Photo by: Steve Wampler on Flickr

Thankfully for the more corporate enterprises, though unfortunately for the independent musician, the aforementioned big guys have started to see the benefits that can be reaped using the internet. Public broadcasting is a much wider option on the internet than it is in more conventional methods, such as television and the radio. General view counts will usually be lower on the internet, but only as long as popularity is limited. Once a broadcaster reaches a reliable, wide-reaching audience, the potential for reaching even higher view counts than television. One of the main reasons for this is that your chosen piece of music is constantly available, rather than being singularly broadcast. Much less money can be earned by showing off your music online, but once you reach a certain level of popularity the income begins to fly.

In taking advantage of this, some rather interesting stuff has found it’s way on to the internet. My main example here would be things like ‘Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog’. This is a web broadcast musical, forty-two minutes long and released in installments. Rather than just music, the internet allows the perfect tool for anything that can be created, regardless of budget, cast or preparation. Advertising in these manners is usually done entirely through word of mouth. However, since the company making the video or music file already have a considerable amount of capital behind them, they can put their work out for all sorts of international syndication. While they will undoubtedly spend much more money putting their work onto television, it could easily garner a much reduced reward when it comes to the outcome.

Creating music videos, at a low budget, is an incredibly common thing for any band or musician to indulge in. While some promoters are internet based, and can thus advertise your work all across the internet, but there are still limits to it. On the internet, everybody is on an even playing field. You put your work out there, usually in the same places as most of the more popular content, and hope that it draws attention. From there though, it’s out of your hands. The content can be passed, traded and downloaded, regardless of file size or type. This, though, is where the independent musician has an advantage.

For the independent musician, peer to peer file trading is the absolute best thing for their continuing popularity. If it’s just one or two people pooling together to throw out a track, it’s no big loss to have it traded for free between a few dozen people. For the big company throwing it’s weight around, they’re looking at a gigantic loss between the flight of thousands of free copies.

In a digital economy, big business still loses millions, while the independent musician has nothing but gains.

Tom Colohue is a fiction writer and music instructor from Blackpool, England. Though his main works are in the realms of fantasy, he also writes modern fiction for multiple websites, as well as theoretical and practical music lessons for magazines.

Read also: Effects Of The Internet: Musical Mobility, The Effects Of The Internet: Contract Giveaways, The Effects Of The Internet: “Making It”, The Effects Of The Internet: Music Distribution

When asked by Joe Matera, how important the musician thinks is touring these days with the way the whole internet and downloading issue has affected the industry in general, Nick said:

Photo credit: Rudy De Doncker

Selective touring is the name of the game now so it is not about how much touring but about when you do tours, to do more thorough tours.

Do every country and every big city and do them as well as you can so you don’t have to keep on going through them as often. The cost of touring has gone up immensely because of fuel costs and because everyone has increased their fees for everything from airlines to backline companies.

So it is much more expensive to tour today. And for us, because Tim has a family now and Phil is married, we don’t want to go out longer than we need to. On the flipside though, touring has been how we’ve been able to do this band since the early days, by touring as hard as we have in the past. It is what we have to do to make our living from this.

My point is that concerts are as important to musicinas as ever (even more than ever), but the approach is becoming different – especially for the relatevely smaller bands.

You can read the original interview at this location.

Taking numbers from the top forty groups, there are a grand total of eleven groups that are categorized as “rock” of some variety, and looking further down the list the trend continues, with a grand total of 26 of the 100 top-earning artists coming from rock groups. The aforementioned list covers a variety of rock groups, from the easy rock of Coldplay to the harsh metal of Metallica, but the singles list is even worse, with only 13 of the top 100 songs originating from the rock artists.

This news spells trouble to those looking to make rock a creative vehicle. Rock has been a driving force behind much of the creativity of the past decades, its influence omnipresent throughout the close of the century. The majority of pop music of the seventies fell under what we would classify as “rock”. Even pop music of the eighties was strongly indebted to this phenomenon. The emergence of grunge, post-grunge, and nu-metal seemed to ensure the commercial viability of the rock n roll genre, but those genres have slowly shriveled to only a few musicians still making a living. Nickelback, Three Doors Down and Creed have all experienced disappointing album sales over the past two years, and newer bands with smaller fan bases (Three Days Grace, Hinder, AFI and others) have also failed to match previous sales.

Photo credit: tamako sato

The challenger to the rock throne seems to be electronic-oriented music. Strongly influenced by the funk/disco branch that evolved from R&B opposite Rock n Roll, electronic music has dominated the charts over the past year. 70 of the top 100 singles trace their success to electronic hip-hop beats or dance music. Critically electronic music is enjoying increasing popularity, as three of the top album nominees from this year’s Grammys came from these genres and a club-driven single won “Song of the Year” for the first time ever.

Not only electronic, but country music appears to have sucked away some of the life from rock n roll. Many of the same people that were drawn to earlier forms of rock n roll have been lured in by the crossover appeal of country. Since the success of Garth Brooks, country music has increasingly crossed over to poach many of the easy rock buyers. Country music has had no qualms about emphasizing pop-rock guitars in order to bring in would-be rock consumers. This, coupled with a willingness to substitute pop instruments for more traditional country instruments in radio singles, ensures that country is enjoying a strong, cross-sectional appeal to consumers.

Rock itself is struggling. No new genres have emerged to revitalize the rock scene. Metal is successful, but consumers of metal have little love for the more radio-friendly rock genres. A few pop acts embrace aspects of guitar-based rock, think Cobra Starship and their hit “Good Girls Go Bad”, but by and large rock finds itself at a crossroads. Will it be able to reinvent itself in order to survive? Or will it linger as a genre that has its occasional practitioners but little mainstream presence? One thing is certain: if there is no new creative force to revitalize rock n roll, it will slowly fade into a shadow of its old self.

So this is where the challenge emerges to anyone wishing to be successful in the rock genre: how can you grow as a musician to make your music something more than a tribute to heroes gone by? How can you invigorate new energy into an old brand of music?

Now, more than ever, it’s time to break the box of the past. What’s necessary is a new way of thinking, a willingness to experiment and have fun. One quote that has stuck said something to the extent that rock and roll is the music of the people; they could sing along with it, and dance with it. It stuck in their heads, its rhythm made you move. That is what is lacking more than anything else in rock. No longer the music of the people, rock has become dominated by seizure-inducing guitar-play or mass-produced ballads. Either rock will find its rhythm, or lose it entirely to another genre that willingly embraces it. The upcoming years are crucial in the development of rock, as it deals with the twin forces of electronic and country music. Rock needs to recast itself if it wishes to stay above water in the riptides of the music industry; I hold out hope that it can be redeemed.

Ben Histand is a fourth-year Business student with an interest in finding out how pop culture works, and has spent entirely too much time finding out how Marvin Gaye is the same as Led Zeppelin, and why Led Zeppelin sold a whole lot more albums.

Using the stock exchange as a basis for my business model, I’ve constructed a theoretical approach to help support up-and-coming bands, starting from when they’re still at their earliest stages of their artistic and commercial development. Thus, individuals could invest in bands that they think have potential, and when (or if) the band gains popularity and starts gaining profits from CD and ticket sales, the initial investors get a financial return from the band.

Image credit: Gripweed on Pixdaus

Because buying a “share” or “stock” of a band sounds too possessive (these are still human beings after all), we’ll use the term “bond”. A bond in the finance world is a debt security, as in, an individual buys a debt from a company so that at a future date, once the company becomes more profitable, the investor is repaid the amount of the bond by the company along with interest. In the case of investing in bands, the debt would be repaid if the band eventually sells a profitable amount of music, and instead of interest, the band would also pay back a percentage of their revenue.

One way that this whole process can be facilitated is if we can invest in specific bands through their record labels rather than investing in the record label as a whole, or giving money directly to the band. Although this would technically eliminate all bands that are unsigned, it could conversely create an opportunity for them to get signed: they amass a certain amount of money from investors (which would mostly come from family and friends), and offer it to the label in exchange of getting signed, which consequently reduces the risk for the label of signing a new band since they won’t require as large a sum of funds from their own treasury. This greatly supports the industry on many levels: first, the band because they are now signed with a record label and have a sum of money that will go to their commercial needs. Second, it supports the record label by allowing them to sign more bands at a lower risk. Finally, the mechanism also provides a way for people that love music and that are looking for investment opportunities to invest in an area that they know and enjoy versus the complexities of stock markets. Because of a possible financial return, it is more appealing than simply supporting a band by buying their music.

Although this business model is certainly flawed and doesn’t consider potential problems such as band breakups, it is mainly to serve as a theoretical basis to thinking outside of the box in regards to supporting young and talented bands that are swallowed by the leviathan that is the music industry scene. There will practically never be a sudden dramatic plunge in illegal music downloads, and even if there are several other ways of supporting a band, there are still countless obstacles musicians have to face before being able to make sustainable careers out of their art. It is up to us, their avid listeners, to provide the beginnings of a reform that can allow musicians to attain their appropriate level of recognition by being judged solely on their devotion and talent.

I thought that this was a fairly bad practice. I will admit that there is some work involved, and some actual singing does need to be done, but life threw one of those confusing hits at me earlier today. I was sitting at home, laptop on and fingers working frantically for a piece I’ve been working on. One of the people that I live with had on the “Alan Titchmarsh show“. Personally – not something I would have watched, but it’s a necessary evil for this article.

They were holding a “crooning” competition. There had been a fair few applicants, but no public exposure whatsoever, and yet, the winner would earn themselves a record contract, just as the winner of the X Factor was being offered. This required significantly less work.

Photo credit: Quotidiano.Net

Is the talent pool so dilated that record companies need to host such competitions in order to find the next “big thing”? The exposure alone from shows like Popstars: The Rivals generates album and single sales without question, but the Alan Titchmarsh show? Where’s the guarantee there? Is that a win to be proud of?

You all have the internet, else there’d be no way for you to be reading this right now. You know that there is an enormous wealth of talent out of there; unpaid, under listened to and most definitely under appreciated. Why aren’t they being offered these deals? They’ve worked hard to earn a following, build a reputation and garnish a career, so why don’t they get any recognition? If you owned a record company, would you rather go for something that you can hear straight away or something that you’re going to have to mould, assign songs to and write lyrics for?

Or worse, somebody who will perform a cover of a cover, and, in adding their own twist, butcher the last of the original charm that it had?

I can only wonder then if it’s the artists themselves who are failing to expose themselves to the record companies in question. Has e-mail and myspace music replaced the good old “send them your demo” method that really is required in the modern age and the previous generation. I am a writer. I write using a laptop, but I still have to double space it, print it all out, force visual appeal into it and then send it off for an agent or publisher to review, possibly edit and then consider. You can never discount the packaging on CDs either. First impressions last.

I’d like to see what you think here. Why has it become necessary for the music industry to create and mould new musical applicants through the use of competitions when there are so many artists who are desperate to be recognised for the hard work that they’ve been doing for so long?

Perhaps it’s something to do with how malleable your children are compared to those of other people. I am unsure.

Tom Colohue is a fiction writer and music instructor from Blackpool, England. Though his main works are in the realms of fantasy, he also writes modern fiction for multiple websites, as well as theoretical and practical music lessons for magazines.

Also read The Effects Of The Internet: “Making It” and The Effects Of The Internet: Music Distribution

Actually, it doesn’t, but if it did then this would be kind of a pointless article.

There’s more to the infamous “making it” than people seem to realise. A lot of hard work has always gone in to making successful music, and successful music is essential to a successful musician. Then again, while most bands and artists are generally honoured and praised for creating music that is true to their own preferences and styles, it is rare that those things coincide with that which is commercially successful. In fact, the phrase “sell out” is usually made in reference to a band or artist who radically changes their own style in order to better suit the emerging market in which their music is being released. Sadly, it’s also a phrase that is passed around as an insult referencing the actual meaning, but such is the way of people in general.

Making It!

In order to be signed onto a record label, whether large or small, you have to have three things behind you:

• A sound that suits that particular label.
• A band that bring something new and unique to the table.
• A large and dedicated following that reaches beyond their home town.

You can see why the first two may interrupt each other. The first one follows the route of commercial success, following the sound, style and standards of the record label that wishes to sign you, or that you wish to be signed to. The second is more personal, and is just as likely to keep you or your band from being signed if you are too unique. Additionally, you have to make sure that you are not too special, or you’ll simply be too far away from what the label wants to be of any use to them. A label such as Roadrunner, with a reputation for metal acts, might be a little perturbed by “Folk Metal” or “Dance Metal”. You have to make a very strong pitch for these people.

The internet has opened the door for much easier contact directly with record labels. It has also allowed the birth of many new record labels, as well as distribution methods that cut out the label middle man completely. With your music online, you could become like an actress waiting to be “noticed”. This breeds complacency, but, in truth, there’s no downside to it as long as you don’t deny your own life in waiting. The act of making music is, in itself, experience for making more music. Using uploaded mp3s and other forms of media, you can put together entirely digital CDs and distribute them online using links and sale options. You can also upload your media to programs such as iTunes, where people can purchase it as long as they can find it.

This means that the power of record labels now largely rests in advertising. Distribution is as available as ever, in fact, more so than ever before, but it means nothing if people have no idea who you are. This is where the following comes in. In order to create fans of your music, you need both wide-ranging music and you need it to be out there; available for anybody to see. The more forwards and forceful you are with your music, the more people will end up listening to it, and the more fans you might end up with. So, with this in mind, surely personal advertising is potentially as powerful as any advertising that record labels can currently offer?

So, do bands need to make it any more?

Tom Colohue is a fiction writer and music instructor from Blackpool, England. Though his main works are in the realms of fantasy, he also writes modern fiction for multiple websites, as well as theoretical and practical music lessons for magazines.

Also read The Effects Of The Internet: Music Distribution

Record sales are the least of your concerns. This may be the category that everyone pays attention to, the one that gets you press and lands you magazine covers, but as a musician you aren’t going to receive much in the way of profits on record sales. If you can land with a major album, you’ll keep about 7% of the total sales of your album, which usually translates to about a dollar an album for unproven bands. Indies tend to be a little more generous, letting you keep anywhere from 15-40%, but their limited promotional reach usually translates into significantly lower album sales. So even if you manage to sell a million albums through a major label (that’s quite a feat!) then you’re making less than a million dollars, because any promotion the record company does for you and any advance is going to come straight from your cut of the sales. That’s simply the way the music industry is set up; record companies take big risks in signing artists and take a huge cut of any successes that they have. They do the dirty work to get your album to radio stations and run ad campaigns, which set you up nicely for the real moneymakers.

Image credit: AMagill on Flickr

Touring and live shows are going to be your bread and butter as an artist. Emerging artists tend to make around 10% of the gate charges. This number can balloon to 60% for legendary acts like the Rolling Stones — on their last tour they generated $437 million in ticket sales, of which around $262 million went to the band. This doesn’t even include band and tour merchandise available, a number that averages 10% of the gross ticket sales.

The other big ticket item as an artist comes from royalties and licensing. Every time a radio station or bar plays your song, you’ve got a three-cent royalty. Put your song on rhapsody or other streaming sites and you’ll grab a one-cent royalty per song. Sell your song on iTunes and you’ll earn ten to twenty cents (more if you aren’t selling through a label). If a movie or television show uses any of your songs, you earn a negotiable licensing fee. Michael Jackson would charge $500,000 for the use of any Beatles song in a movie. Let an outside company put your name and/or image on their product and take a cut of sales. KISS is the industry standard with its $1 billion/year licensing business.

That’s a lot of numbers. How does this pertain to survival in the business of music? Simply, this means that your album sales are far from the most important thing. Album sales generally receive the greatest amount of publicity, but generate the smallest percentage of cash flow for the artist. Album and single sales have their greatest effect as a means of promotion, not as a means of revenue.

You’re primarily an artist so I doubt that that conclusion reverberated within your mind. Let’s break it down like so: albums and singles are simply promotional tools. Don’t be bound by traditional thoughts about albums. It may be well worth it as a band to give away albums or release a single that has nothing to do with any album that you’ve got in the works. In today’s music industry, the album is no longer the focus. The focus needs to be on you, what you offer to the consumer as a band.

To the consumer your band isn’t an album. To the consumer your band is an emotion. The consumer buys your album because they feel love, because they feel aggression, sadness, or like some badass roaring through the desert in a convertible packing a 9mm and aviators. Your job is to deliver that promise, and an album is only a part of the picture. Your job is to let them feel that emotion whenever they wear a t-shirt with your band on it, or whenever they see your picture. This is something you can do by making sure that everything non-recorded fits together. Deliver the emotion you promised on an album in a live performance, show that emotion in your merchandise. Your album is like a one-night stand in Vegas, but the other aspects are what form a lasting relationship between you and your fans when you’ve got to live with each other, warts and all. Don’t let a rigid focus on albums hold you back from a career as a musician. Don’t try to sell albums; try to sell your band.

Even promoters (outside buyers) are starting to struggle, and the cycle of survival becomes evident. Venues are upping their prices to rent their space to survive the times, and without a big name Metallica or a well known local on the bill, it’s not worth it to put on a show, even if the metal itself is absolutely amazing. The promoters are going to loose money if they don’t play it smart. With the state of economy, even the kids are having a hard time finding the money to buy merch, let alone a ticket!

Church Of The 8th Day

The one big plus about a live setting that everyone can innovate on is that a live performance cannot be duplicated. Sure you can possibly check out YouTube or Metal Injection footage, but being there at the exact moment in time is totally different; it’s priceless. Concerts = memories. See a band you love from a live perspective, or discover one on first impression, and you’re always tempted to buy some merch. Merch = souvenirs, as you’ll always be able to say, “Well hey, I got this at show X, and I’ll always remember that night!” Merch = advertising, which obviously helps everyone all around.

Our great friends in Church Of The 8th Day booking truly know how to change with the times, and the guys have been booking/promoting underground metal shows/festivals in Southern California for quite some time now. Check them out at churchofthe8thday.com.