I was wondering what has been the hey day of making money for harmonica players (if there is such a thing!). Has the time already past or is there a future? I just notice that for each, as I call it, "fringe" activity there appears a heyday where money pours in and the talented of each field receive recognition a financial success. Bobby Fischer is a good example. Who has been the richest blues (or other) harmonica player? What is the outlook you think?
You dont have to be poor to sing the blues,but you must pay your dues,and sometimes being poor helps.I got the poor dues paid the rest i have to I.O.U. you:)Hey theres a song I.O.U.Blues,copyright pending lol But then you could have Harps made to your name Like Lee Oskar,I dont know if hes rich but he's paid his dues.
My guess is Steve Tyler, if you count him as a blues harpist, is probably at or near the top of the list.
John Popper has some main stream success, but I doubt it was long enough to make him the top earner.
I guess you'd have to adjust for inflation too. Stevie Wonder has probably made a lot. It's hard to classify how much is from the harmonica and what is from their other skills.
I think a traditional blues player may not make a huge fortune, although styles do get new status sometimes, think Brian Setzer bringing swing back for a while. Unfortunately, a lot of the money in music these days is made by 'Pretty People'. It's hard to bust the latest dance move and play hard at the same time, but probably not impossible. The next question is, 'How Pretty are you?'. Can you be a teen heartthrob?
you made me laugh nacoran! I think you are right about the 'pretty' stuff in that the music business is largely image. the music business in general though has changed for all areas of music, CD's etc. will be gone sometime in the future and revenue from things like itunes and stuff like will eventually be gone too. Basically buying music will become a foreign concept and I think that the live experience of music is the only thing that will remain, somehow. Making music a brand and merchandising it is the only way I see, other than live performances, to make money in music. I think it becomes purer when there is no profit motive behind it, but then again, some of the best music came about when bands were forced to produce a new record! Just curious what people think the new avenues are for harp and for music in general to make money.
Michael why do you predict the money from Itunes will die? just curious,I think live music is great,i wish i was playing live right now,Its so much fun.But i was thinking that the middle man for music distribution would go but the the internet music,would florish,just my thought,but im kinda nieve on things.Im really interested in your theory for that,I want to start Busking that to me would be so cool,live playing,be your your own boss,Im sure it has its down falls also.
Last Edited by on Apr 10, 2010 8:46 PM
itunes IS now the middle man. And that will even be cut out. With youtube and the easy access of music such as lala,the business of music as it is was will completely disappear and I am not sure anything will take its place. The musicians and businesses who fight it just make themselves look bad and are fighting the inevitable. Same with newspapers. Those are going to completely disappear because of things like yahoo and msn, now you can simply click on your area and get all the associated press articles relevant to you. It used to be many newspapers would use these type articles (AP) and you would buy the paper and read it. Advertisers have certainly adapted. And that included leaving newspapers and developing new ideas like hulu.com. it's complex of course, I just really wonder what COULD take the place of revenue mechanisms in the music business and if a blues harp player has ever found a way to capitalize. Adam seems to have adapted in a way with this site and all.
thats because when one door closes another opens,just play i say well all be dead in the end,If money was our goal,then we probelly be doing something else,Yea Adam is very smart how he developed everything,ive allways thought that,Even his free lesson's are genius i dont know if he planed it or not.Or if it just developed,but there are free and avaible to all,and have lots of good stuff,but to really get the most you need to buy some tabs,and stuff ect.Which are really nice priced and the beauty is that they can be purchased a lesson at a time where anybody can afford.But i feel like there's someone who will develope a way to make money with music,besides playing live,but i could be wrong. But who knows really money wont stop creativity,it influences it but it wont stop it.For years i would sit on my picnic table by the goldfish pond and play my guitar at night for all spirits to hear,I wished i was playing live,but The spirits and me still had fun and thats all that matters in the end.Peace and play on fellow musicians,
Last Edited by on Apr 10, 2010 9:25 PM
I think with music piracy so high revenues sale of music will die. I have a suspicion that a model something like the BBC might work, where everyone is forced to pay a tax or fee to use the media and then some organization will dole the money out to the artists. That's sort of how licencing fees for live music work already. Bars pay the licencing fee, cover bands can play any cover they want, but the artists who created the work get a cut.
There are already some music services work that work this way. You pay a fee and you can stream all the music you want, whatever you want, as long as you pay a fee every month. The upside is everyone will be able to listen to however much they want. The downside is that whoever decides how that fee gets split will be in the same position the record companies used to be. Musicians have already gamed YouTube rankings with programs that play a video over and over. When the only way you get paid is by how many plays you get we'll have people gaming the system.
Good music will always have an outlet and people who are willing to hear it will always pay. Unfortunately most of the huge promoted shows that music illiterates pay enormous bucks to see are in my view the equivalent of junk fodder to feed a dying industry. The dummies purchase it because they are told to.
Good performers in all genres have their loyal fans who will pay to attend concerts, still line up for autographed CD's and purchase downloads. I heard an interview with a top local country artist who is performing to larger and larger crowds even though he has been at the top of his game for over 20 years and whilst releasing new stuff all the time his old stuff sells in higher volumes today than it ever did.
I think there is still a need for a middle man but more in the vein of Itunes. It's good however to see the gradual demise of the once recording industry giants who controlled what we were allowed to listen to and buy. And if we really liked one song we usually had to buy a CD with 11 other tunes that were sh*t. Now that downloads are the norm we can access and buy what we want at a fraction of the prices we paid years ago. Is it good for the artists? I think for most it is the greatest change and a huge opportunity as it places everyone on a more equal footing.
I hear ya David or Aussiesucker its weird calling you that im used to David from our school:-)I like positive perspectives,At least for today,lol what i like is the internet is that even if you never sell a song,You can upload your music at home. and home recording's are gettting possible to allmost duplicate the old studios,For not that much money granted there is a learning curve,Im trying learn it myself. but our stuff is avaible world wide and should be way after we go to the great studio of the beyond,And thats cool,cause there's alot of music greats that have passed on that didnt have the oportunity to have there music preserved.
Last Edited by on Apr 10, 2010 11:35 PM
I see what you are saying Aussiesucker and I agree. Much of the younger generation I know though does not use itunes at all and we all grew up with napster, torrent, and other stuff where having access to all the music for free was expected. Essentially things like ipods with huge amounts of music storage capacity, gotta have something to fill it? No way are the kids gonna pay for all that music. Much of it is seen as free domain and the entitled artists who say "this is MY music so PAY for it", well, let's just say I know very few kids in my generation who are still fans and listen to metallica. Screw those whiny pussies. It's kinda like those losers who work for a plant doing repetitive work and complain they are laid off after 25 years. Nobody owes anybody cradle to grave employment and just because you make music now doesn't mean anybody should have to pay because, unless you are the best or have something unique to offer or can be molded to a certain image that tweens will pay money for, there are thousands maybe millions of others in line waitin for their turn. I think music will always be around in the pure, live forms because that is what it's all about.
yea live music is the best,the energy of a live recording has that also,somewhat.Music started a loooong time ago was played live and it will allways have that.But for instance,Im stuck with no car out in the country,no job,living with my parents there poor also, for now granted my dads blind and im rebuilding the house thats falling apart when we can afford the supplies,But ive got some decent equipment that i scrounged up,I have no way to play with anybody else live,the internet is all i have for now to express myself in public,If i lived in a city i would busk,if i wasnt in a band,thats why walter tore and Adam inspire me with ther 1 man band stuff,I could of probelly of jamed tonight at a Benfit for Autism,a song or 2 with the band i played live with last year,maybe :-) its was open sort of.But i would have to borrow my moms truck,and things got so bad lately we cant even go to where they are giving away free food to the poor like we do on sat.Dont get me wrong were not starving but,I love the internet,and the music avaible and if i can sell a song or 2 the better,if not its still there,to pass on like it hate it or dont care either way its still there,the point is sometimes Life wont let you play live all the time,Wana be's like me can at least escape into the world for at least awhile,Money and music,yea it nice to have both,Maybe the only way in the future will be to play live,But to play live for me right now is to go outside and play to the crickets which i often do,Ok say i write a song someone,wants to rent or buy,well the internet give me the abilty to make it avaible and sort of copyrights it,at least documents it and dates it,so someone might steal it,to me im not worried it allmost gives me some self creditabilty to myself,and what im trying to do.And maybe they make millions well then maybe i can sue em years later and die wealthy,With a song i never got to play live.Theres allways a way nothing dies it just morphs.Im feeling awful positive tonight,Half the time im negative.Music will live on whether its played live or not.And someone will firgure out a way to make money with it live or not.just my opion What gets me is How music from hundreds of years ago played live the classical music how its still alive today,I wonder though how much it might of morped from what it was to now or even if it did.We will never know cause the internet wasnt around and although music written is able to be read by some people and can be interpreted very acurate.Theres still that missing link between what it was and Now.Maybe Betovin could write and compose great but had bad timming its possible.I wonder how much money he made,anyway im ramblin to much.I think the music industy just morphed again the by the time i wrote this:-)peace
Last Edited by on Apr 11, 2010 12:57 AM
The revolution will not be televised. The old pop model where you sold people a machine that locked them into paying for 'content' on exclusive media like shellac, vinyl, tape or CD is crumbling - if it can be digitized, it's ultimately going to be available for nothing, and the shelf-life of new music and video is shortening all the time. That's partly why there are so many old band reunions going on, because T-shirts and other stuff sold at concerts has never been such big business, and you can't digitize the experience of a great live show. Nostalgia adds to the buzz.
One day 3-D technology will allow you to experience a live concert almost as if you had attended, but the outlay for gear may not compare to simply going out to another one.
Who knows - maybe new artists will have concentrate on engaging with smaller audiences again - as Adam does - instead of eyes closed, concentrating on the monitors, trying to reproduce that studio sound in front of 30,000 people who can't see anything but a huge lightshow and paid $$$ for a hotdog.
Man, recording is one of the few things that made it so that people could make a real living through performance only. While my gut reaction is "Michael, as a musician I would expect you to have more spine than the rest of our generation," I think that you, along with all the other naptserites of our generation, don't understand what it means to remove a mans means of survival. Sure, they can learn to make money in other ways. Yes, the record industry deserved to fail. Yes, metallica are whiney rich bitches. But who really pays the price for wholesale stealing? The artists. You. Me.
Why should a talented young kid pursue a life in performance when he knows all his friends will talk a big shit about how great he is, then never give him a buck for his work? I do remember you saying you were pursing a performance degree then changed you mind. Would you have turned away if your older friends were well off, instead of struggling to survive, as many of my peers are? And these cats are good like insane good.
I remember when napster was becoming popular, I think I was 20 or so.
Even then I knew stealing from an artist is like a special kind of sin. I might be fine stealing if I were hungry. And to be honest, I have stolen things in the past, including a few songs. And hell, stealing from the rich (like Metallica) is certainly less difficult to justify. But I know people that have 500 gigs of music they ripped off. That is prob more than anybody could buy in a lifetime.
Most recording artist are not rich. Music is one of those industries where those at the top make exponentially more than those just underneath them. Sure, the top names may be rich, but just below folks are scratching their nails away to survive.
And the world has not suddenly been filled with great music that is pushed to the forefront. Instead we have companies that are bigger than anybody, like DISNEY doing the heavy lifting. Aside from those being promoted by the likes of Disney, concert venues mostly seem to book acts that were solid goings before napster came along. I used to be able to turn on the radio to hear new decent music. Now I have to use youtube, blogs or online radio.
While I don't feel anything for the death of the record industry, I DO feel what it will mean for the future of music. Places where people still feel that you can make it big are places where people push themselves hard to succeed, push to be better, push to further their art. But where are those places now? fewer and further...
Lastly: music is LESS appreciated for all the sealing. Music was always flighty, what's in today is gone tomorrow. But that is even more true when the only value placed on the music is the time it took to download and the time to listen to it. When you use money, even a small amount, you are saying 'I value this.'
So, while my rant has gone on too long on prob deaf ears, I encourage you: get rid of your ripped off music. Encourage your friends in whatever subtle ways you can to stop their stealing. That's exactly what it is: Stealing.
As far as harmonica in general players that specialize in it as their main ax a few names come to mind. Larry Adler The Harmonicats Tommy Morgan Robert Bonfiglio John Popper Paul Butterfield Johnny Puleo and his Harmonica Gang Borrah Minevitch
Paul Butterfield was a borderline pop star in the late 1960s. He played Madison Square Garden, for example, along with Janis Joplin, in a famous battle-of the-blues Kings & Queens concert that pissed off black intellectuals. He made a lot of money back then.
We're talking paydays, right?
I'm sure Lee Oskar made even bigger money with War over the years.
Jerry Portnoy pulled down a big paycheck when he toured with Clapton in the FROM THE CRADLE tour.
Tommy Morgan did a lot of studio work on movies and TV shows. I suspect he was one of the two or three most successful studio harmonica players of all time.
I'm sure that Larry Adler did well. Ditto the Harmonicats.
Popper and Stevie Wonder have obviously both done well, but they're singers, songwriters, and front men as well as harmonica players. Huey Lewis belongs in the same category.
i think david barrett and john gindick should be scrutinized for this list. perhaps levy, too. i think one needs to sell something other than music, and teaching is the perfect answer. and do we count adam? being a professor at a major college has to pay fairly well, and he does make money from playing and teaching harp. if his harp campout works out and he starts repeating it....? and isnt teaching going to be a more consistent money maker?
@ phogi "don't understand what it means to remove a mans means of survival." sorry, but I simply don't care, and people who buy a CD don't either. they just care about having music to listen to! It's kinda like the people who complain about CEO's making too much money. If you don't like it, become a CEO! The only constant is change and if you don't roll with the changes you're gonna get left in the dust. (illegal) and legal music downloading is a reality and it's here to stay and I think that ALL musicians who complain about having their music downloaded as stealing are musicians I will NOT listen to or support AT ALL! a musicians should be ever so happy that anybody downloads their music and enjoys it. The reason I didn't go to school for music is because I saw the reality at a young age that there is no money in, ESPECIALLY, classical music and that is because everything is supply and demand, there are WAY too many highly talented and skilled people already. I follow the path of least resistance where few people are willing to go and there is a HIGH barrier to entry, such as a degreed field, with professional licensure.
@ blogward
Who knows - maybe new artists will have concentrate on engaging with smaller audiences again - as Adam does - instead of eyes closed, concentrating on the monitors, trying to reproduce that studio sound in front of 30,000 people who can't see anything but a huge lightshow and paid $$$ for a hotdog
That is the way of the future I think. looking for new avenues that work. Adam is very good at this and is an inspiration. Same with howard levy and david barrett! I think if they sat around complaining they were losing money from people downloading their records they wouldn't see all the opportunities available. Just like Brad Harrison has utilized the recession to find good employees.
Thanks to all the rest so far. I didn't even realize Lee Osker would pop up a lot.
Technology advances are a good news/bad news story for aspiring musicians and the music industry.
The good news is that self publishing your music is finally cheap and easy enough to be a reality for those of average means. Putting up a website, offering samples of your tracks and then the full tracks for sale isn't beyond the average band. In the vinyl days this just wasn't possible. You HAD TO have a record company behind you. There is, of course, still the challenge of getting yourself heard by the masses, if your goal is to make serious money.
The bad news is expected revenue from RECORDED music is bound to be much less than in the past, partly due to lost sales to illegal downloads and partly because technology now allows music fans to purchase a single song very cheaply. Artists will no longer be able to sell us three great tracks and six tracks of filler for $16.99.
So the bottom line is that total upside for future superstar performers might be lower (less revenue from recordings), or they may have to spend more time touring and less time in their 30,000 ft mansions boinking their groupies. But there are more channels through which a fledgling artist can get "discovered". Add in the heavy handedness with which copyright owners wield their power and I've got no sympathy for any of them.
I'm with MAL on this.
phogi: "Why should a talented young kid pursue a life in performance when he knows all his friends will talk a big shit about how great he is, then never give him a buck for his work?"
Right, because there's such a shortage of people trying to break into the music business today.
phogi: "Yes, the record industry deserved to fail. Yes, metallica are whiney rich bitches. But who really pays the price for wholesale stealing? The artists. You. Me."
Really? Which one of your CD's which was going gold but never made it there due to illegal downloads? I'm curious.
As for the original harp $$$ question, Lee Osker does seem like a good answer. But's pretty illuminating that a big chunk of his wealth probably comes from his name on the harps.
Last Edited by on Apr 11, 2010 8:39 AM
You know there was a country artist that I read about who was really successful with a new business model. I can't remember his name, but yes, his revenue came from playing live music. His manager suggested he give away ALL his music ON his website for free. This way the fans will be on his SITE and he can advertise and have much more control. So he started getting lots of buzz going cause he does have GREAT music. And the next step is his concerts. He puts on huge amphitheater type concerts. And he only charges $5-$10 for tickets! What this does is it gets LOTS more people at his concerts cause they all invite their friends, which in turn makes more fans. He's made millions. If you have good music and adapt to the changing times it is still possible I think.
"I can't remember his name, but yes, his revenue came from playing live music. His manager suggested he give away ALL his music ON his website for free."
MAL, I'm convinced this is the music business model of the future (or something close to it). If today the mix is 40% royalties - 40% live gate receipts - 20% merchandise/all other, I'm convinced 20 years from now it's 10% royalties - 70% live gate - 20% merchandise.
"If you have good music and adapt to the changing times it is still possible I think."
@eHarp: Nice try! This thread is about harmonica players who make big money. Much as I'd like to end up in the Major Leagues, I just don't think it's in the cards.
As for Hill Country Harmonica: anybody with a calculator should do the following math:
Gindick's last camp: 30 attendees (more or less) x $995 per attendee = $29,850. He's got coaches, sure, but he's not paying to fly in Billy Branch. His talent cost is considerably lower. I suspect he made a tidy profit. Great! He deserves it. And he probably deserves mention in this thread.
Hill Country Harmonica: It would take 199 attendees x $150 to equal Gindick's gross, and our talent expenses are higher. Plus I have a partner. I'll be happy if I break even. 100 attendees would be fantastic, and I keep hoping.
Jon has 23 instructional books listed on Amazon; he's sold millions of books. I don't have any instructional books. But I do have a few recordings, and three of them are on Rounder, a major independent/folk label. My last mechanical royalty statement from Rounder Records totaled $2.21. Those royalties were rolled over into the royalties from the last three royalty periods, for a total of $10.83. Rounder only pays out royalties when they total $15 or more. If I'm lucky, I'll get a check in about a year. A fifteen-dollar check.
Please, eHarp. Keep it on topic. This thread is about harmonica players who make big money. I'm flattered that you think I deserve mention in the same breath with John Popper, Stevie Wonder, Jon Gindick, Kim Wilson, Lee Oskar, all the guys who are actually making a good living from their playing and teaching (harmonica teaching, that is), but the truth is, I don't deserve mention. That's why I have a day gig.
Last Edited by on Apr 11, 2010 10:18 AM
this has been a very interesting topic,i think ive learned some things,Sorry if i went a little left field some myself,Its been avery stressful weekend,My 7 year old very close niece got the tip of her finger cut off at a softball practice using a pitching machine,and ive had things running though all weekend long i only been asleep about 4 hours in 3 or 4 days worried to death they sowed it back on but we wont know for awhile how its doing,I might have vented more than i should.Michael,you make a good point a local band aroundhere that is pretty good,Is trying to make the next step to touring around 4 states,they been in the studio twice,and they just give there music away,and they have right now around 1400 fans on reverbnation,they are young and want to tour,I was thinking the other day man you guys giving your music away and its studio made,why,but after seeing there fans building up and after what you said its starting to make sence,I just wish they hadnt got rid of me:-)but like i said there not that bad and business is business:-)
Last Edited by on Apr 11, 2010 10:54 AM
To answer your question, the peak was the 60s during the blues revival. That was the first time when white musicians began doing things that the poor black musicians did decades earlier, thus producing similar music(although invariably not the same) that was consumable by the white masses.
There won't be another blues revival and there won't be anymore harmonica players in the public eye. The blues is a type of music that reflected a certain period and consciousness in a people's history, it was out of place for those white guys of the 60s to be doing what they did, but at least it was the first time it happened, to think it would happen again is absurd. The Blues is the farthest thing from the consciousness' of this particular period of time, sorry Michael but you're not going to strike it big no matter how hard you practice.
consider yourself put on the paupers list, adam. lol but the way i see it, you just need to write some instructional books and start expanding your camps. not a far reach, eh? (i can move you back to big bucks list in some future point of time) perhaps quitting your day job could speed the process up.
A few players not mentioned here that have made a pretty good living as harmonica players, including a few for doing tons of studio session work would be Alan "Blackie" Shackner, Toots Thielemans, Charlie McCoy, and Norton Buffalo. Those were all players that never needed a day gig and lived pretty decently on their playing.
When Jerry Portnoy was working with Clapton, I know for a fact he was making more money with Clapton in amonth than he did in less than a year with Muddy, and I know the figure and I'm not telling at all.
Many pros make much lessthan you think. Too many people think every full time pro makes the kind of money musicians in the top 1% of the entire industry makes.
Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the average joe pays more attention to 1,000 mediocre guitar players for every single truly great harmonica player of any genre. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
Hey Barbequebob I think it would be interesting to know the figure and don't understand why you wouldn't disclose. How do the players start getting studio work? Any way, I am sure there are computer modeling that will soon recreate harmonica parts. This has been done for basically all instruments so one guy can quickly make jingles. drums guitar, harp!
@MichaelAndrewLo: You really don't understand why BBQ Bob isn't telling? Hm. I understand without even trying. My hunch is that it's a generational thing, or maybe it's that BBQ came up in a scene dominated by the ethos of the older black players he learned from. Rule #1: You don't put your business in the street. When and if you share sensitive info--and especially financial info--with a member of the brotherhood, it's understood, without anybody having to say, that it's not info to be publicly shared.
But as I say, I suspect that the older generation--and I'll include myself in that generation--has a different ethos than your generation does. You've come of age with the internet spewing information promiscuously, 24/7. You've come up during a time when athletes, including black athletes, aren't just not discreet about what they're getting paid, but bragging about it to all who will listen. If you really don't understand why BBQ Bob would share Jerry Portnoy's closely-kept secret with you and every other harp player on this forum, and if you're still interested in learning the blues from the bottom up, then you should make it your business to learn THAT side of the blues.
Scratch the surface of BBQ's reticence and you'll come very quickly up against racial exploitation: if a black man put his business in the street, bragging publicly about how much he was making, he could be sure that a white man who resented that fact would come along pretty quickly and make trouble with him. And if the white man made trouble with him, things could escalate very quickly in a way that put the black guy at a serious disadvantage, without legal recourse.
BBQ knows this; Portnoy surely knows it from his time with Muddy. I absorbed a fair bit from my time with Sterling Magee. [Sidebar, tangentially related: I remember a few times, after I'd been paid by Sterling out of the tip bucket and had a dollar hanging out of my pocket, somebody in Harlem--usually an older man--would come up to me and whisper in my ear that I should stick that dollar back in my pocket.] Blues people watch each others backs. The culture of 24/7 full disclosure, which I've surely abetted with my three years' worth of giving-it-all-away YouTube lessons, is notably at odds with the longstanding ethos of the blues world. I knew this when I started, and I'm OK with it, but I was also aware that I could potentially be giving younger blues players and students the wrong idea about how the blues world actually works. The truth is, at the higher levels it's a kind of guild or brotherhood of men who know how to keep secrets. I haven't yet done a video about that element of the blues, but perhaps I should.
Last Edited by on Apr 11, 2010 1:13 PM
Sandy- I'm not going to make a fortune playing harp for sure, and I doubt any blues man will, but don't write off the harp. I think it's more likely to be the guys doing something modern with it, and like any band, if they happen to be a front man they are going to get more recognition.
"come of age with the internet spewing information promiscuously, 24/7."
Man isn't that the truth. it's a never ending source of asmusement to me today when another story surfaces about partying kids getting into trouble over something they filmed and put on a website.
Back in the day, our parties were every bit as raucous and debauched, we just didn't film and broadcast them.
That's a good explanation Adam. I do not want to keep that tradition going at all though and think that information should be shared and people can make their own decisions and opinions about it. With the internet the age of enlightenment has come about! Maybe reticence is a part of the blues mystique, but all that stuff surrounding music, the culture, the environment, the image, it matters little to me. I see music as a collection of sounds that express the soul and if certain sounds express me, then that it's purpose. I got part of this from you about finding ways to be innovative and keeping an open mind away from "traditionalism". I think it would be dishonest of me to try to change my habits and opinions to fit a certain "ethos" of the blues world. Nevertheless, I can certainly understand when people do not want to disclose financial matters, it's just not my ethos! As for religion, won't touch that at all!
"Really? Which one of your CD's which was going gold but never made it there due to illegal downloads? I'm curious."
The artists pay the price because they make less money. For most this means the difference between being able to make a living at your craft or having to do something else. You and I pay the price because otherwise talented folks are not going to pursue music because there is no money in it. Why? Ask Andrew, he just answered for me. Who knows, maybe Andrew would have been the best clarinet player the world has ever seen. Now music will be simply his hobby. I've seen this happen to many people. Basically, stealing makes the already sketchy situation of performing for a living into a very sketchy situation.
As for how many people try to make it in the music business, well, hey hobo, that's a good point.
But I'll tell you this: if someone were to walk beak into my house to steal things, they'd get a belly full of lead. I feel the same way about advocating wholesale theft of musicians work. It must be shot down.
@Michael
"I think that ALL musicians who complain about having their music downloaded as stealing are musicians I will NOT listen to or support AT ALL! a musicians should be ever so happy that anybody downloads their music and enjoys it."
In other words, you don't think music is important enough that people who create it deserve a living, not even for a buck for a song you will listen to over and over, while you'll pay 5 dollars for a McD's meal that only sustains your belly for 4 hours?
I know your young, but come on man, listen to yourself!
wow,this topic has got way over my head interesting to say the least,I understand what was said about being to open on the internet,Ive used it as a vent for stress myself,air problems i should just keep to myself,Its like my online therapist,Im like to be honest hell you probelly never actually meet anyone there online,Im going to step back in my little world and go back to bottling things up,I write better songs that way anyways:-)peace guys
by far the biggest money maker is Bob Dylan. Most of all the guys mentioned so far, together, are nowhere near him in sales and wealth. Charlie Sexton, who played rhythm guitar with me in austin, has been with him on and off for awhile and I know that his bigger concert price is more than most of us working stiffs make in 1/2 a year. I know most thing he makes noise on the harp, but record sales don't lie and he inspired a load of guys to blow harp. I was one. I saw a picture of him with that rack and the light went on for me. Years later, Timbuck 3 was doing some recording with him and they turned him on to one of my tapes. He dug it and couldn't believe it was all made up. He never returned the tape. That story was conveyed to me by Pat McDonald. I was speechless. Dylan, one of my heros not so much for harp, but for overall sound and performance. His song flow had me thinking he too was also making it all up. I was suppose to meet him a couple of times but it fell through. That is ok. I will always treasure that story! Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
@ Phogi "In other words, you don't think music is important enough that people who create it deserve a living, not even for a buck for a song you will listen to over and over, while you'll pay 5 dollars for a McD's meal that only sustains your belly for 4 hours?"
I take it you don't use public libraries, buy used books, or rent movies, or borrow movies from a friend? My concern is not supporting somebody or anybody. My concern is getting that product. I could care less whether I am supporting them. If they create a good product I will listen to it, or read it. I don't care how I get. The truth is downloading, youtube, and friends who wanna send me all their music files or burn me a CD are options to get that music instead of me having to buy it. And buying food is not the same because just because one Big Mac is made doesn't mean it will feed the whole world from that one production of a sandwhich. It's more like live music, ya I'll pay for that and I do, because it is made fresh for me each time! Just like a meal (not that mcdonalds is healthy or fresh. Please refrain, I feel strongly about THAT!)..
Last Edited by on Apr 11, 2010 7:05 PM
I stress a point that if you are very good at your craft then people will & should pay for your talent. Paying for concerts, appearances, recording sessions, CDs, downloads, seminars, teaching , whatever, it has cost the artist serious time and money to get where they are, and if they are good then the rewards must come. If they are not getting compensated then don't blame all the changes in the music industry for your woes as the buck stops with the artist.
Being good however IMHO does not simply mean being a great player but also encompasses other areas ie especially having an understanding of how business works and applying it. In fact I would go as far to say that business acumen is first and foremost in being successful in any endeavour.
In the past the recording industry giants provided the business acumen but also over controlled and overcharged. It's all changed and will keep changing but there is nothing to fear about the future.The only place I see for 'free' downloads is for samples from emerging artists. I fully support the stamping out of illegal downloads of good music from established artists. It is stealing and should carry the heaviest of penalties.
@ Phogi "Who knows, maybe Andrew would have been the best clarinet player the world has ever seen. Now music will be simply his hobby. I've seen this happen to many people. Basically, stealing makes the already sketchy situation of performing for a living into a very sketchy situation."
Actually I thought long and hard when I was 17/18 about what I would do in my life and how it would look in 5-10 years. I had the foresight to realize that paying $20,000 (I get a big scholarship at a $90,000 school) would still set me back enough that I would be working a unskilled job to pay that back while honing my skills and auditioning for dwindling orchestra jobs. Basically, I just wanna play music and do NOT want to take a boring music job just to pay the bills. Now, my plan is almost in completion at age 22. I got my nursing (RN) degree and this allows me a LOT of freedom and (1) I do not have to struggle to pay the bills (2) I have a shitload of freedom and (3) working part time only takes 2 days out of a week (2 12 hour shifts) and then I have 5 days to practice my ass off and play music as much as possible and not be pressured to "earn a living" playing music. I will soon be setup to have A LOT more time to develop into mastery on harp. This wouldn't have been possible if I went to a conservatory. If I would never become anything on clarinet it was from my own lack of interest and motivation, not any external situations.
Musicians make their money performing live anyway. I cant think of any artist or group who has made any real significant amounts of cash off of CD sales in the last 10 years. Our own Jason Ricci tours 300 days a year... why? cuz thats where the money is...not from mooching dubbed CD's out the trunk of a car, Amazon, or even at Wal Mart.
a CD costs 15-20 bucks, of which that cash is divvy'd up into so many folks hands, its not even funny. If I make it big? Im selling as many seats as i can for the cheapest price ticket master will let me get away with.
I WOULD give my music away for free on the internet, ID BEAT THE THIEVES TO THE PUNCH! because they arent going away, theyre growing, multiplying, in fact... and thats just a fact, not gonna change. ever...
id give it away so as many folks could hear it as possible...all so i could sell the most seats i could, at a place where id make my REAL money...performing live.
Am i wrong? why would the rolling stones tour when theyre all geriatric if there wasnt a boatload of cash in it?
MichaelAndrewLo has raised a significant point here, and he and phogi strongly disagree. Since I'm a college teacher and do such things out of habit, I found myself wondering which perspective was closer to a blues perspective of the sort that August Wilson might thematize.
Blues is, after all, about getting paid. It's nothing if not that. It's also about getting ripped off--usually by somebody white. I'm thinking here of Wilson's "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom" and "Seven Guitars." Both plays feature black blues artists who end up either dead, or murdering somebody, because they don't deal skillfully with the rageful, helpless feelings evoked in them by being ripped off by a white music industry person. Those two plays make several larger points: 1) selfishness is an ever-present danger in individuals, black and white, and something that needs to be resisted as part of the journey into individual and collective maturity; and 2) the community is important; its needs are important, too, and it survives the reckless individualist. Wilson's plays are tragicomic. The bluesman suffers a tragedy for having not learned the lesson, but there was no way that he could have gotten things right, considering that he was the product of a people who have been deprived of the rightful fruit of their (musical) labors for so long. And there's a comedy in the way the community pulls together in the aftermath of the individual's downfall.
MAL is determined to get paid, as it were, even if it means that the artist doesn't. He's gonna get his. "Get that music!" Let the artist fend for himself
phogi is determined that the artist should get paid.
MAL is willing to be an outlaw in order to get that music. So is Wilson's Floyd Barton. He robs somebody towards the end. He ends up being murdered, too. Outlawry carries penalties, or may. But of course some laws are illegitimate and one may be an outlaw because one is engaging in civil disobedience. People who engage in civil disobedience, though, are quite up front about what they're doing, and they're willing to go to jail. I don't think that MAL wants to go to jail or suffer penalties for his beliefs here. (Correct me if I'm wrong, MAL.) He wants his cake and he wants to eat it too. The world is often unkind to people like that, and dramatic literature is particularly unkind. Human societies only survive if there's at least a modicum of altruism and spiritual generosity circulating through them.
phogi, on the other hand, wants the artist to get paid. (So do I, BTW.) Given the way that the music distribution system has changed, his perspective seems to hope that a combination of the honor system and harsh penalties for piracy will keep the dike from dissolving in our hands. And he views MAL's perspective as the worst sort of selfishness.
MAL views his own perspective, by contrast, as both worldly and grounded. It's a rough, cruel world out there, and its important--Ayn Rand style--for each individual to act in a way that maximizes pleasure and economic return.
When I was growing up, my family would occasionally take drives out into the country. Sometimes you'd be driving along a country road and you'd see an apple or pumpkin stand with lots of product, but without any shopkeeper in attendance. There's be a little lock-box, or sometimes, amazingly, a bowl of some sort, and it would have sign reading "apples: 10 cents each." You were supposed to take your apple, or apples, and leave the right amount of money."
That is the honor system. I was always amazed that it worked. But it seemed to work. Or at least it worked in that part of the country. It wouldn't have worked in the city. People would have said, "I'm getting mine" and taken the apples, the money, AND the empty chair.
I think that the blues subculture--something we all de facto belong to now--should and does cultivate a bit of the honor system, which is to say a set of values that don't automatically default to naked self-interest. This is, for example, the spirit that moves blues musicians to engage in fundaisers for Katrina, or to help Candy Kayne when she was suffering from cancer. I'm not quite sure how this spirit works when you cross-pollinate it with the present state of digital music distribution, but perhaps it means that we place a positive value on helping to support good musicians and good music teachers, and that we do so by, when possible, giving a little more rather than taking a little more.
Obviously this ethos stands to support my own endeavors, but it also governs the way I live my life. I know how tough the musician's life is. I've struggled to get paid my own royalties, but yesterday, amazingly, I got a check for more than $200 from Rounder for CD and digital download sales during the past six months. For 13 years, Satan and Adam got NO royalties of that sort. I finally got mad a couple of years ago and managed to set things right. Amazingly, the new royalties person at Rounder was equally determined to set things right.
In any case, I thank each and every one of you who has purchased S&A's music through legitimate channels. You're helping to finance the next album. That royalty check will go directly towards the cost of mastering the album.
Last Edited by on Apr 12, 2010 4:57 AM
When it comes to making money/being paid for playing recording music, I always ask this of the ones that want it for free.
Why don't you take your salary and just tear it up? Or better yet, give it to people that really need it?
A musician that plays full time is a whole different scenario than the hobbiests that dominate these forums. They play to eat, like most of us work to eat. It will be bad mojo on you if you rip off music/musicians and then try to play an instrument. Your life will be unhappy. Stealing brings sadness. I am no longer full time, but I can tell you getting ripped off stinks. Like Adam, I never received a penny in royalties for the 2 albums I recorded. They were done in europe and SABAM never sent me a dime.
Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
First off, since we are dealing with Copyright issues, the secret to making a lot of money from the music industry is to become a lawyer. Lawyers make money, musicians not so much...
Adam, I like your view on the discussion, but I think it is two-sided. If nothing had changed since the early 1900s, and we had the same technology for getting music out and we had the same laws which protect cultural works, then the two-sided view would be valid.
But it's not one side versus the other. There is a third party.
But the truth is, the "middle man" doesn't need to be there anymore to both get the music out to the audience and for the artist top get paid. The music industry is holding its position through "artificial" means and both the artists and the public are paying the price. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
I would love to pay the artist for what they do for me. The rest of the music industry does nothing for me, but they get most of the money...
Last Edited by on Apr 12, 2010 5:52 AM
this is my last post at this M.B.H forum you can delete my name or what ever.I dont know alot about the history of blues,But i do know its more than money and race,or music Granted blacks started singing blues they started it yes. and they might of been broke and pissed about how whites treated them,and all the way back to the slave days,but its more than that,it goes so much more deeper,its allmost a religion,of oneself,something pesonal,you cant put a price on it.it aint for sale,Every thing your guys are saying is material,that has been developed around it.You old cats should know this if you havent firgured that out you probelly never will,You can be the best harp or guitar or bass player whatever in the world at sounding like a bluesman and still not get it if you dont know.Its a gift and a curse its the ying yang of what you feel in your soul.I cant believe what ive read from some people that play better than i will ever play,but dont seem to know.Maybe im letting the cat out of the bag so to speak,Im sure someone out there knows what im saying call me crazy,i probelly am,Its for those who know,And if you dont know you might learn it,It cant be taught,or bought it can be found.To say its anything else is degrading not only blacks but all true blues men ,peace
Last Edited by on Apr 12, 2010 6:29 AM
