.  (And so it is that at least some of the attention-grabbing antics we see in the music industry are not merely the result of undisciplined narcissism after all!  It is actually effective promotion.  But we knew that all along on some level, didn't we?)

 

Making your music available through multiple online outlets is only the beginning.  After that you face the task of getting people to PAY attention.  

  

Fortunately, consumer attention can be effectively earned through any number of promotional activities.  Unfortunately, each of these require a certain amount of (uh-oh... here comes a 4-letter word...)  WORK!  ;-)

Clap Thank you.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 03 2015 at 12:39
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

<The printing press enabled more readers, William Caxton published books that had already been written, he did not commission new writing. Over time that increased reader-base (demand) led to more writers being published (supply) whereas the internet has enabled more musician-supply without increasing the listener-demand.>
 
Yes.  An incredibly large pool of illiterate individuals who stood much to gain from learning to read ended up fueling an ever increasing demand for the printed page.  This was necessary in order for increased Supply of printed pages (due to lower production costs) to result in the spiraling cycles of increased Supply followed by increases in quantity demanded followed by further increases Supply due to greater economies of scale resulting in even greater quantities demanded.  A perfect storm!
 
I actually believe that the internet age has increased listener demand in the aggregate for recorded music but only to a moderate extent.  We now have people in remote areas of the world who are enjoying greater access than ever to modern recorded music and some of them are most certainly taking advantage of this access, developing a greater appetite for such music in the process.  But even so, this quantity of increased demand for recorded music is totally negligible relative to the incredibly large increases of production and distribution we have seen in the supply of recorded music in the 21st Century. 
 
So with a structural positive shift to the Supply Curve and with only a miniscule adjustment to the Demand Curve in the process, we are seeing exactly what economic theory predicts:
* Lower (inflation adjusted) prices
* Struggles for most of the masses of small scale 'suppliers' (indie artists) to move a large number of units.
Absolutely. The slight increase in aggregate demand is only due to the ease in which product can be acquired over the internet, not because of the increase in supply. This would explain the poor correlation between supply and demand.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 03 2015 at 05:59
Originally posted by Ozark Soundscape Ozark Soundscape wrote:

Doesn't matter. The more I work on it, the more I put it out there, the more that will come. But the main point is that someone is listening to it. While I'd like to be successful, not everyone on Bandcamp or what have you can make a career as a musician. The main advantage to the online music world is not that there are more people making careers as musicians, it's that there are more people with day jobs able to get heard. Back in the day it was a much more clear cut line. You had to get successful to be heard by anyone other than your friends and whoever happened to be in a club you were playing at. Now anyone can be heard by anyone over the world. Not a lot of people over the world, necessarily, but it's an improvement. It's at the very least better than how it was before.
There is no disputing that most of what you have said is true, but I cannot agree with your conclusions due to the ephemeral nature of the internet community. Internet only "fans" are a lot more fickle and transitory than those you gather from direct contact through gigging for example. This cannot be better than how it was before because it requires no "buy-in" or commitment from those fans to hear your music. Before, people had to make an effort to come and hear you play, now you are just a click in their favourites list.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether you want to make a career out of music or just want your music to be heard you have to market it.

There is a concept model in management called the Sphere Of Influence (SOI) - depending upon the business sector you are concerned with this has many different meanings but for the purposes of this debate I will confine this to one simple definition: The SOI is your contact network. This is not the same as your social network though there is obviously some overlap between the two, there are people in your social network who do not share your interests and there are people in your contact network who are not interested in joining your social network. Differentiating between the two is not overly difficult and it is wise to keep these two networks separate, but that's by-the-by.

Your SOI is not just the people you market to by means of direct marketing (and this applies to anyone who wants their music to be heard by a wider audience, not just the career musician) but it is also the contact network of people that you will use to market your music. Bandcamp is a marketplace, but it is not within your SOI, the people who contact you from your Bandcamp page however, can be part of your contact network, but those who simply visit your page and stream a couple of tracks are not. Bandcamp provides a place for you to sell your music but it cannot market it for you (because of another business three-letter-acronym called the Span Of Control, it does not have the manpower or resources to promote 1 million artists). Obviously you can add people who have bought your albums to that contact list but it does not mean that they are automatically part of your SOI.

Your SOI network includes:
  • Immediate contacts (band members and their friends, collaborators, your friends and family, fans, street-teams, etc.)
  • People who join your mailing list (at gigs, from bandcamp, on facebook, etc.)
  • Contacts within the media (print magazines, fanzines, ezines, bloggers, reviewers, music websites, etc.)
  • Contacts within the industry (record labels, A&R men, distributors, promoters, venue owners, etc.)
  • Like minded artists.
These are the people who you can influence directly (hence are within your 'sphere of influence') but this is not an altruistic network, they have to want to help you and that usually means some kind of reward. This is not (necessarily) financial reward, for a limited few your continued success is reward enough and for other it is the pleasure of hearing your music; for most their interest in your music (and therefore marketing your music) has to result in some benefit for them - for all web-based media this is simply increased traffic to their site, though some do offer a pay-to-promote service in some way (even if that only involves free promo copies). Obviously those in the industry will want to make money out of your product so they probably don't concern you if you are not interested in a music career (and likewise, they are not interested in you).

Increasing your SOI is key to being heard and there are many ways of doing this that artists have been exploiting since forever so I will not dwell on them here. Maintaining it is also key since it is a dynamic list that needs constant updating: ignore the people in your SOI and some will go away, conversely, pester them too much and some will lose interest. (Those that overlap with your social network are probably less work to maintain). If you can convert those into long-term fans then all the better since brand-loyalty in the music world is the most effective approach.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today I received through the post a new CD from a band called Scarlet Soho (not a Prog band btw) that I have known for many years. Even though I have been out of band management for nearly ten years I am still on their mailing list because back in the day I was part of their SOI and they were part of mine. This was an ad hoc mutual arrangement: if I booked a gig they could be called on to support and if they booked it they could call on my band to support them. Now I am just a fan who buys their albums.
What?
Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 22:08

Although we have been speaking about an aggregate demand curve for all modern recorded rock (or prog) music, it is worth pointing out that a truly unknown indie artist actually begins with a demand curve approximating $0 per unit no matter what quantity they supply (great or small). 

  

The recorded rock music product is different from an agricultural product like corn, wheat, or livestock.  If you produce corn of 'reasonably acceptable' quality, it is relatively easy to convince a purchaser of multiple quantity/units that you have a functional substitute in the competitive marketplace.  Simply convince one wholesaler that you have adequate quality corn to sell and one wholesaler will purchase bushels and bushels of corn from you.

  

Such is NOT the case for recorded music.  Even with a very high quality music product (which is difficult to define I know but most of us can probably agree that at least certain basic attributes are generally appreciated among your target market)...  so even with a very high quality product (i.e. excellent packaging, sterling sound quality, etc.), it is still not at all easy to convince a wholesaler to purchase your product in bulk.  So indie artists typically must convince customers one at a time (or at least in very small groups at a time).

Until music consumers are convinced otherwise, they deem a unit of an independent artist's musical output to be worth approximately ZERO dollars.  That is the cold hard truth.

Stated in economic terms, there is a very pronounced and significant 'product differentiation' in the minds of consumers for the recorded music product.   Music produced by artists they already know and appreciate has a measure of known (or expected positive) value in their minds.  Music produced by an unknown indie artist at best has an unknown value and quite often labors under a dubious shadow of doubt that must be overcome before someone will 'buy in' as a 'fan' or as a 'purchaser/consumer' of their product.  

  

But wait... It gets worse!  Most consumers not only deem the musical output of an independent artist to be worth zero dollars.  They also deem this product as unworthy of investment of their precious time and attention. 

I once heard a modern rock music fan refer to music played on commercial radio and/or released by professional labels as "REAL" music. Their only 'axe' to grind was that they were tired of indie artists pinging them in social media. It was really an off-handed remark. But the strong implication was that the music produced by independent artists and sold exclusively over the internet was not worth even recognizing as 'genuine'. I disagree strongly with that assessment and it is certainly an extreme viewpoint but it demonstrates some of the challenges an indie artist faces.

There are many different ways to attack this problem.
 
Sometimes an artist can manage to force captive members of their target market to pay attention to their music.  For example, perhaps these people paid money to see a 'headliner' and this artist has managed to land the gig of being the 'warm-up act'.  This is a classic and perfect opportunity.  You have (hopefully) a significant congregation of people who meet your target market demographic in one place and already 'primed' to listen to music.  Many of them don't want to "lose their place" or risk missing the headliner or are merely comfortably settled where they are so they are willing to submit themselves to this artist's music.  Even still, some of this captive audience won't PAY attention.  The artist still must do something to TICKLE their eyes or their ears.
 
Bottom line:  Before we can expect anyone to PAY money for music, we must first get them to PAY attention.  And even their attention rarely comes to passive artists for free.  Artists must actively work to EARN opportunities to garner the attention of their target market.

Another approach could be to force exposure to your music by having it played while they are doing another activity (like shopping or eating and drinking).  Again, the music will need to have some quality which attracts their attention- but if the quality is there, the biggest part of the battle is simply gaining exposure.

In both of these cases, the artist gains at least a precious moment of exposure time that represents an opportunity to EARN valuable differentiation in the estimation of potential paying customers.

Yet another way is to get exposure is to get 'thought leaders' to talk about or to write about your music.  This could be a reviewer at PA or an online radio station or even a member of another band with their own unique fanbase to talk, write, or play your music.

 

None of this is new.  Yet indie artists seem to expect these things not to apply to them.  For some reason they expect the world to come rushing to their web presence to buy their music.  It just isn't realistic.  You might as well buy a lottery ticket.

 

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... This is true even for artists who enjoy large labels and promotion budgets.  (And so it is that at least some of the attention-grabbing antics we see in the music industry are not merely the result of undisciplined narcissism after all!  It is actually effective promotion.  But we knew that all along on some level, didn't we?)

 

Making your music available through multiple online outlets is only the beginning.  After that you face the task of getting people to PAY attention.  

  

Fortunately, consumer attention can be effectively earned through any number of promotional activities.  Unfortunately, each of these require a certain amount of (uh-oh... here comes a 4-letter word...)  WORK!  ;-)

Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 21:25
<The printing press enabled more readers, William Caxton published books that had already been written, he did not commission new writing. Over time that increased reader-base (demand) led to more writers being published (supply) whereas the internet has enabled more musician-supply without increasing the listener-demand.>
 
Yes.  An incredibly large pool of illiterate individuals who stood much to gain from learning to read ended up fueling an ever increasing demand for the printed page.  This was necessary in order for increased Supply of printed pages (due to lower production costs) to result in the spiraling cycles of increased Supply followed by increases in quantity demanded followed by further increases Supply due to greater economies of scale resulting in even greater quantities demanded.  A perfect storm!
 
I actually believe that the internet age has increased listener demand in the aggregate for recorded music but only to a moderate extent.  We now have people in remote areas of the world who are enjoying greater access than ever to modern recorded music and some of them are most certainly taking advantage of this access, developing a greater appetite for such music in the process.  But even so, this quantity of increased demand for recorded music is totally negligible relative to the incredibly large increases of production and distribution we have seen in the supply of recorded music in the 21st Century. 
 
So with a structural positive shift to the Supply Curve and with only a miniscule adjustment to the Demand Curve in the process, we are seeing exactly what economic theory predicts:
* Lower (inflation adjusted) prices
* Struggles for most of the masses of small scale 'suppliers' (indie artists) to move a large number of units.
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32482
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 12:12
Well hot damn, I've made more than average. 
Back to Top
Ozark Soundscape View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2014
Location: not here
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 11:23
I've made several friends over the past year or two that live in different parts of the world that really like my music, some of whom I've made artistic collaborations with. Those would've never happened without the internet. They are few but they are invaluable.
Back to Top
Ozark Soundscape View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2014
Location: not here
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 11:19
Doesn't matter. The more I work on it, the more I put it out there, the more that will come. But the main point is that someone is listening to it. While I'd like to be successful, not everyone on Bandcamp or what have you can make a career as a musician. The main advantage to the online music world is not that there are more people making careers as musicians, it's that there are more people with day jobs able to get heard. Back in the day it was a much more clear cut line. You had to get successful to be heard by anyone other than your friends and whoever happened to be in a club you were playing at. Now anyone can be heard by anyone over the world. Not a lot of people over the world, necessarily, but it's an improvement. It's at the very least better than how it was before.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 10:51
Originally posted by Ozark Soundscape Ozark Soundscape wrote:

I'm not saying that that many more artists are getting payed significant money, I'm saying more are able to put their music out there for more people. Getting payed is a secondary goal. Getting your voice heard is the primary.
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Now, I guess you're thinking that it is not all about money, it is about getting your music noticed and heard, but the sales and revenue figures relate proportionally to that exposure even if you are not interested in making money. Some put this ratio at something in the order of 1000:1 (i.e., 1000 listens equals 1 album sold) - the problem with that is zero albums sold gives no indication of how many people heard it. To re-quote Momus's paraphrasing of Andy Warhol - "Everyone is famous for 15 people".
My argument is you, they, we are not reaching more people. As like or not, we are reaching our friends and people who already knew us.

Sure my music has been heard by people from every continent on the planet, but that does not add up to a lot of people (according to LastFM that's 276 people over the entire 6-year 51-album lifespan of the project, and okay, I don't personally know all of them, but compared to 19,000 listeners for the Prog Metal band I used to manage it's a spit in the ocean).
Originally posted by Ozark Soundscape Ozark Soundscape wrote:


All I know is as a musician myself, I think I have a lot better chance amassing and audience, however large or small, through Bandcamp than I do getting a deal with a moderately large label. My music is, at least at the moment, much more artistically suited towards it.
I'll be blunt here (thou' not to be snarky): How is that working out for you? Seriously and honestly. I can see from your FB page and YouTube viewing figures that it's not that great. How many of those are people who listened to your music here in Music and Musician's Exchange?


What?
Back to Top
Ozark Soundscape View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2014
Location: not here
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 08:58
I'm not saying that that many more artists are getting payed significant money, I'm saying more are able to put their music out there for more people. Getting payed is a secondary goal. Getting your voice heard is the primary.
All I know is as a musician myself, I think I have a lot better chance amassing and audience, however large or small, through Bandcamp than I do getting a deal with a moderately large label. My music is, at least at the moment, much more artistically suited towards it.


Edited by Ozark Soundscape - February 02 2015 at 08:59
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 04:29
Originally posted by Ozark Soundscape Ozark Soundscape wrote:

My views on this are simple: the 'new way' may give voices to those undeserving, but it gives more talented people a voice, too. Back in the day, any band that wasn't hip and marketable had to be pretty lucky to get a record deal. Independent labels helped in the last couple decades of the 20th century, though, and I think the internet is just a natural extension. It has it's downsides, but the advantages are immeasurable. Finding a good artist may require more effort, but there a far more good artists getting found.
Unfortunately, that is the view of five years ago perhaps (when this Blog was first started) but the situation has not blossomed into the idyllic artists' paradise that many predicted (or hoped) it would be. Nor has it levelled the playing field for the talented but un-hip and unmarketable artist.

To recap (and update) what I posted in another of Dave Francis's threads:

In its entire lifetime Blandcamp has paid out $96 million to approximately 1 million artists, if we compute the average from that then each one has earnt a measly $96 from the sales of their albums. Since those sales&payouts have probably followed the Pareto Distribution (80% of sales to 20% of suppliers) then 20% of the artists have earnt $384 and the remaining 80% have earnt $24 each. [Hold on to your hat because the maths is going to get messy]. However, that 80/20 split is also subject to the Pareto rule so 20% of the 20% artists earn 80% of the 80% sales; and 20% of the 80% artists earn 80% of the 20% sales. Unfortunately, that is as far as the progression goes because 20% of 20% of $96 million sales divided by 80% of 80% of 1 million artists is only $6 each and that equates to selling less than 1 CD each. The bottom line of all this is that half of the artists on Blandcamp earn nothing.

I actually suspect it is worse than that given that each artist probably has more than 1 album to sell. 

In terms of CD sales the actual figures are quite surprising, here I will quote liberally from the FAQ at everyhit.com:
Quote  It often comes as a surprise to discover that, compared to singles, more than twice as many albums are sold in any given week. Average weekly sales figures for an album topping the main artist chart are approximately 100,000 (but there is huge variation). The number 10 album averages 23,500. A figure of 7,000 copies in a week should make the number 40 position.

So this pretty much confirms the Pareto rule between the #1 and #10 album but those 10 albums are the merest fraction of the total number of different albums that qualify for the charts. If we keep dividing these numbers down to encompass every album that is currently available then the vast majority of albums sell nothing at all.



Out of interest, here is a giraffe from the same site that is also surprising and contradicts a lot of what some pundits are saying about album sales vs single-track sales:
Quote
Note: that is units shifted, not dollars earned.

Now, I guess you're thinking that it is not all about money, it is about getting your music noticed and heard, but the sales and revenue figures relate proportionally to that exposure even if you are not interested in making money. Some put this ratio at something in the order of 1000:1 (i.e., 1000 listens equals 1 album sold) - the problem with that is zero albums sold gives no indication of how many people heard it. To re-quote Momus's paraphrasing of Andy Warhol - "Everyone is famous for 15 people".

So sure, there is a lot more good music out there, and there is a lot more not-so-good music too.

Originally posted by Ozark Soundscape Ozark Soundscape wrote:

The internet enables more musicians in the same way the printing press enabled more writers.
Sounds cute, but it isn't actually true. The printing press enabled more readers, William Caxton published books that had already been written, he did not commission new writing. Over time that increased reader-base (demand) led to more writers being published (supply) whereas the internet has enabled more musician-supply without increasing the listener-demand. 

If we were talking about commodities of equal worth then this would be an over-supply buyer's market, which as any economist will tell you, results in declining prices and reduced profits. Music is not a commodity of equal worth.


Edited by Dean - February 02 2015 at 04:31
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 03:01
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

<when I refer to 'people' here I am inferring 'people who buy Prog' - i.e., people like you and me. What the average joe is buying does not concern me in this Blog.>
 
OK - gotcha.  I do think I can relate to some extent with what you are saying.  Each prog-rock fan has only so many 'attentive listening hours' available per week.  But there is now a plethora of self-released albums available to compete for that limited resource.  The net effect often is that we (proggers) spread our attentive listening hours more thinly across multiple albums than we did back when our choices were more limited by the major labels, albums were more expensive (especially in inflation adjusted dollars), and we had to travel to a brick and mortar store to go get them.
Yep, that's what I was driving at, we can only consume a limited amount of new music each week, part of this is due to the intensity at which Prog demands to be listened at - you cannot "skim-read" Progressive Rock. 
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

 
But I would like to quickly mention that back in the 1970's, there were quite a few 'average Joe' rock fans listening to and purchasing albums by proggie artists such as Yes, Genesis, Rush, ELP, Jethro Tull, and others.  Also, in today's music retail environment, creative, innovative rock (or post-rock) artists still do break through to wider 'average Joe' audiences despite (and sometimes to some extend because of) the fundamental changes to music distribution.

Bands which perform 'live' tend to recruit new fans who did not (or do not) consider themselves proggers and who would not tend tp hang out over here at Prog Archives.  If they have a particularly dynamic show, word of mouth can help spread the message.  Such is the life of an independent artist. 
Absolutely, and this also happens when one of our genre teams adds a new band to the PA database because there will be average joe fans of that band who did not (or does not) consider them to be a Progressive Rock band. As an extreme example, Swans, Radiohead, The Decemberists etc., all have wider fan-bases than just Prog fans, but this is also true of bands like iamthemorning and Seven Impale.
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

 
So, in my opinion, although indie prog bands are smart to market directly toward listeners who self-identify with the prog rock genre designation...  they would also be wise to continue considering cross-over opportunities to markets that don't necessarily identify themselves as 'prog rock' fans per se.
That is a very good point and that further emphasises the message inherent in this Blog - self-released artists have to either be more than just musicians or they need to get help with all the aspects of management and promotion that they are not good at themselves.
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

     
Either way, however, there is certainly no denying the fact that getting noticed among a deluge of new releases can be a formidable challenge for independent artists from all genres. 
Yep, in the modern environment, it is not enough to just record an album and go "Ta Dah!". The world will not beat a path to your door.
What?
Back to Top
Ozark Soundscape View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2014
Location: not here
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 01:23
The internet enables more musicians in the same way the printing press enabled more writers.
Back to Top
Ozark Soundscape View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2014
Location: not here
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 00:34
My views on this are simple: the 'new way' may give voices to those undeserving, but it gives more talented people a voice, too. Back in the day, any band that wasn't hip and marketable had to be pretty lucky to get a record deal. Independent labels helped in the last couple decades of the 20th century, though, and I think the internet is just a natural extension. It has it's downsides, but the advantages are immeasurable. Finding a good artist may require more effort, but there a far more good artists getting found.
Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2015 at 23:38
<when I refer to 'people' here I am inferring 'people who buy Prog' - i.e., people like you and me. What the average joe is buying does not concern me in this Blog.>
 
OK - gotcha.  I do think I can relate to some extent with what you are saying.  Each prog-rock fan has only so many 'attentive listening hours' available per week.  But there is now a plethora of self-released albums available to compete for that limited resource.  The net effect often is that we (proggers) spread our attentive listening hours more thinly across multiple albums than we did back when our choices were more limited by the major labels, albums were more expensive (especially in inflation adjusted dollars), and we had to travel to a brick and mortar store to go get them. 
 
But I would like to quickly mention that back in the 1970's, there were quite a few 'average Joe' rock fans listening to and purchasing albums by proggie artists such as Yes, Genesis, Rush, ELP, Jethro Tull, and others.  Also, in today's music retail environment, creative, innovative rock (or post-rock) artists still do break through to wider 'average Joe' audiences despite (and sometimes to some extend because of) the fundamental changes to music distribution.
 
Bands which perform 'live' tend to recruit new fans who did not (or do not) consider themselves proggers and who would not tend tp hang out over here at Prog Archives.  If they have a particularly dynamic show, word of mouth can help spread the message.  Such is the life of an independent artist. 
 
So, in my opinion, although indie prog bands are smart to market directly toward listeners who self-identify with the prog rock genre designation...  they would also be wise to continue considering cross-over opportunities to markets that don't necessarily identify themselves as 'prog rock' fans per se.
    
Either way, however, there is certainly no denying the fact that getting noticed among a deluge of new releases can be a formidable challenge for independent artists from all genres. 
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2015 at 19:13
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Hi Dean. 
 
I agree with much of what you have said.  But I'm currently unconvinced that the same number of albums are purchased by consumers today as were purchased during the 1970's and 1980's.  Objective measurements from the 'record industry' continue to report a downward trend in 'album sales'.  (Not just a decline in sales of physical CD's and LP's but declines in the sales of entire complete albums regardless of the method of purchase.)
That is undeniably true, and due to population growth that has seen the total number of possible consumers double since the 1970s, then the decline in sales is actually even worse (a fact compounded by the observation that these industry stats are often quoted in dollar sales not album numbers - the sticker-price of an album has not changed a great deal in 30 years so taking inflation into account then the average spend per consumer has dropped even more steeply).

However.

This is a Prog Blog in a Prog Lounge of a Prog Forum on a website dedicated to Prog Music (and I am conversing with a someone who calls themselves 'progpositivity'), so when I refer to 'people' here I am inferring 'people who buy Prog' - i.e., people like you and me. What the average joe is buying does not concern me in this Blog.

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

 
If the thought is that independent releases sold by bands over the internet counterbalance the massive quantity of lost units of complete albums sold through traditional labels, I'm not sure how one would go about verifying such a claim.  But I do feel that, given the fact that we have such a large ongoing quantified number of decreased album sales provided to us by the recording industry, the burden of proof should rest upon anyone who asserts that independent music sales are indeed vast enough to offset the difference.
Essentially you cannot verify any sales figures regardless of who publishes them, you cannot even verify the figures published by the gnomes at Blandcamp.

All I can go by is the number of albums I buy each year, and the number of albums that other people on this forum claim to have listened to each year, which seems to average somewhere between 10 and 30 albums but is probably much more than that for many folk here. 
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

  
Here are a few of my thoughts on factors that (in my mind) are exerting downward pressure on demand for complete albums...
 
Consumers who now pay $120 to $180 dollars per year for unlimited streaming services from providers like Spotify, Rhapsody, Rdio and others seem far less likely to continue spending as much money on album purchases. 
 
Some casual music fans have discovered that they are content with options from Spotify, Pandora and I-tunes radio which allow users to specify albums (but not specific tracks) or at least which create playlists based upon user's music preferences.
 
Another factor pushing album sales downward is that (with some exceptions) almost every song from every 'album' is now available as a 'single'.  It may seem odd to us prog-heads, but many of today's younger casual music consumers are not particularly invested in the concept of 'the album' at all.  They 'pick and choose' only the tracks they want whenever they want them. 
 
Also, I cannot help but believe that the many "free" options for accessing and listening to music virtually 'on-demand' via Youtube, Soundcloud and other sites has reduced demand for album ownership.
 
I'm not counting "Russian downloads" of music by major label artists for which users paid less than $1 for the complete album.  The legality of purchasing music in this manner is probably something best dealt with in a different post.  The labels and artists see little (if any) of the revenue from these 'sales'.
None of that concerns me here, sorry. I am only talking about self-release albums sold on band websites or through Blandcamp and Soundclod (I know that some of these are available via Spottyarse but the returns for the self-released artist are miniscule). There are other threads for discussions on streaming and whether the Album will die-out as a concept.

(I don't stream or download btw, nor do I subscribe to the myth of the Cloud)
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

   
That leads to another question... I've approached this discussion from the perspective of the number of album units sold today versus the number of album units sold during the 1970's and 1980's.  If we expand the scope to consider inflation adjusted dollars of album sales, we may discover additional downward pressure on revenue from album sales.  I've personally noticed that many of the albums  'sold' today are moving at discounted prices compared on an inflation adjusted basis to the albums I purchased in the 70's and 80's.  But I'm not sure whether that is a trend across the board or not.
I commented on this at length in another thread some time ago. Adjusting for inflation a full-priced album is somewhere between one-half and one-third its equivalent 1970s price - albums are cheaper now than they have ever been, yet even die-hard Prog music buyers such as myself are not buying more albums per year as a result of that. I have also commented on the observation that with the discounts being offered on CD albums on Amazon they are physically cheaper than download for many albums.
What?
Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2015 at 17:58
Hi Dean. 
 
I agree with much of what you have said.  But I'm currently unconvinced that the same number of albums are purchased by consumers today as were purchased during the 1970's and 1980's.  Objective measurements from the 'record industry' continue to report a downward trend in 'album sales'.  (Not just a decline in sales of physical CD's and LP's but declines in the sales of entire complete albums regardless of the method of purchase.)
 
If the thought is that independent releases sold by bands over the internet counterbalance the massive quantity of lost units of complete albums sold through traditional labels, I'm not sure how one would go about verifying such a claim.  But I do feel that, given the fact that we have such a large ongoing quantified number of decreased album sales provided to us by the recording industry, the burden of proof should rest upon anyone who asserts that independent music sales are indeed vast enough to offset the difference.
 
Here are a few of my thoughts on factors that (in my mind) are exerting downward pressure on demand for complete albums...
 
Consumers who now pay $120 to $180 dollars per year for unlimited streaming services from providers like Spotify, Rhapsody, Rdio and others seem far less likely to continue spending as much money on album purchases. 
 
Some casual music fans have discovered that they are content with options from Spotify, Pandora and I-tunes radio which allow users to specify albums (but not specific tracks) or at least which create playlists based upon user's music preferences.
 
Another factor pushing album sales downward is that (with some exceptions) almost every song from every 'album' is now available as a 'single'.  It may seem odd to us prog-heads, but many of today's younger casual music consumers are not particularly invested in the concept of 'the album' at all.  They 'pick and choose' only the tracks they want whenever they want them. 
 
Also, I cannot help but believe that the many "free" options for accessing and listening to music virtually 'on-demand' via Youtube, Soundcloud and other sites has reduced demand for album ownership.
 
I'm not counting "Russian downloads" of music by major label artists for which users paid less than $1 for the complete album.  The legality of purchasing music in this manner is probably something best dealt with in a different post.  The labels and artists see little (if any) of the revenue from these 'sales'.
 
That leads to another question... I've approached this discussion from the perspective of the number of album units sold today versus the number of album units sold during the 1970's and 1980's.  If we expand the scope to consider inflation adjusted dollars of album sales, we may discover additional downward pressure on revenue from album sales.  I've personally noticed that many of the albums  'sold' today are moving at discounted prices compared on an inflation adjusted basis to the albums I purchased in the 70's and 80's.  But I'm not sure whether that is a trend across the board or not.
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 14>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.223 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.