If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Baffler)   Music's business model changed at over 90 miles an hour, whether alternative or mainstream. He was found in the wreck of an Old '97, bankrupted to death by the streams   ( thebaffler.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Music industry, music, EMI, Universal Music Group, record store clerks, college radio DJs, local music scene, bohemian music district  
•       •       •

2787 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Dec 2017 at 3:39 AM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-12-30 12:50:47 AM  
Good article. Thank you.
 
2017-12-30 12:55:09 AM  
 
2017-12-30 04:24:19 AM  
I used to book the old 97's back when I owned a small venue back in the 90's. The author of the article was their lead singer and I think he got swallowed up and spit out by the biz. They sorta broke up for a while and I remember seeing him on "entertainment tonight" showcased as an up and coming star. Sounds like he got worse than a raw deal...
 
2017-12-30 04:49:36 AM  
Well written article; and thanks for the headline, subby!
A lot of old punk bands are still going, but they never cared for the business end, knowing they'd most likely get screwed. That's what it is- a lawyer heavy environment.
 
2017-12-30 05:00:09 AM  

Bith Set Me Up: Deregulation destroyed the music industry.


Nah. Nobody under the age of 25 ever listens to the radio.

The music industry was "destroyed" by exactly the thing they warned would destroy it: the internet. Hard to build a business model around unlimited free instant access to your product, and even harder for musicians to charge for their work when they represent one drop in an endless sea of amateur talent desperate to be noticed. The only money in celebrity of any sort now comes from Kardashianization, but you can't sell branded merch until you're big, but you can't get big unless your stuff is free. You work for nothing and receive nothing because most people pay nothing, and you can only hope to eventually earn enough fame to leverage your brand into something people will pay for, like sports drinks or fashion apparel.

It's a lot like what's happened to journalism. With all the free news on the internet, people decided that journalism simply wasn't something they would ever pay for again. (Imagine the absurdity of someone in the 1980s asking for a copy of the local paper at a convenience store and then shouting "WTF PAYWALL" when the guy asks for money.) No money in means no money out, and now someone starting a career in journalism is going to be writing "for exposure and experience" rather than for a wage. And every year more publications either fold or switch to the "volunteer contributor" model, further reducing the number of ways journalists can actually make a living in journalism.

If you don't pay for stuff, people can't make a living doing that stuff.
 
2017-12-30 05:07:52 AM  
"Poor boy"
 
2017-12-30 05:29:12 AM  
0% of that applied to any of the music I listen to.
 
2017-12-30 05:32:13 AM  

pkjun: Bith Set Me Up: Deregulation destroyed the music industry.

Nah. Nobody under the age of 25 ever listens to the radio.

The music industry was "destroyed" by exactly the thing they warned would destroy it: the internet. Hard to build a business model around unlimited free instant access to your product, and even harder for musicians to charge for their work when they represent one drop in an endless sea of amateur talent desperate to be noticed. The only money in celebrity of any sort now comes from Kardashianization, but you can't sell branded merch until you're big, but you can't get big unless your stuff is free. You work for nothing and receive nothing because most people pay nothing, and you can only hope to eventually earn enough fame to leverage your brand into something people will pay for, like sports drinks or fashion apparel.

It's a lot like what's happened to journalism. With all the free news on the internet, people decided that journalism simply wasn't something they would ever pay for again. (Imagine the absurdity of someone in the 1980s asking for a copy of the local paper at a convenience store and then shouting "WTF PAYWALL" when the guy asks for money.) No money in means no money out, and now someone starting a career in journalism is going to be writing "for exposure and experience" rather than for a wage. And every year more publications either fold or switch to the "volunteer contributor" model, further reducing the number of ways journalists can actually make a living in journalism.

If you don't pay for stuff, people can't make a living doing that stuff.


I bolded (what i think) anyway is the important part.   It's not that you can't charge for your product.  90% of the "music" industry did not get the money from Radio play... no matter the romantiziation of it now.  They got it by being ad jingle musicians, or the bar scene, or the countless other ways musicians got by.

But eventually, supply and demand.   Orchestra members felt it along time ago....  Why pay for Phil-Harmonic prices, when the Polish Orchestra did just as well for your production?   For every Juliard graduate, theres 100 balkan musicians who will do just fine thank you very much.

And artists that spent their entire lives learning to draw... can be replaced by a 16 year old who takes orders over the internet to design your whatever-the-need-is.

So yes... musicians who never bothered to learn the "business" side... Coders who never learned the "business" side...  Artist that never learned the "business" side...  all of these people are becoming one trick ponies who's skill sets can be found much cheaper and in plentiful supply, everywhere.

Sure, someone comes along eventually, that great .01% who's talent is completely wasted as he goes unrecognised... unfunded... and uncompromising.   But that has always been the case.

For every Artist claiming "HAHAHAHA, He asked If I would do it for the exposure!" theres a tech guy being asked to do it for "future promises of stocks" or "I can't pay you what you're worth, but it's great for your resume!"

Claiming that "A new model is the death of my art" is the same thing as a tech guy complaining because "no one appreciates my windows 3.1 skills."  

Adapt, Learn, Grow.... or get left behind.     Cry bitter tears of being left behind, or post maudlin about how "kids these days won't benefit from it"... a new generation will come up, learning the skills, the art, and "hussle" needed to succeed.

Just not you... you're too busy being uncompromising.


------------------------

Good article though.
 
2017-12-30 05:35:00 AM  
EDIT:
Rereading that, it looks like that last bit targeted the poster I quoted.

Not my intent, and sorry if it seemed that way pkjun.
 
2017-12-30 05:51:29 AM  

Reyito: For every Artist claiming "HAHAHAHA, He asked If I would do it for the exposure!" theres a tech guy being asked to do it for "future promises of stocks" or "I can't pay you what you're worth, but it's great for your resume!"

Claiming that "A new model is the death of my art" is the same thing as a tech guy complaining because "no one appreciates my windows 3.1 skills."


Uh...no? No, I don't think so. The equivalent to "nobody appreciates my Windows 3.1 skills" would be "nobody wants to book my Ratt cover band." I'm not talking about whether certain skills are in demand, I'm talking about the fact that in-demand skills are increasingly uncompensated. Like you say, you can be a brilliant coder or designer with marketable skills, and still find that 90% of the market is short-term low-wage gigs and startups offering unicorn wishes and fairy dust as compensation.

I think that part of the problem is what I was mentioning earlier: that people are giving less of their money to artists and writers. There are other problems too, though; I think that the commoditization and fungibility of talent in the "gig economy" is a genuine shift in the labor marketplace. As you point out, workers in lots of fields are now in much higher competition, and have much less bargaining power. Even in high-flying legal and banking careers, years of unpaid internships are often necessary to secure a job, and that job won't be anywhere near as stable as it would have been two decades ago.

Of course people will continue to "hussle" and thrive, no matter what the marketplace is like. But I do think it's worth asking how the marketplace is changing, whether those changes are good for workers, and how we could create the sort of changes in the marketplace we would rather see.
 
2017-12-30 05:51:51 AM  

Reyito: EDIT:
Rereading that, it looks like that last bit targeted the poster I quoted.

Not my intent, and sorry if it seemed that way pkjun.


I see. Thanks for the clarification!
 
2017-12-30 07:18:17 AM  
It was very clever of him to say "get of my lawn" self-knowingly after saying "get of my lawn" not self-knowingly.
 
2017-12-30 07:39:07 AM  

pkjun: Bith Set Me Up: Deregulation destroyed the music industry.

Nah. Nobody under the age of 25 ever listens to the radio.

The music industry was "destroyed" by exactly the thing they warned would destroy it: the internet. Hard to build a business model around unlimited free instant access to your product, and even harder for musicians to charge for their work when they represent one drop in an endless sea of amateur talent desperate to be noticed. The only money in celebrity of any sort now comes from Kardashianization, but you can't sell branded merch until you're big, but you can't get big unless your stuff is free. You work for nothing and receive nothing because most people pay nothing, and you can only hope to eventually earn enough fame to leverage your brand into something people will pay for, like sports drinks or fashion apparel.

It's a lot like what's happened to journalism. With all the free news on the internet, people decided that journalism simply wasn't something they would ever pay for again. (Imagine the absurdity of someone in the 1980s asking for a copy of the local paper at a convenience store and then shouting "WTF PAYWALL" when the guy asks for money.) No money in means no money out, and now someone starting a career in journalism is going to be writing "for exposure and experience" rather than for a wage. And every year more publications either fold or switch to the "volunteer contributor" model, further reducing the number of ways journalists can actually make a living in journalism.

If you don't pay for stuff, people can't make a living doing that stuff.


Important side note: Even successful paid/freemium online music services like Spotify pay artists something like 1/4 of one cent per play, so this pretty much still applies there.
 
2017-12-30 08:38:39 AM  
Skipping over the isolation component of TFA- I sympathize with these people who would like to be better-compensated for their work, but the truth is being a musician has historically not been a great way to make money. The super-rich musicians of the last 60 or so years are an anomaly.

Two great songs about this shift:
Gillian Welch - "Everything is Free"
Wilco - "What Light"
 
2017-12-30 09:07:53 AM  
If you are diligent, there was a three-part radio documentary from the CBC you can track down from about three or four years ago detailing the shift in the music industry's revenue models since World War One. Fascinating stuff.

The piece ended with the event horizon of today where no lock in is possible apart from tickets for live entertainment.
 
2017-12-30 09:48:35 AM  
Excellent headline, subby

i1079.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2017-12-30 10:41:10 AM  
I'm not that sad.  We were paying $15 for a $0.50 CD when Napster came along.
I'm all for artists making money, but layers upon layers of that economic model made the wrong people rich.  I AM sorry the baby went out with the bath water but that was a model that needed breaking.
The new model of click-farming and comment-bots and spam-bots should crash and burn when websites and advertisers realize they can go f*ck themselves, too.  We need to make them f*ck themselves.
 
2017-12-30 10:46:06 AM  
I wonder how much they made from this?
Time Bomb (Live) - Old 97's Rock Band 3 Expert Guitar FC
Youtube cwdeBUGqB2E
 
2017-12-30 11:15:09 AM  

monkeypapa: I wonder how much they made from this?
[Youtube cwdeBUGqB2E image 480x270][Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/cwdeBUGq​B2E]


More than radio/streaming would for that song. Artists featured in the rock band games get pretty well compensated, since the company is comprised (mostly) of writers, producers, and people who perform in bands. Funny how that works.
 
2017-12-30 11:37:11 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: I'm not that sad.  We were paying $15 for a $0.50 CD when Napster came along.
I'm all for artists making money, but layers upon layers of that economic model made the wrong people rich.  I AM sorry the baby went out with the bath water but that was a model that needed breaking.
The new model of click-farming and comment-bots and spam-bots should crash and burn when websites and advertisers realize they can go f*ck themselves, too.  We need to make them f*ck themselves.


As much as I want musicians to make money, the music industry 20 years ago was obscene. Even when they were dragged kicking and screaming into the Internet era, singles initially cost $2-4 dollars and could only be played on obtuse software. The industry can keep crumbling as far as I care.

On the other extreme, rock (and to a lesser extent, R&B/rap) doesn't print money like it did 20-50 years ago. Even younger bands will accept hype as payment for awhile, but rock doesn't print hype that much any more. R&B/Rap does still, and indie will get out some darling coverage for about 2-3 years on average. But overall pop music seems even more disposable than it was in the TRL era, which is saying something.
 
2017-12-30 11:37:42 AM  

detonator: Well written article; and thanks for the headline, subby!
A lot of old punk bands are still going, but they never cared for the business end, knowing they'd most likely get screwed. That's what it is- a lawyer heavy environment.


On Oprah's show someone asked Barry Gibb what advice he had for newcomers to the music industry.

Without missing a beat, he said "get a lawyer."

/soon to be Sir Barry Gibb!
 
2017-12-30 11:46:13 AM  

detonator: I used to book the old 97's back when I owned a small venue back in the 90's. The author of the article was their lead singer and I think he got swallowed up and spit out by the biz. They sorta broke up for a while and I remember seeing him on "entertainment tonight" showcased as an up and coming star. Sounds like he got worse than a raw deal...


They are still very viable and active and have an annual music festival in downtown Dallas.
 
2017-12-30 11:49:13 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: I'm not that sad.  We were paying $15 for a $0.50 CD when Napster came along.
I'm all for artists making money, but layers upon layers of that economic model made the wrong people rich.  I AM sorry the baby went out with the bath water but that was a model that needed breaking.
The new model of click-farming and comment-bots and spam-bots should crash and burn when websites and advertisers realize they can go f*ck themselves, too.  We need to make them f*ck themselves.


Almost all of the cd's I've bought in the last few years have been straight from the artists either at the concert or from their band website. I don't mind paying 15 bucks for a 50 cent CD from a band that I like.
 
2017-12-30 11:52:03 AM  

Fireproof: Important side note: Even successful paid/freemium online music services like Spotify pay record lables something like 1/4 of one cent per play, so this pretty much still applies there.


Musicians and artists have alway depended on performance and outside support, nothing has changed
 
2017-12-30 12:29:08 PM  
That started out as a very interesting diatribe about how desire/need for money and exposure is sucking the life out of musicians by the powerful few who control the access.  Too bad I couldn't finish reading it because it was blocked by a repeated pop up trying to get me to buy a subscription to an overpriced "magazine" that I have never heard of before.
 
2017-12-30 12:55:40 PM  

pkjun: The music industry was "destroyed" by exactly the thing they warned would destroy it: the internet.


Some of us embraced it. In hindsight, it was pretty farking stupid of us, but the internet, mp3s, digital recording and sharing all came together at the turn of the century and created what seemed to be a moment of opportunity.

Digital recording was still new and we weren't very good at it yet, but if someone in your band was already skilled at mixing audio, you just got a free pass to avoid having to pay for studio time. Add a CD burner, a color printer and supplies and you could make your own CDs to sell at shows, as needed, eliminating the need to shell out for 500-1000 (more expensive) copies.

More importantly, we had skipped two major steps of the established food chain, which we were well aware was a bad thing. The stories about artists fighting their record labels to get paid for their albums sales (if they were ever paid at all beyond the initial advance) were prevalent. We had Hunter S. Thompson's advice: "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

The "free promotion" aspect did not seem as laughable back then. You could take a copy of your CD to the local radio station, but it was also the beginning of corporate radio and breaking into someone's playlist was a pretty challenging task. Maybe they play one of your tunes in the middle of the night. How many people actually heard it? Or you could put a song on a site like mp3.com for free and see how many people listened to it.

The first wave of mp3s sounded like crap to those of us with functioning ears, so it wasn't like we were giving away the CD version of the song (contrary to what the record companies were saying), and it's just not realistic to expect people to buy a CD without having ever heard any of the songs. So the idea of the "free promotion" was attractive - it provided the ability to attract an audience beyond the limits of your city, state or even country. Another cog in the machine avoided, just about the time that the machine began to fight back.

For the first time in history, an artist could record their own music and give samples to the public without a record label (in a relatively inexpensive manner), just at the same time that the labels' inability to adapt led them to insist in a very loud and persistent manner that sharing music files was inherently illegal.

Their growing outrage over the use of mp3s seemed not just a preservation of their business model, but also a way to limit the independent musicians from utilizing new technology to bypass them completely. For some of us, that's where the real fight was. We wanted to think outside the box, and kick the old box down the river. That was the promise of the internet.

Of course, none of it worked out the way we thought it would. But there was a rational thread in there... for a while.
 
2017-12-30 12:56:03 PM  

TurnerBrown: That started out as a very interesting diatribe about how desire/need for money and exposure is sucking the life out of musicians by the powerful few who control the access.  Too bad I couldn't finish reading it because it was blocked by a repeated pop up trying to get me to buy a subscription to an overpriced "magazine" that I have never heard of before.


"That was a very interesting article about how creative professionals are struggling to cope now that the endless free content available on the internet has destroyed most sources of revenue, but then the publisher of the free article I was enjoying tried to earn some revenue by showing me an advertisement, so I quit."
 
2017-12-30 01:01:44 PM  

MacWizard: For some of us, that's where the real fight was. We wanted to think outside the box, and kick the old box down the river. That was the promise of the internet.

Of course, none of it worked out the way we thought it would. But there was a rational thread in there... for a while.


That's pretty much the entire story of the internet revolutionary movement, unfortunately. Turns out information doesn't actually want to be free, radical transparency doesn't hold the powerful to account, and the truth doesn't win out in the free marketplace of ideas.

Information wants to pile up in such enormous quantities that only extremely expensive proprietary data-analytics systems can even begin to process it. Radical transparency enables the powerful to monitor our every interaction and the cruel to destroy lives on a whim. And in a truly free marketplace of ideas, there's so much noise that nothing seems true, anything seems possible, and those with the deepest pockets can shout the loudest.
 
2017-12-30 02:48:09 PM  

TurnerBrown: That started out as a very interesting diatribe about how desire/need for money and exposure is sucking the life out of musicians by the powerful few who control the access.  Too bad I couldn't finish reading it because it was blocked by a repeated pop up trying to get me to buy a subscription to an overpriced "magazine" that I have never heard of before.


See, I quit reading when he said hitting rock bottom was the end of the first act, thats not how three act narative works
 
2017-12-30 03:21:22 PM  

happydude45: detonator: I used to book the old 97's back when I owned a small venue back in the 90's. The author of the article was their lead singer and I think he got swallowed up and spit out by the biz. They sorta broke up for a while and I remember seeing him on "entertainment tonight" showcased as an up and coming star. Sounds like he got worse than a raw deal...

They are still very viable and active and have an annual music festival in downtown Dallas.


Yeah they've been playing a bit lately; they were up here in the Pacific Northwest a couple of months ago...
 
2017-12-30 04:20:29 PM  
The the press, the future may be in the past.

Music used to be sold as sheet music for us to play in our living rooms. (See the wonderful miniseries Pennies from Heaven by the great Denis Potter.) Then the era of good recordings came in once microphones went electric and the ability to mass produce shellac LPs cheaply came about. The development of wireless radio as an entertainment form happened at the same time and these fed on each other. TV came in after WW2 but not much else changed.

The music industry had tape, LPs and then CDs. But though CDs could be duplicated by home computers that took a while for the obscure technology of burners to become inexpensive and idiot proof for Joe and Jane consumer.

It was not until internet bandwidth became cheap that the the pins were finally pulled out of the record industry (and also film and TV distribution but the scale of video files made it take a lot longer.) Up until now, the recording industry has been making its money off of physical media. With physical media increasingly irrelevant, the only way to make money is the old fashioned way -- live concerts.

I think it may take a while but the same thing will happen to the press. In a dozen years once we go through a few more boom/bust cycles we may see how the press operated before the 1880s -- if you wanted to run a newspaper you rented time on a press and sold the results on a street corner. Well, a digital newspaper needn't be much more than the writers and an Amazon bucket. Sure, information will tend to clot and brands exist to make things easy to find and categorize, but we may see a mix of small 'IF Stone Weekly' quality web sites in addition to the big news gathering organizations. Small organizations may be vulnerable to pressure and a lack of professionalism but so can large ones, as this and this may demonstrate.

With respect to our musical friends, people will always have a need to listen music, to discover new music and to fit in by listening to what's popular. I think we will see a mix of business types from large pop entertainment machines that produce boy bands and bubble gym music for bobbysockers and single musicians who self promote. What we will not see in the future is an industry that has its income tied to distributing pieces of physical media.

Of course, artists will struggle and most will be electricians or small business owners to pay the bills. As it always has been.
 
2017-12-30 04:47:07 PM  

pkjun: TurnerBrown: That started out as a very interesting diatribe about how desire/need for money and exposure is sucking the life out of musicians by the powerful few who control the access.  Too bad I couldn't finish reading it because it was blocked by a repeated pop up trying to get me to buy a subscription to an overpriced "magazine" that I have never heard of before.

"That was a very interesting article about how creative professionals are struggling to cope now that the endless free content available on the internet has destroyed most sources of revenue, but then the publisher of the free article I was enjoying tried to earn some revenue by showing me an advertisement, so I quit."


I think it's not just the endless content, it's that the vast number musicians that are out there now producing and making their music available. It's very hard to rise above the rabble. In the old days you played lots of gigs to get the attention of the record companies.  Record companies hired promoters to get the band radio play, tickets, and sell records.

This model is now mostly gone, perhaps only EDM music allows this to partially work.

Rhett is fighting for this model and complaining about streaming platforms.  Not making his music available on Spotify is like the purist who refused to allow their music to be remastered onto CD.  He is stuck in the past and the future moves on with out him.
 
2017-12-30 06:47:38 PM  
Musicians and composers were able to profit from their work despite many changes in technology for many, many years.
library.duke.eduView Full Size

i.pinimg.comView Full Size

rsa.fau.eduView Full Size

productimages.goantiques.gemr.s3.amazonaws.comView Full Size

darrel-betty-hagberg.comView Full Size

i.pinimg.comView Full Size

etc.  until the digital revolution.
 
2017-12-30 07:06:51 PM  

happydude45: Nana's Vibrator: I'm not that sad.  We were paying $15 for a $0.50 CD when Napster came along.
I'm all for artists making money, but layers upon layers of that economic model made the wrong people rich.  I AM sorry the baby went out with the bath water but that was a model that needed breaking.
The new model of click-farming and comment-bots and spam-bots should crash and burn when websites and advertisers realize they can go f*ck themselves, too.  We need to make them f*ck themselves.

Almost all of the cd's I've bought in the last few years have been straight from the artists either at the concert or from their band website. I don't mind paying 15 bucks for a 50 cent CD from a band that I like.


Yup. I also do that with street musicians. If I like what I hear, I'll favorited! down the $10 or $15 they're asking for a CD. But there's not many of them around here who actually have CDs for sale. About 75% of them sit there with a donations box, strumming a guitar and singing out of tune. Or they're using a battery-powered amplifier and sampler - no, thanks.

Now, an example of how the idiots in charge of copyright royalties shot themselves in the foot. I used to subscribe to Live365 (the previous incarnation). For ~USD$75 annually, I got access to thousands of ad-free internet radio stations. Then the copyright royalties board decided to up the rate, and cancel the revenue-sharing arrangment that meant small, niche-market broadcasters could operate economically (barely). The end result was that live365 went tits-up. I even told them I'd be willing to pay more - ad-free music meant a lot to me, but down they went. So instead of getting some money, those artists now get zero. Perhaps they could explored other avenues instead of just saying "pay up, biatches".

Then it was revived, and I started exploring. A small, but growing number of stations. I sent them an email asking when user subscriptions would be available for ad-free music. They replied, asking how much I'd be willing to pay, and I told them "at least as much as I was previously, and probably up to 50% more". Never heard back, haven't seen anything about user subscriptions, and from what I can see, the broadcaster supplies the revenue on a tiered plan. WTF? I'm willing to pay, and they're not interested. So I listen, and put up with the ads when I can't find an ad-free stream.
 
2017-12-30 07:06:58 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: pkjun: TurnerBrown: That started out as a very interesting diatribe about how desire/need for money and exposure is sucking the life out of musicians by the powerful few who control the access.  Too bad I couldn't finish reading it because it was blocked by a repeated pop up trying to get me to buy a subscription to an overpriced "magazine" that I have never heard of before.

"That was a very interesting article about how creative professionals are struggling to cope now that the endless free content available on the internet has destroyed most sources of revenue, but then the publisher of the free article I was enjoying tried to earn some revenue by showing me an advertisement, so I quit."

I think it's not just the endless content, it's that the vast number musicians that are out there now producing and making their music available. It's very hard to rise above the rabble. In the old days you played lots of gigs to get the attention of the record companies.  Record companies hired promoters to get the band radio play, tickets, and sell records.

This model is now mostly gone, perhaps only EDM music allows this to partially work.

Rhett is fighting for this model and complaining about streaming platforms.  Not making his music available on Spotify is like the purist who refused to allow their music to be remastered onto CD.  He is stuck in the past and the future moves on with out him.


The industry was a shiat show and a ripoff from the start, but of all the things, the labels acted as a sort of gatekeeper, filtering out a lot of crap (and a lot of not crap too!). They're all long gone, mostly.

Now the industry has created this terrible 360 deal, because sucking the life out of artists is their whole raison d'être.

Used to be that getting your song in a commercial was viewed as "selling out" but now that's really the only way to make any money at all. You can gross a shiatpile on a tour, if you're an established artist, but those shows are expensive so the net isn't all that hot either. If you're a smallish or unknown/indie/whatever you can distill your art as nothing more than being an advertisement for t-shirt sales. So, best to get your graphic design and fashion skills down.

Or, you could just be a hobbyist - that's really where the current economics is pushing art of any kind. Get a real job and be a part of the machine and play a gig here or there nearby since your boss won't let you have  a month off for a proper tour. Record stuff at your practice pad, put it on youtube.
 
2017-12-30 07:10:29 PM  

ol' gormsby: I hear, I'll favorited! down th


That was filterpwned. I wrote pee ell oh en kay
 
2017-12-30 09:03:16 PM  

Leader O'Cola: 0% of that applied to any of the music I listen to.


You should definitely feel
special about the media you don't consume. Everyone is in awe of your superior taste whenever you mention it. Tell us more about how what you buy/don't buy makes you a better person. Everyone is interested in what people like you have to say, so do go on.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report