Is Music today more of a rich mans game ?
Post replyTuesday 31 Jan 2017, 7:26pm
I mean when the number of working class or dole class rock bands making it to the top is virtually down to zero and loads of celbrity ofspring have found a niche as pop icons over the last twenty years or so , plus a lot of todays top pop stars seem to have come from well off pedigree backgrounds. I'm not talking about manifactured x factor pop I'm talking about artists who want to do their own thing.
then there are these songwriting contest which charge you loads of sheets etc.
Comparing 2017 to 1977 for example is it tougher for bands without finanicial backing a comfertable background to sustain them as they try to make it then it was back in the 70s.
TD
Wednesday 1 Feb 2017, 10:22am
It's all ways been hard to make it, and money has always helped to achieve.
e.g. digital age and social media, home PC studio software, cheep instruments and gear (cheep gear in the past was unplayable)
if anything I would say it's easier to make it these days, now when I say easier I mean easier and not easy.
Now the phrase "Make it"... what is making it for some it's playing their first gig, or writing their first song that gets noticed.
but if you think a recording contract and a single in the charts is making it (i.e. the holly grail for some) then you are probably looking at a 1:1,000,000 chance.
and playing what YOU like does not get you as far as it should but playing what an audience wants gets you further. the rest is a lotto.
Wednesday 1 Feb 2017, 2:02pm
I see what you're saying. Another thought is that however someone gets big, they will be hated.
Wednesday 1 Feb 2017, 3:04pm
Yeah the green eyed monster has a better hold of people these days.
In the 60's and 70's (in fact 80's too) if you played an instrument people were more supportive or impressed, but now the first comment is "So" or you don't play as well as "####".
This is the attitude that has killed bands playing original material, now you have to play covers to get a gig and if you are a tribute.............. the new demigods.
The other thing (now you've got me started) free music downloads (e.g. ripping the mp3 off youtube video's) has rendered music with virtually no value, so they don't pay for CD or live gigs. same with buying individual tracks not the album.
Ok I'll get back in my box
Wednesday 1 Feb 2017, 3:59pm
Probably worthy of a new thread but big artists need to take the power back( those that don't rely on a label, production house, team of writers and hush hush session people to sing their parts in the studio) Don't renew contracts ,sell on iTunes and amazon, monitor digital media and inform google of copyright infringement. I was reading the guardian online and there's a begging bowl section at the end of each page now " we have more readers than ever before but revenue is down 50%," well duh same for the BBC, why are businesses surprised that when they decide to give away their product takings are down? If I played weddings for nothing I'd have 150 plus gigs a year but I wouldn't be scratching my head as to why there was no food on the table.
Monday 13 Feb 2017, 1:43pm
In short yes it is a rich man's game or maybe rich kid's game. There was an interesting interview with Julie Walters recently who said that ways for working class people to make it in acting are being closed off to them too. College fees, grants and bursaries disappearing, less opportunities, the old boy network working against them in castings. I think this is happening across the arts with it's own particular take in music. In music remember the reason the Beatles were such a sensation was partly due to their "four working class lads who shook the world" appeal oh and great musicianship too of course. But the reason they were portrayed as such was that in the UK our home grown "rock'n'roll" acts were strictly middle class, twee, nonthreatening and basically poor pastiches of American performers.Working class bands did not get the breaks until the Beatles paved the way. Later Punk (well maybe not the Clash, about as working class as Eton and Charterhouse!) as a musical and social movement from the street terrified the powers that be with it's lack of deferment, energy and can-do attitudes. Now we seem to have success based on freak/talent show mentality rather than originality, passion, hard work and effort. And what's happening in music.seems to be that a lot of bands who achieve mainstream success through avenues apart from TV shows are coming from a public school/music college/wealthy background. Fair dues if they've got the talent but their successes should not have us forget the easy ride they have getting to the top. But today so many acts that are doing well have a history with rich parents there to wipe financial bloody noses and provide support through the skint early days and harder times which might just see off those bands without such support. Many new successful performers also have the advantage of contacts within the entertainment industry where nepotism is so rife. Most major movie stars and music stars to emerge in the last 25 years have already some family interest in the industry. They start with the great advantage of money combined with knowledge and the reputation of their forebears or whoever opens doors for them. So when an act like the Arctic Monkeys comes along it's like a blast of fresh air (not my type of music but I can see why they appealed to many) similarly the popularity of rap and its related forms as expression is not fully accepted by the mainstream...it's one of the few ways working class kids can succeed in music without wealthy parents or contacts to back them up. If you think this blocking off of pathways and reduced opportunities is only happening in music have a look round...it's happening everywhere in every industry. Rant over, have a good day people.
Wednesday 15 Feb 2017, 11:28am
[quote="Not too old to rock"]In short yes it is a rich man's game or maybe rich kid's game. There was an interesting interview with Julie Walters recently who said that ways for working class people to make it in acting are being closed off to them too. College fees, grants and bursaries disappearing, less opportunities, the old boy network working against them in castings. I think this is happening across the arts with it's own particular take in music. In music remember the reason the Beatles were such a sensation was partly due to their "four working class lads who shook the world" appeal oh and great musicianship too of course. But the reason they were portrayed as such was that in the UK our home grown "rock'n'roll" acts were strictly middle class, twee, nonthreatening and basically poor pastiches of American performers.Working class bands did not get the breaks until the Beatles paved the way. Later Punk (well maybe not the Clash, about as working class as Eton and Charterhouse!) as a musical and social movement from the street terrified the powers that be with it's lack of deferment, energy and can-do attitudes. Now we seem to have success based on freak/talent show mentality rather than originality, passion, hard work and effort. And what's happening in music.seems to be that a lot of bands who achieve mainstream success through avenues apart from TV shows are coming from a public school/music college/wealthy background. Fair dues if they've got the talent but their successes should not have us forget the easy ride they have getting to the top. But today so many acts that are doing well have a history with rich parents there to wipe financial bloody noses and provide support through the skint early days and harder times which might just see off those bands without such support. Many new successful performers also have the advantage of contacts within the entertainment industry where nepotism is so rife. Most major movie stars and music stars to emerge in the last 25 years have already some family interest in the industry. They start with the great advantage of money combined with knowledge and the reputation of their forebears or whoever opens doors for them. So when an act like the Arctic Monkeys comes along it's like a blast of fresh air (not my type of music but I can see why they appealed to many) similarly the popularity of rap and its related forms as expression is not fully accepted by the mainstream...it's one of the few ways working class kids can succeed in music without wealthy parents or contacts to back them up. If you think this blocking off of pathways and reduced opportunities is only happening in music have a look round...it's happening everywhere in every industry. Rant over, have a good day people.[/quote]
Some excellent insight there!
I personally know one or two people trying to break into the industry who fall into that category, musically as bland as tapioca boiled to a mush, diluted, boiled and diluted again.... these people just have money, they know the price of everything but the value of nothing, 'all the gear and no idea' would sum them up.
Another way they make contacts is to attend 'musical retreat' residential courses run by various industry folk that now have to make their money in other ways since the arse has dropped out of the business..... there are MANY doing it now as it can pay better than production work, most of the 'big gun' producers do workshops free online but also do more intimate courses in highly expensive locations. I personally know someone who has paid thousands to attend some of them, they learn absolutely nothing from them but have made quite a few contacts over the years.
Part of the reason is that the more working class bands tend to have more emotion, feel, groove, vibe, call it what you will, is the hunger and drive to improve their lot in life..... compare the sex pistols/the blockheads to coldplay/lilly allen it's like comparing a vindaloo to the boiled down tapioca! Essentially they tend to be less emotionally repressed.
If one comes from a comfortable social situation then the likelihood of that drive seems to diminish.... of course there are exceptions as with most things in life, one of the best guitarists i've ever known springs to mind but as a generalisation this seems to be the case....
(stands back and waits for the flaming to start)
Wednesday 15 Feb 2017, 3:31pm
Good points and some valuble insight , Von Funker. Not too old Rock you the nail on the head this is something that is effecting all art forms , I wonder if it's just a UK thing though ?
I guess we can say Adele's success at the Gramey's is an exception but then the woman has difficulty performing live I wonder if that is the symptom of the age when a lot of top artists gained their fame through the internet as pose to playing live.
I wonder if working or dole class kids give a toss about rock music since it has turned into such an elite club and self congatulatory club I can see why many favour R&B and Rap derived music instead of Rock.
TD
Sunday 19 Feb 2017, 10:32pm
yes, absolutely. I paid £919 just for a guitar and that's no where enough to get started, I also paid £80 for a metal pedal, not to mention cables, picks, strings and skipped on an amp to try and shortcut a bit more using my Scarelt pre amp and laptop to record/process/edit etc it all adds up and is especially harder if you are NOT working at all, I'm on benefit of £250 a month and a lot of time I have to go without if I run out as parents don't give me cash but instead try and help me to work for myself, i hope to see how it pans out. there just isn't any jobs out there or I swear that they get filled internally or by immigrants, everyone else is on the outside looking in...... at least I am... only the rich kids are able to produce these seamless amazing production video and music which people eat up because that is the standard we aspire to and want to set, but can't without similar (expensive) setups
but like any hobby, the best thing you can do in my opinion, is invest money first then put in the time later when it all just "works". it;s like the running without running shoes concept. you can do it but it's not going to be a nice experience and will impede progress to that of someone wearing running shoes.
everything is a tool, even a PC/laptop , very rarely do I use my laptop for "fun and games" im checking my emails, facebook, searching for jobs constantly etc, without laptop i have to travel a mile into town to the same thing on a public computer, intention is the same.. without tools you can't do the things you want to do... money invested in music software like FLstudio to easily input what's in your head, that's a good investment, many rich or working people have lots of opportunity to make better music than everyone else, depending on what your viewpoint is, the popular bands are the best because they are obviously people that came from privilege, it's a no brainer , this is why black metal is garbage, everyone knows it sucks unless there is something mentally wrong with you. recording on mobiles from the 90's to make deliberate nasty quality, can't expect majority of people to like that stuff.
Monday 20 Feb 2017, 5:04pm
The main difference between 2017 and 1977 is that in the seventies there were more venues to play. But even in those days "cabaret acts" were on the decline because it was much cheaper for a club to hire a DJ and play records than to get a band in.
I recently watched a documentary about Les Dawson. Even in the fifties and early sixties, despite being on radio a few times, he was all set to pack it in. Plus he was working a day job. It was only after he got an Opportunity Knocks audition that he was persuaded to carry it on - that based on his comedy piano routine. But even after making his first TV series he was still living in a bungalow and trying to scrape a living.
Also, for a long time the record labels were controlled by A&R men. So, not only did you have to play the clubs (ad infinitum) you had to offer "something different". Plus you had to get radio play. Hence, the A&R men and radio stations had an effective monopoly on the industry.
After Napster and the boom in home recording, all that changed. It's never been easier to write, record and release your own music. The problem now is that practically anyone can make a record or put a band together. That means that "the market" is over saturated, and whilst there may be a lot of good stuff, there's also a lot of dross which you have to "wade through" to find it.
Also, without naming names, we've also had the "ironic pop star" phenomenon - particularly in Indie rock music - where the less musically able someone is the more marketable they become. Then, not surprisingly, people will see that and say "I can do that", so toddle off down the guitar shop and buy an epiphone dot and a combo. If they don't give up within a few months, they try to start a band. When the band thing doesn't happen (because that style of music is now dated because of the "next big thing") they get frustrated.
So the question is: does "making it" mean earning a living, or does it mean "being famous". Clearly, the former takes a certain amount of shrewdness and tactics, whilst the latter (without any innate talent or strategy) is very vapid and narcissistic.
Nowadays, yes there are a few bars and clubs which will take the risk, but it is much harder to make a living from doing just that. Obviously people make a living through YouTube, but that means you have to upload new content regularly and "have something interesting to say". I know a session violinist, but she tends to make more money through teaching - otherwise, she's waiting for the phone to ring. And if it doesn't...
Report post
Latest Featured Ads
- Bass player looking for new project (Rayleigh)
- Guys and Gals Help Put Our Shattered Band Back Together. (Hull / York / Selby)
- DRUMMER for band with label interest + 2 albums worth (London)
- Vocalist & Bass Player Wanted - Indie, Alternative Rock (Bishop's Stortford)
- Musicians wanted for Electro/Synth Pop project (Nottingham)
Looking for band members?
Advertise on Join My Band for FREE and find musicians in your area!
Place a Free AdCopyright © Join My Band 2024. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookie Policy.