Curious about the music industry? Find out stuff.

[Shivarage]

"Selling out" - what that constitutes depends who you talk to. Even so much as putting an album out is usually "selling out" in the eyes of somebody. What is "selling out" anyway? Should musicians not be entitled to make money from songs that they wrote? But yes there are artists who have vetoed Glee covers, no doubt to protect the brand (aka "integrity").

Autotune - yeah, most of it. A really good reason why: most of the original songs they're covering were also Autotuned in their original form, so they have to use it or they won't sound authentic.

Talent contest rigged? I guess all things are possible, but I doubt it. Why would they want someone who wasn't the most talented applicant to join the cast? Mind you, most musical competitions of any sort have some kind of shady element to them so who knows.[/quote]

I have no problems with musicians making money from their art! : D
though some people say King of Leon sold out when they changed from their hippy image, I say they took a risk and it paid off! (been following this thread xD)
I suppose it depends on the idea of your music that can determine what counts as "selling out" like someone trying to sell "working class hero" for a profit, Kings of Leon were always kind of pop so it's okay for them

That's a fine answer there

I would have thought "Glee" to be not much different from "The X-Factor" (I'm sure you heard about that kid ronan parke being set up for the win) but i suppose joining the cast wouldnt be a case of simply being exploited since he would have to be paid fairly anyway

 

[BonsaiK]

"Selling out" - what that constitutes depends who you talk to. Even so much as putting an album out is usually "selling out" in the eyes of somebody. What is "selling out" anyway? Should musicians not be entitled to make money from songs that they wrote? But yes there are artists who have vetoed Glee covers, no doubt to protect the brand (aka "integrity").

Autotune - yeah, most of it. A really good reason why: most of the original songs they're covering were also Autotuned in their original form, so they have to use it or they won't sound authentic.

Talent contest rigged? I guess all things are possible, but I doubt it. Why would they want someone who wasn't the most talented applicant to join the cast? Mind you, most musical competitions of any sort have some kind of shady element to them so who knows.

I have no problems with musicians making money from their art! : D
though some people say King of Leon sold out when they changed from their hippy image, I say they took a risk and it paid off! (been following this thread xD)
I suppose it depends on the idea of your music that can determine what counts as "selling out" like someone trying to sell "working class hero" for a profit, Kings of Leon were always kind of pop so it's okay for them

That's a fine answer there

I would have thought "Glee" to be not much different from "The X-Factor" (I'm sure you heard about that kid ronan parke being set up for the win) but i suppose joining the cast wouldnt be a case of simply being exploited since he would have to be paid fairly anyway

People throw out the "selling out" chestnut all the time. What it really means when people say that is "that artist didn't something I don't personally happen to like", because the person crying selloout usually has no idea whatsoever about the financial workings of the band, what's really going on, how much money is being made, and most importantly, where that money is going. When a band changes their style from anything to anything else existing fans often cry "sellout" even if the change gave the band no commercial gain. Even if the change destroyed their career. Classic example - Celtic Frost, who went from black metal:


To this:


...in two years. Fans cried "sellout" in droves but money had nothing to do with it, they just really wanted to try their hand at being a glam band for a while. Commercially, it was a disaster for them, the band never really recovered and broke up a few years later. (They did reform recently for a while with a new album - once again something completely different.)

It doesn't really matter whether X-Factor is rigged or not. That's not really why people watch it, and to be honest the extra drama fuelled by rigging allegations is an extra reason for a lot of people to watch the show. Ever wondered why every "talent judge" show always has the "nasty judge"? Well, it's the same reason why the talkback radio hosts that get the most ratings are usually the loudmouthed right-wing ones. The drama created by people like that who are known to not be particularly nice and rub others up the wrong way is what keeps people listening and watching. One thing that's also really noticeable about X-Factor is that just because someone wins the show doesn't mean that their album is going to sell, often it's the runners-up who impressed the audience more who get scooped up for deals and do better... as for how that relates to Glee, once again I don't think it matters. That's not really why people watch Glee.

 

[Shivarage]

People throw out the "selling out" chestnut all the time. What it really means when people say that is "that artist didn't something I don't personally happen to like", because the person crying selloout usually has no idea whatsoever about the financial workings of the band, what's really going on, how much money is being made, and most importantly, where that money is going. When a band changes their style from anything to anything else existing fans often cry "sellout" even if the change gave the band no commercial gain. Even if the change destroyed their career. Classic example - Celtic Frost, who went from black metal:

*video*

To this:

*video*

...in two years. Fans cried "sellout" in droves but money had nothing to do with it, they just really wanted to try their hand at being a glam band for a while. Commercially, it was a disaster for them, the band never really recovered and broke up a few years later. (They did reform recently for a while with a new album - once again something completely different.)

It doesn't really matter whether X-Factor is rigged or not. That's not really why people watch it, and to be honest the extra drama fuelled by rigging allegations is an extra reason for a lot of people to watch the show. Ever wondered why every "talent judge" show always has the "nasty judge"? Well, it's the same reason why the talkback radio hosts that get the most ratings are usually the loudmouthed right-wing ones. The drama created by people like that who are known to not be particularly nice and rub others up the wrong way is what keeps people listening and watching. One thing that's also really noticeable about X-Factor is that just because someone wins the show doesn't mean that their album is going to sell, often it's the runners-up who impressed the audience more who get scooped up for deals and do better... as for how that relates to Glee, once again I don't think it matters. That's not really why people watch Glee.

Well, you've answered my questions

thank you :3

 

[BonsaiK]

Reposted from the Demo Submission thread, where it doesn't really belong:

Hi advice guy, I don't know if you remember me, I directed you to my myspace www.myspace.com.karendesilva - it was quite a while ago?? Anyway, you gave me pretty good feedback in terms of my songs and approaching labels, etc. I did approach a few labels and didn't really get a response apart from EMI who sent me sort of an encouragment letter saying something along the lines of 'keep up the good work and keep us posted'.

To cut a long story short, I've really boosted up my internet prescence with new sites like reverbnation, r and r world, etc. And I've been gigging with a guitarist about once a month- some of them gigs and some open mics. And I just wanted to know if a&r reps are looking for;

a) artists with a finished product i.e. good production and a fairly polished song (the new songs I've put up on myspace are demos and I'm debating whether to spend the money and go back to the studio and get them produced)
b) a large network of fans on the various profiles (can this be a deal-breaker?)
c) are labels still looking at people who gig alot or is that less important now?

Basically I feel like i'm ramming my head into a brick wall but if I'm on the right track, i'll keep on ramming- that's where you come in, hopefully

Thanks!

A. Depends on a label. As a general rule, the bigger the label, the less (yes you read that right) interested they are in whether your product sounds finished, because a bigger label prefer to polish it up themselves using their special team of song-polishers rather than have you use some random to do it, or heaven forbid, do it yourself. Whereas a smaller label appreciates not having to spend the money on that kind of thing.

B. More fans = better. If a label can see you already have a huge market, they like that. You can't have enough fans.

C. Gigging is essential, and once a month is not "a lot". Gig as much as you possibly can.

However, there are no guarantees and you could do all this stuff and still nothing may happen. That's when you might consider just bypassing the label and doing it all yourself. It's worth considering as an option.

 

[kds]

Hi, wow didn't even know this thread existed- funnily enough it makes a lot of sense about the bigger labels not minding an unfinished product!

But in relation to question 'b' (sorry, didn't mean to make it look like an essay topic), if you don't have 100's of fans on your website but they do like your music- can the fan thing actually be a deal-breaker? Or would this just depend on the label? There have obviously been bands who've been booked because they have a large following on the internet but there are still artists who are picked up who may not have a ton of fans, but whose sound/look/whatever they like, right?

And again, with part 'c' hehe, gigging IS necessary to be able to be a decent performer and gain experience, BUT again, if they haven't seen your name around on bills at pubs, bars, etc. around town that much or basically not 'heard' of you- would most labels say 'well we haven't seen her around, let's not bother'? Putting aside the fact that gigging is something that any aspiring artist/band should do a lot of...

Understood that there are no guarantees, I guess I just want to get an idea of areas I need to focus on more, as some things come more naturally/easier to me that others. thanks again

 

[BonsaiK]

Hi, wow didn't even know this thread existed- funnily enough it makes a lot of sense about the bigger labels not minding an unfinished product!

But in relation to question 'b' (sorry, didn't mean to make it look like an essay topic), if you don't have 100's of fans on your website but they do like your music- can the fan thing actually be a deal-breaker? Or would this just depend on the label? There have obviously been bands who've been booked because they have a large following on the internet but there are still artists who are picked up who may not have a ton of fans, but whose sound/look/whatever they like, right?

And again, with part 'c' hehe, gigging IS necessary to be able to be a decent performer and gain experience, BUT again, if they haven't seen your name around on bills at pubs, bars, etc. around town that much or basically not 'heard' of you- would most labels say 'well we haven't seen her around, let's not bother'? Putting aside the fact that gigging is something that any aspiring artist/band should do a lot of...

Understood that there are no guarantees, I guess I just want to get an idea of areas I need to focus on more, as some things come more naturally/easier to me that others. thanks again

B. If a label really wants to sign you, they will. After all labels do sign completely unknown artists quite frequently. Having a fan base already is a plus but it also comes with baggage because those fans have expectations, which the label may or may not want to see fulfilled...

C. It's more important that you WILL tour rather than whether you HAVE toured. A lot of label staff making signing decisions frankly wouldn't even know who is playing where, believe it or not. What they care about is what you're going to do AFTER they sign you.

 

[kds]

Ok cool thanks

 

[kds]

Hi there again, just wanted to know how much time you should give a label or a contact to respond to you after you send them something?

I met a publicist/ radio-plugger who gave me her email for me to send my stuff to. I was just wondering what's a realistic time frame before I send a polite email asking if she's had a chance to look at it yet? And the same with labels, I've read and heard in a few places that sometimes these things can take a good few months to get properly listened to- what do you think? Thanks

 

[BonsaiK]

Hi there again, just wanted to know how much time you should give a label or a contact to respond to you after you send them something?

I met a publicist/ radio-plugger who gave me her email for me to send my stuff to. I was just wondering what's a realistic time frame before I send a polite email asking if she's had a chance to look at it yet? And the same with labels, I've read and heard in a few places that sometimes these things can take a good few months to get properly listened to- what do you think? Thanks

Don't even worry about it. There's no point making a follow-up call. If you want to nudge them, it works better if you do so before you send the stuff, so they know when to expect it, but there's little point in even doing that a lot of the time. Don't worry - if they really like stuff, they get in touch, and usually damn quickly. You're better off just firing your stuff off to tons of labels and not even waiting for responses before moving to the next step.

 

[Ham_authority95]

How many musicians in your area struggle with depression?

 

[BonsaiK]

How many musicians in your area struggle with depression?

Not really sure, because depression isn't something you can tell just by looking at a person - not everybody wears it on their sleeve. I would guess no more than the general population, but mind you that's still quite a lot as depression is a pretty common illness.

 

[Shivarage]

What percentage roughly of successful musicians have a degree in music?

Does standard education have a bearing on your skill as a musician or is it just a natural flair/talent one has for music whether they formally studied it or not?

 

[Ekit]

Honestly, how common is drug use? Is it common? Is more genres more prone to drug use than others?

 

[BonsaiK]

What percentage roughly of successful musicians have a degree in music?

Does standard education have a bearing on your skill as a musician or is it just a natural flair/talent one has for music whether they formally studied it or not?

No such thing as "natural flair", "flair" is a learned skill. Behind every child prodigy is a shitload of practice and in many cases a parent with a stick. No-one learned to be a professional ice-skater without a ton of working at it and the same goes for being a professional musician able to play or sing difficult parts.

Being a trained musician doesn't guarantee success (obviously) but it certainly makes you a lot more versatile, able to fill more niches and it also allows you to learn things quicker. A completely self-taught player will reach the same goals as a schooled player if they work hard, but it will take the self-taught player usually a bit longer. However there's plenty of cases of musical dunces with no understanding about music theory making it huge and also in some cases being very skilled players. I'd say there's no good reason NOT to learn music theory so you might as well. It's basically a shortcut to understanding music and if you want to make that your career then you should learn it. Whoever heard of an aspiring plumber saying "I want to be a plumber but I don't want to learn how to do it in school, I'll just pick up everything myself"? Maybe you have heard of someone like that but I bet you'd hesitate before getting them to fix your toilet if you could get a trained and certified pro to do it for the same price. The self-taught plumber will learn the right way eventually, but he'll probably crack a few pipes along the way.

 

[BonsaiK]

Honestly, how common is drug use? Is it common? Is more genres more prone to drug use than others?

Very, very common. If you want to be a professional musician you will have to get used to people doing/buying/dealing/transporting/etc drugs in your presence often. That's not to say that there aren't straight people in every scene, but per person the drug use is high and there's a commonly accepted culture of drug use - it's not considered "bad" in the music culture and many musicians are even quite happy to admit that they do drugs. ("Straight-edge" scene an obvious exception, they just replace the drugs with psuedo-religious bullying.)

Out of all the genres of music I've worked in, none were drug-free, but I'd have to say that classical music has by far the biggest amount of drug use on average. Not only do those guys take all the same recreational drugs as the rock guys, but they also take performance enhancing and mood/nerve stabilising drugs, so they can relax during tough performances, as the pressure on those people is enormous. If a rock guy with a distorted guitar fluffs a note it tends to get lost in the mush a bit, if a classical violinist messes up a passage it's very hard for them to keep it from sounding like a total train wreck.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

----

 

[BonsaiK]

This was probably asked like a million times already but I don?t have the time to read through 28+ pages right now so sorry if im making you answer this again.

So what do you think about the cultural changes in music over the past 30 years ? in the past we had a lot of bands with very anti government/authority/religion messages that tried to challenge everyone and everything . and although that type of music was never the most popular thing out there it was at least talked bout .

And while today that culture isn?t completely gone it seems that it is a lot more quiet and less of big deal then it was back then. We don?t get people talking about how Marilyn Manson or ozzy osbourne are going to destroy our kids. and we don?t seem to be getting any replacements for them .

Maybe it's just that that type of music became more excepted or maybe it that mainstream audience have enough problems as it is and just want some escapism in their music ...?I don?t know, I wasn?t even born when that?s stuff was happening so maybe I got it wrong what do you think? and if I am wrong do you any examples of new music like that?

Oh dear. You're really not going to like where this is going to go. Brace yourself.

Do you know what type of music is really pissing off conservative parents right now, alienating old-school music fans while simultaneously reaching an exclusively young audience, outraging political interest groups anywhere where they're popular enough to be in the media and making social pundits worry about the decline of society as a whole?

I'll give you ONE GUESS. Then, once you've guessed, you can

Spoiler: click this

Politics in music, in the traditional sense, doesn't threaten anybody anymore, because people of the generation old enough to be offended by something as simple as music also mostly remember Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, and all that old political stuff, and can kind of see the point in a new band that sings about politics, because they can relate it to that, even if they don't care for the actual music. Even political rap music gets off the hook as Dylan was arguably one of the first rappers. Metal is no longer the whipping boy of conservatives either ever since Ozzy Osborne became a reality TV dad and let cameras into his life to show how he's not the son of Satan but an aging technology-challenged father who struggles with health, chores and family discipline just like anybody else over 50 with two teenage kids. Suddenly your Dad who hates Slayer goes "wait, I can relate to this guy. He's the father of heavy metal, you say? Father of a couple of brats if you ask me..." Add to that all the political angles have been done several decades ago and your parents are all familiar with "protest music" from back in the day, politics doesn't bother them, in fact they'd probably like to see more of it.

As it's lost the power to annoy parents, political music has also lost the power to amuse coming-of-age kids who like being into their things that their parents don't like. Young people naturally separate themselves ideologically from their parents to a certain extent, it's a very natural part of the growing up process like birds leaving the nest and with few exceptions we all did it at some point. If your parents are dumb fucks you can rebel just by reading a few books but if they're reasonably intelligent and politically astute, a great way to make that separation is to be into some shit that they find completely abhorrent and repulsive, ideologically. I know you already believe me, but here's some proof that this works: http://www.petitiononline.com/MABC13/petition.html and some more: http://www.examiner.com/adoptive-families-in-dayton/ke-ha-sex-savvy-at-the-age-of-7

I don't think we'll ever see politics make a big return to mainstream music in our lifetime. It'll always be there in the mix somewhere, but it'll never be huge like it used to be (and in fact I'm never even sure it was that huge even back then). Remember that Rage Against The Machine's biggest hit was the song with the least amount of lyrics and the simplest point. Politics isn't the reason why most people listen to music and at a time when the music industry as a whole has peaked and is now on the downturn (thanks, downloaders), no-one's going to back the aging horse with the limp.

As a footnote, the current "escapism" in music isn't that at all. Ever wonder why whenever riots happen there's a whole bunch of people who go straight for looting expensive shit? Well, that's what happens when people are raised from birth on material culture and then locked out of that culture as adults. If you can afford a TV easily, or even if you can't and you have to save up a little, stealing a TV makes no fucking sense at all. More satisfying to earn it anyway. If on the other hand your life seems pre-ordained to forever lock you out of ever having a nice TV, property, a car, a job that pays decent, a nice neighbourhood, a nice girl/boyfriend, and you can see no future for yourself and no hope, and suddenly the shit goes down in your neighbourhood and people are pissed off and bored and broke and burning things, now that abandoned electronics shop looks a little more tempting. I mean, fuck it... fuck those rich guys who run that shop, and hey the TV looks nice, and who's gonna notice, and when am I going to get this opportunity again, and...

Now think about materialism in music. Why would you be proud to be a millionaire? Answer: because you never thought you were ever going to be anything but broke. Materialism is a political statement. It's saying "I made it, maybe you can too, don't give up hope". Think that's bullshit? Well, watch this video:


And then read this link: http://www.bvonmoney.com/2009/09/09/the-50th-law-50-cent/

Of course, someone living a comfortable middle-class existence doesn't need to care so much about things like that. If you've already got enough money to live comfortably, excess materialism seems dumb from that perspective. When middle-class rappers get on the mic, they tend to sound more like this:


...and the reason why that kind of stuff has fallen by the wayside is simply because most rappers are poor, both before AND after they sign the record deal. But that's another topic.

That's probably way more of an answer than what you wanted.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

I want to ask about cover songs - do you have to pay royalites or whatever to record and distribute a cover song? And if you just record it without permission, can they (the company who owns the rights to the song in quetion) sue? Or could I just record a cover song and not worry?

Also, more general topic: If I have a (demo CD) of like 6 songs, how do I get that to be recognised by a company or a recording label or whatever? Given I'm more on the production side of music with most of my tracks using synthesized instruments, it's difficult to perform my music. And if I got the opportunity I'd like to re-record my songs using real instruments on a professional level.

Thanks

 

[BonsaiK]

I want to ask about cover songs - do you have to pay royalites or whatever to record and distribute a cover song? And if you just record it without permission, can they (the company who owns the rights to the song in quetion) sue? Or could I just record a cover song and not worry?

Also, more general topic: If I have a (demo CD) of like 6 songs, how do I get that to be recognised by a company or a recording label or whatever? Given I'm more on the production side of music with most of my tracks using synthesized instruments, it's difficult to perform my music. And if I got the opportunity I'd like to re-record my songs using real instruments on a professional level.

Thanks

Yes, you do have to get permission to record a cover song. Yes, you do have to pay royalties if you retail that song. Yes, the original artist can sue. In practice however, most artists don't bother suing and are actually quite flattered to have their songs covered, and after all, they're getting the royalties so why would they complain. So the second point tends to balance out the first and third points. There have been instances of artists refusing their songs to be covered but it tends to be the exception.

You could try send them the CD, that'd be my tip. If you ask me synthesizers make music easier to perform, not harder - that, after all is what they're for. Bands use synths all the time. Only re-record with real instruments if you really do intend to play the songs live in that format.

 

[kds]

Hi again! I submitted my songs for a competition for this label looking for an artist to develop, publish and basically 'sell to the world'. I just entered it on a whim and didn't expect to hear anything about it again.

The ceo of the company however emailed me and is extremely interested in me and wants to meet with me etc. I googled him and stuff and have found info on him but have also found that, of all of the artists that are on his various labels, there's not one I've actually heard of.

Basically he's promising pretty big things like me going o/s and keeps plugging himself to me and telling me I'll be working with the 'right people'. I am planning to meet with him face-to-face and see what he's like but there's something about it I'm unsure about and I'm desperate for advice!

Do you have any suggestions for questions I should ask, what I should look for when researching him and his companies and just in general any red flags I should look out for?

My main concern is that none of his actual websites work, only the myspaces work and the artist photos and general look of the pages look quite tacky to me. More than anything though, it's the fact that none of the artists on his rosters are people I've heard of- it's just not very reassuring. I want to take advantage of opportunities but I don't want to just take them blinded. HELP PLEASE!!!!