Here's a thread about the future of the music industry, internet downloads, creativity and record companies. I am interested in hearing people's views, struggles and successes, and personal forecasts.
With MJ's sad passing, it is clear that we will never see an artist quite like him again. I feel the days of big record companies deciding the 'direction' of an album and the 'selling angle' could be numbered. Artist are in a good and bad position right now. Good: they can easily build their own fanbase online, sell music from an online store or from their site and reap the cash themselves. They can decide what tracks to push forward, who they want to work with and where they want to gig (having cash behind them helps a lot too!).
Bad: they will never be as famous as MJ! If celebrity is what they're after, tough! Even with a record company pumping cash in your career, THIS IS IT, you will never reach those heights of stardom! Too BAD, you will never make as much money as he ever did (and lost).
With the credit crunch affecting everybody, it is time to reassess our jobs/lives and what it means to make a living from music nowadays. Big recording studios are shutting down, record companies are loosing money. The cost of making music has come way down and artists want to be free to record what they want. So what remains is a creative revolution, a soulful approach to making music (with a band, with a producer), and fans' loyalty (paying for gigs AND music downloads).
It's time to forget about the riches and fame and focus on what really matters: MUSIC. Surely our real ambition should be to produce/write/sing great music and make a decent living from it!? (no one really needs millions do they?)
Record companies need to open up to the fact that talent is out there even if your CV only shows production work for unknown up-and-coming artists or projects.
The 'musical selling formulas' are quickly dying out (think current Pop, Hip-Hop or R'n'B) because audiences are bored with the same stuff that's not as good as the original. They want to see talent, sweat on stage, without Autotune on. Governments should support the entertainment industry by providing a 'creativity wage' that is above the dole amount because real creativity isn't found in dead-end jobs, in a marketing meeting, or in a record company's budget.

Pfff, that was long. Any thoughts?

I disagree regarding it's possible to now earn more money yet not be as much of a celebrity.

The bottom line is that people aren't buying as much music as they did 10-15 years ago and the cost of c.d have gone down a lot too.

Pop groups like Lady Ga Ga, Girls Aloud and The Saturdays are turned into celebrities because the record companies earn the money through all the t.v/magazine/sponsor deals, because they are loosing revenue through sales.

Most "bands"....i mean bands of the last 2-3 years have earned hardly anything, there isn't an interest in them, to get them on t.v chat show and in magazines etc.

There might be a turn around again but i think unlikely now we are in the digital age.

If an up and coming band wants to support a bigger band on tour, they have to PAY to play the shows, maybe just breaking even if they have loads of merch to sell.

You need a big label behind you, or at least MONEY (I'm referring to "bands" here).

But most labels don't care as they can't see a way of getting there investment back, like they could with a hot 5 piece girl group.

With regards to "if someone wants to be famous as MJ= tough", I absolutely agree with "fame" being more elusive but I also never think in a million years Jacko wanted what he got and had to put up with outside of music. The press houndings, unwanted attention and hangers on (who eventually killed him).

As far as what it means to make music in the digital age I don't think anything has changed for real artists, bands or groups. If you're still extremely passionate about music and also have the talent and persistence then there is as much chance to "make it" as there was 30 years ago. BUT if money and fame is the issue then yes maybe you won't be a billionaire and plastered on every billboard from here to Nepal BUT you will be a respected celebrity in the music world. (By the way, when I say REAL I wouldn't count the manufactured acts, Girls Aloud et al, BUT I would count someone like Lady GaGa, Ne-Yo etc as "real" because they are SICK writers no matter how famous/rich they are)

What's everyone else reckon?

mj

I agree with the general feeling of the post, as I am another one of millions of struggling artists investing sweat AND MONEY without seeing any money back (so far, at least! :-)).
The general changes introduced by the digital age/piracy etc are that sales are down: even major artists don't make ANY money through sales, not just digital sales, I am talking about any kind of sales. the company invests about 1-3 million pounds in the promotion of an album. ALL OF THAT MONEY HAS TO BE RECOUPED BY THE ARTIST. Physical and digital sales are so down that money through sales is not enough to pay the company back, let alone to make money. that is the reality for all these artists that are now famous. the company buys them the multi-million mansions and their lifestyle, even the holidays. Those mansions are not theirs! except for artists like Madonna, or Timberlake, who, after years, can negotiate with contracts and get a better royalty share.
so don't get fooled by the glittering gold. even major artists aren't making a lot of money. They are famous, but they don't make much more money than a cool rock band signed to an indie label who sells out top live venues. that's why companies (indie labels too) are now investing in artists that have a convincing live performance and able to play big concerts. the only sources of revenue, both for major and indie artists nowadays are: live concerts, merchandising sales, synchronisation of their music with movie/games/ads/tv.

On the debate about whether artists are actually rich or if it's all image I have to post this: http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/archive/2008/04/26/miley-cyrus-worth-one-billion-dollars.aspx

Miley Cyrus' estimated worth is $1 billion (I had to say it like Dr. Evil)

Yeh sure gimmicks like Soulja Boy will never be wealthy but there are people out there who are still superstar rich.

Well, you have to read carefully that article about Hanna Montana. It says about her GROSS fortune, which means what is earnt through her concerts, films, sales etc etc, which of course is massive, since she sells not only because she sings, but also through her Tv show, endorsements, DVDs, films, merchandising etc etc...
In reality a quite tiny amount of the gross earning goes to her. most of it goes to pay back the record and film companies investing in her for their promotion. of course even that tiny amount makes her quite rich, but she is certainly not wealthier than Bill Gates :-)
Moreover she does not write the material she sings, so the royalties for her songs go to the songwriters who write for her. royalties for songwriting copyright generate a huge amount of money. top-line writers are often richer than the real "famous" artists who are not able to write their own songs, because besides getting money out of royalties, they don't have to pay the company back for being promoted like crazy. they stay in the shadow and just earn money out of royalties. End result: write a hit for Celine Dion and you'll be able to buy yourself a mansion :-)

Agreed it's all estimated gross earnings and blah blah but she'll still have a good 16th Birthday ;)

Double THumb= "End result: write a hit for Celine Dion and you'll be able to buy yourself a mansion :-)"

A man after my own heart lol!

Thanks for replying everyone! I'm also interested in hearing your views on creativity and artistry.
I feel there's a musical revolution going on. Not one that aims at making revolutionary music (let's face it, nothing seems new anymore), but one where the artist gets to develop himself without record companies' guidance or cash. The results are exciting, fresh and less contrived.
It also seems to me, the whole system has to change. Record companies need to listen to artists rather than look at sales figures, and understand the talent that's out there.
Any ideas?

Soulem "let's face it, nothing seems new anymore"- that's something that could be said by in every decade of music since the inception of popular music...

Elvis was just taking what blah blah did and ____

Stevie Wonder was just doing what blah blah did and ____

The Beatles were only using what blah blah did and ____

Jimi Hendrix was just doin what blah blah did and ____

Prince was only imiitating what blah blah did and ____

Michael Jackson was just using what blah blah did and ____


The blank in every case is "fusing all their influences together (musical or otherwise), injecting their own personality and making something fresh that touches people".

If popular music was analysed by a team of musicologists then Beethoven and Mozart already did it (and I'm sure at the time they were only doing what blah blah did and _____) but that's not the point. Revolutionary arts is making a personal statement that touches people in a fresh new way. Shakespeare was not the first dude to write a love story!

But yeh the do it yourself method is how things are getting done these and it's putting creativity back into the artists' hands. In fact I'm working with Sarah-Marie on her music right now and the first release is entitled the D.I.Y EP

Let's push things forward ;)

mj

the answer is simple: too many graduates with too little talent, too much fame-and-fortune seeking with nought but marketing to back it up.
office politics isn't enough to hold the business together.

In the old days you paid an artist a pittance (if they got anything at all) to produce millions of pounds worth of music. Now, you pay a whole team of people, millions to make an untalented nobody look like a god.

gifted artists want nothing more than to use their gifts, 24 hours a day, all year. madonna, sting, beyonce, jackson, kitt, etc.

Wanabees, or 'new blood' to give them their official title, want nothing more than to be rich, and they don't care what studio they bankrupt to do it.
So unfortunately there's only one solution. Kick the wanabess out and the business will recover.

But if you Keep them in and allow the education establishments to funnel yet more ungifted people in, the talented aritsts and the chance of making great art and money from it, will be smothered.

I genuinely believe that that means that the studios and publishers that made the business this way amd brought so many mickey-mouse performers in, must fold.
that'll leave the gifted musicians the space and funds to get their careers going. Leave the genuine producers, the gifted composers, singers etc the resources and space to work together and the business will enter a new renaissance.

Every 30 years for the film industry, and 15 years for the music and games industries, this process occurs. whereby untalented people swamp the business and force its eventual collapse, allowing talented people in who make a lot of money, that attracts the wanabees who force them out, collapses the business, and then brings the talent back in again to fix it which attracts the wanabees back who destroy it etc. and over and over and on and on this goes.

it's been 60 years since the industry on the whole had a complete reform, so it badly needs some wholesale re-sale.