Equipment hire, business idea advice needed.

[Eddy Deegan]

I'd argue it's not the 'same difference'.
Why do we create? To make music* or to make money?

Only the Sith..

I think many people creates to try to do both.

It’s often a secret or untold aspiration because the odds of failure are huge, and few like to be seen as failures - especially by themselves.

Making a living doing something you love is very right, and one of the ways to happinesss, while making a living with something you don’t care much about is hell on earth.

I feel that music-making is an essential component in my life, but much as I would be delighted if some random use of anything I wrote appeared in something in the wider public ear, at the same time I dread the possibility.

When I was a professional musician I mainly played live but I also did a (now lost to obscurity) film soundtrack and a few jingles on a commercial basis. I hated those experiences with a passion. Both were 'successful' in that I had happy clients but as soon as commercialism and music mix I'm looking for an exit ASAP. I'd much rather finish a novel I started-but-parked some years ago and have that published.

I exclude self-promotion/selling on bandcamp (which I'm planning to do in the not too distant) from that, but that's OK because I'm dealing with myself. My ideal compromise would be to have something on bandcamp achieve wider recognition, but nothing more than that.

[CS70]

When I was a professional musician I mainly played live but I also did a (now lost to obscurity) film soundtrack and a few jingles on a commercial basis. I hated those experiences with a passion. Both were 'successful' in that I had happy clients but as soon as commercialism and music mix I'm looking for an exit ASAP.

I exclude self-promotion/selling on bandcamp (which I'm planning to do in the not too distant) from that, but that's OK because I'm dealing with myself.

Well, but isn't that because you connect "commercialism" with "having to be constrained"? I mean if I were playing in a cover band I'd make much more money, but I'd be bored to death.

But what of the Springsteens, the Simons, the U2s, the Knoplfers, heck, the Beatleses - that after a initial notoriety boot, got the freedom to do pretty much as they pleased. No commercial _pressure_ but just financial returns to keep doing what you love when and how you want it.

I wouldn't find that scary at all.

[Eddy Deegan]

Well, but isn't that because you connect "commercialism" with "having to be constrained"? I mean if I were playing in a cover band I'd make much more money, but I'd be bored to death.

I played in a pub band that did covers for some years and I really enjoyed it, though we did pick a wide range of source material (Ginger Baker, Boston, Huey Lewis, Van Halen, Journey, Faith No More, Mr. Big, Blondie and more).

When working professionally it was almost all original material and I loved that more (my first bandcamp release will be an album of some of those original tracks, albeit multitracked in a duo that followed the full line-up) which our very own Elf remastered for me recently.

There is little to compare with the joy of playing original material in a well-rehearsed tight, good band to a crowd who know your stuff well enough that if another band did it it would be a cover. I'll concede I miss that.

But what of the Springsteens, the Simons, the U2s, the Knoplfers, heck, the Beatleses - that after a initial notoriety boot, got the freedom to do pretty much as they pleased. No commercial _pressure_ but just financial returns to keep doing what you love when and how you want it.

I wouldn't find that scary at all.

Nor would I, but in order to get to that point one would have to break through a lot of BS barriers, these days especially, and I'm just not up for it. I'm now at the age where its my way or the highway and musically I'm simply not prepared to compromise, for better or worse.

I felt much the same way in my late 20s after the main band work, which is why I started 'proper' jobs, which ultimately resulted in a lot more freedom for me to do what I want musically. I wouldn't seek to change that now, only to strive to get better at it

[CS70]

Nor would I, but in order to get to that point one would have to break through a lot of BS barriers, these days especially, and I'm just not up for it. I'm now at the age where its my way or the highway and musically I'm simply not prepared to compromise, for better or worse.

I felt much the same way in my late 20s after the main band work, which is why I started 'proper' jobs, which ultimately resulted in a lot more freedom for me to do what I want musically. I wouldn't seek to change that now

Oh I get you perfectly well , and that's another issue that stop us well over 20 to get seriously in the game. But almost no matter which field you chose, when you start you've got to go thru some degree of BS.. I mean, even Steve Jobs did. Very few outside North Korea get directly the top job.

Often when you're 20 you don't see it as BS, but just as the way things are. By the time you're 40 or 50, things are - well - resulting in a lot more freedom in music as well (if you are successful, of course, just like in any other field).

I think lots of people who make music - especially younger people but not only - hold a secret desire of commercial success in some form. Ars gratia artis and all that , but isn't it fun if someone actually listens? (other than your mom, that is ). But since these desires are almost certainly to be quashed, and worse, people know it, it's painful even to think about it, and many people simply do what humans do best to keep together - build an illusion and work hard at keeping it up. Can't have it, so I don't like it, it's irrelevant, or it's a bad thing (gee, religions have built on that mechanism for millennia). Sometimes - like Arpangel mentioned earlier - are the people who for some reason aren't aware of the odds that try seriously anyways, and some of them have the luck to succeed.

[Eddy Deegan]

I hear you. I think there are a couple of things entwined in that though, not all of them musical. One thing about 'proper jobs' is that you're turning a profit all the while which makes BS that little bit easier to tolerate (and I endured a lot of it back in the day).

The other is the 'ramping down' of expectation as you get older. When I was in my 20s things like band politics or world affairs were pretty much non-existent to me as considerations. I just got along with everyone, somehow. The older I got the more opinionated I got and the more I valued my time, which is both good and bad but a natural progression I suspect.

I came to understand the BS that would be involved in 'breaking through' more, and eschewed it on an incremental basis to the point I reject it now.

I get a lot of satisfaction out of my SoundCloud account, random likes and comments please me - not because I'm explicitly seeking to achieve them, more as a side effect of doing what I'm doing. If I like something I wrote then I am naturally gratified if someone else does. I don't need it, it's just nice for me because I get a feeling that I'm sharing a little bit of my own joy of it with someone else.

I have also got a lot of feel-good out of collaborating a little bit of late (though that's very recent - for years I was extremely isolated by choice) and the fact that I've got getting on for 30 tracks on SC now means that for most people who would like anything I do there's something there for them.

I am an 'honest' SoundClouder in that I will not follow anyone I don't geuinely like. There's plenty of folk out there who will network promiscuously for followers but I treat it much like I do my LinkedIn account and gatekeep it furiously. Quality over quantity.

I think that model has inherent limitations in terms of exposure but I'm fine with that. A long standing and dear friend of mine who is far more well known and works with a household name artist has often moaned to me on the phone that they feel obligated to 'do the networking' thing and as a result has thousands and thousands of 'fans' with whom they have no real connection. That's not for me.

[CS70]

A long standing and dear friend of mine who is far more well known and works with a household name artist has often moaned to me on the phone that they feel obligated to 'do the networking' thing and as a result has thousands and thousands of 'fans' with whome they have no real connection. That's not for me.

That would be far more boring than a cover band!

[Eddy Deegan]

A long standing and dear friend of mine who is far more well known and works with a household name artist has often moaned to me on the phone that they feel obligated to 'do the networking' thing and as a result has thousands and thousands of 'fans' with whome they have no real connection. That's not for me.

That would be far more boring than a cover band!

The networking part, for sure. But it's the inevitable result of doing what they love, which is performing (and they are very good at it). I think there's a big grey area between becoming well known and being accepted as part of the furniture.

When you hit well-known, you have to do the PR/self-marketing/networking thing. Once you're part of the furniture nobody expects you to (indeed, they delight if you deign to). Of course it would be nice to be on the other side of that chasm but getting there ... therein lies the rub.

Referencing some sentiments earlier in this thread, I'd say that these days that is harder than it used to me. I'd posit that were several folk on this forum to jump in a time machine and transport back to 1976 with the knowledge and context they have now, that they would rocket to the heights of fame but if you think about the 'superstars' over the years they are either exceptionally good combinations of exceptionally talented musicians or have an image that appeals to da yoof.

The former will always succeed - they still do. The latter come and go, some longer than others. It's a cliche I know but I firmly believe that in 100 years (assuming we're all still here) people will be listening to Zep and Queen like we do Mozart today. Metallica, Guns 'n Roses, Van Halen, AC/DC, Motorhead etc. quite likely. Muse, Madonna, Jackson etc. probably. Lady Gaga, not so much, I'm guessing. Not to diss any of them, more power to their elbows but as time rolls on there will be more and more to contend with if you want to get long-standing attention.

It's so much more about image and less about music as time goes on, at least the way I see it. Image is of its time, good music is far more enduring.

[CS70]

The networking part, for sure. But it's the inevitable result of doing what they love,

Hitting the nail, actually. The earlier model required you to prostitute, for a time, to a limited set of people. Not differently than having a "regular" job, if you like. Now people feel like they have to do it to many strangers, many times a week. Not so sure it's an improvement.

I wouldn't say it's "inevitable" tough. It's certainly the mainstream strategy nowadays, but since everybody's following it, it doesn't really yield crazy results - there's only so much interest to go around, and interest is the currency of art becoming commercially viable (aka a source of good livelihood).

There's others, but it's too long to write about them here.. but one point worth raising is that the world is far more random than we think. We make stories (after the fact) on how we or others achieved this and how all is a nicely laid out cause-effect mechanism.. and that and some of it has some trace or truth but a lot of it is simply probability at work on very large sets of numbers.

which is performing (and they are very good at it). exceptionally good combimations of exceptionally talented musicians or have an image that appeals to da yoof.

The former will always succeed - they still do.

I may be a little pessimistic, but I don't think so. I know personally at least half a dozen of very, very capable musicians which don't succeed regardless of their quite awesome musical skills. Again, going into the whys and hows is too long and it'd be just my opinion, but it takes more than skill - in everything.

The latter come and go, some longer than others. It's a cliche I know but I firmly believe that in 100 years (assuming we're all still here) people will be listening to Zep and Queen like we do Mozart today. Muse, Madonna, Jackson etc. probably. Lady Gaga, not so much, I'm guessing. Not to diss any of them, more power to their elbows but as time rolls on there will be more and more to contend with if you want to get long-standing attention.

I honestly don't know. Look at the Beatles.. loads of kids nowadays don't know and don't care. Myself, while liking certain tracks, I have never been a super fan - if I had to choose, I'd rather pick Queen, for example.

And, we are Savannah animals: we are built to focus on our local time and space. Even being aware of it, it's very hard to get out of that bubble. Who survives in society's memory may be as random as lots of other stuff: Vivaldi and his work was forgotten for centuries, the most known pharaoh was a rather insignificant one, the Monna Lisa notoriety is entirely a social construction. .. the list goes on. Or maybe not of course, don't know. We live here and now tough, and in the end of the day to part of us all it matters little what was before and what will be after.. which brings me back to the "commercial success" desire.

[Drew Stephenson]

I'd argue it's not the 'same difference'.
Why do we create? To make music* or to make money?

Only the Sith..

I think many people creates to try to do both.

It’s often a secret or untold aspiration because the odds of failure are huge, and few like to be seen as failures - especially by themselves.

Making a living doing something you love is very right, and one of the ways to happinesss, while making a living with something you don’t care much about is hell on earth.

Very true, but if i didn't make any music i would still need to earn money, but if i didn't need to earn money i would still make music.
I think one thing that will happen over the next couple of decades is that we'll see many more hybrid roles created in all kinds of industries. It's happening in some already.
People won't just have one job title, like 'project manager', they'll be a 'change manager' and be part project manager, part business analyst, part system designer etc. Etc.
It's happening with my old role (project management) and my job now; i was brought in to run the staff magazine and look after our intranet and written communications. Now i'm making videos, running training courses, writing music for events on one hand, and managing a dozen different spreadsheets and their constituents on the other.
After a fairly long period of relatively steady innovation, the last couple of decades have become very disruptive. The next couple are probably going to be more so.
There's a utopia out there, and a dystopia too, and a probable course wandering somewhere between the two. This will have a profound effect on how creators and consumers interact and how we approach the concepts of careers and arts and a whole bunch of other stuff.

[CS70]

Very true, but if i didn't make any music i would still need to earn money, but if i didn't need to earn money i would still make music.

Ah my friend, because you need to make music! Money feeds your stomach, music feeds your spirit.

And yeah, very interesting times.

[hobbyist]

I'd argue it's not the 'same difference'.
Why do we create? To make music* or to make money? If the answer is music, then the market is functioning brilliantly - more content is being produced than ever before, and the idea that most of it is junk just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is a huge amount of brilliant stuff being produced all over the globe on a daily basis.
If the answer is 'to make money' then art has never been a good way of doing it.
Financial success in the arts has always been the preserve of a tiny fraction of a percentage, what the new tools have given us is the ability for everyone to have a go, not just a lucky few.
The idea that there was some golden age before the internet came along has never stood up to real scrutiny (unless you're a major label of course), the difference is that now, if you don't make it with a label, you have the chance to do it yourself.
The label I was with stopped trading, not because of the internet, but because they didn't have a good enough business model and they didn't execute well enough on it.
In the pre-internet era that would have been it for me, recording wise. Instead I can carry on doing my stuff and creating, sharing, and yes, selling, my music. It ain't much, but it's more than I could have done before.

The market(s) has been disrupted, major encumbents frequently didn't react well, and hence it's taking a long time for new models to establish themselves. And that sucks if you were part of the old market, but it's what happens.
* Or photography or film or literature or any other art.

I think I said: for making a living. If you do it for fun then things are okay as long as you dont expect to become famous. You might be the odds are very very long against that.

You may not think that most of it is junk, whether music photog or writing, but in my view the amount of crud is massive and hides the few good things making them harder to find.

Art was never that good, but photography, and writing used to be much easier and better to make money doing. Music may have been the same; I was not involved with that back when.

Not talking about publishers or record producers but in context of the individual person trying to succeed.

YMMV but that is what I see having happened.

[Eddy Deegan]

I think I said: for making a living. If you do it for fun then things are okay as long as you dont expect to become famous. You might be the odds are very very long against that.
...

Music may have been the same; I was not involved with that back when.

Not talking about publishers or record producers but in context of the individual person trying to succeed.

Depending on how long ago you're talking about, I was there and tried exactly that. Early 1990s making a living doing live work with an established, if not famous, rock band and knocking out stuff as an individual on the side in the soundtrack and jingles departments. Our crowds were reliable and repeatable and resulted in a (basic but viable at the time) living for 6 people but those crowds were in the 100s, not the 1000s (with one or two specific event exceptions).

I could have opted to continue doing it but 1/40 of a millennia ago in the early 90s it wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. The gear we had to work with was hugely compromised compared to now. Less so if Mummy was related to the queen or Daddy owned a brewery but even serious money couldn't compete with Reaper on a modest laptop these days. There was no WWW, 8 tracks were a luxury outside of very expensive studios and we physically sent out hundreds of photocopied newletters a month in the post to keep our crowds warm.

If now I had the energy, image and drive that I had then and wanted to do it I think I'd have as good a go at most at it, but at my age (and for the last 2 decades) I'd have to sacrifice a bunch of things I don't want to sacrifice to do it. That and the fact I have none of the energy, image and drive for mainstream recognition any more renders the point moot. Apart from which I 'grew up' and having lived the dream for a while I got practical and got a paying job ... neither the first nor the last of many but those intervening years of on-the-road chaotic musical freedom are precious memories.

I probably wouldn't do it with the material I output now, but if I'd started producing what the current audiences seem to want then it would be an option to go in that direction. I have zero interest in doing so, but there you go. The catch-22 of being older and... I won't say wiser, but certainly with different priorities.

I know one or two youngsters (early 20s) with the image and the drive but not the talent (they expect it all to just happen, which ain't gonna) and I know a couple of youngsters with the talent but not the drive (they spent the time on crafting their skills and bypassed the whole PR/marketing thing).

In short, I don't think it's any harder now than it ever was, because you're not taking into account the additional challenges to make demos to succeeed back then through lack of equipment, and the fact that the Internet didn't exist, so you had to make demos to get an intro (unless you knew someone) ... and so on.

It's changed, certainly. I'd say if anything today's wannabe's have more opportunity than those of old (throw stuff on Bandcamp, promote it). However because there are a lot more of them, you need talent to rise above the crowd (well, one always did really) but more to the point you need to break through the marketing barrier.

However, if the likes of Zep, The Beatles (sorry CS70 I omitted them earlier but so ... many ... examples!), Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, ELP or Queen popped up tomorrow I suspect they would have little trouble breaking through. All they'd have to do would be to start a youtube channel and throw a few moody pics on instagram.

The talent would do the rest I'm fairly sure, and not being funny or nuffink, I've seen relatively little in the way of talent on that level in recent decades.

No regrets here, quite the opposite. I had an amazing time. If anything I'm sad that fewer people can perform in half decent-but-modest venues as regularly (with a bit of work getting bookings) as we could back then. Live music was much more of a thing in locals, clubs and theaters than it is now.

Still, you have the Internet, and we didn't!

[hobbyist]

I think I said: for making a living. If you do it for fun then things are okay as long as you dont expect to become famous. You might be the odds are very very long against that.
...

Music may have been the same; I was not involved with that back when.

Not talking about publishers or record producers but in context of the individual person trying to succeed.

Depending on how long ago you're talking about, I was there and tried exactly that. Early 1990s making a living doing live work with an established, if not famous, rock band and knocking out stuff as an individual on the side in the soundtrack and jingles departments. Our crowds were reliable and repeatable and resulted in a (basic but viable at the time) living for 6 people but those crowds were in the 100s, not the 1000s (with one or two specific event exceptions).

I could have opted to continue doing it but 1/40 of a millennia ago in the early 90s it wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. The gear we had to work with was hugely compromised compared to now. Less so if Mummy was related to the queen or Daddy owned a brewery but even serious money couldn't compete with Reaper on a modest laptop these days. There was no WWW, 8 tracks were a luxury outside of very expensive studios and we physically sent out hundreds of photocopied newletters a month in the post to keep our crowds warm.

If now I had the energy, image and drive that I had then and wanted to do it I think I'd have as good a go at most at it, but at my age (and for the last 2 decades) I'd have to sacrifice a bunch of things I don't want to sacrifice to do it. That and the fact I have none of the energy, image and drive for mainstream recognition any more renders the point moot. Apart from which I 'grew up' and having lived the dream for a while I got practical and got a paying job ... neither the first nor the last of many but those intervening years of on-the-road chaotic musical freedom are precious memories.

I probably wouldn't do it with the material I output now, but if I'd started producing what the current audiences seem to want then it would be an option to go in that direction. I have zero interest in doing so, but there you go. The catch-22 of being older and... I won't say wiser, but certainly with different priorities.

I know one or two youngsters (early 20s) with the image and the drive but not the talent (they expect it all to just happen, which ain't gonna) and I know a couple of youngsters with the talent but not the drive (they spent the time on crafting their skills and bypassed the whole PR/marketing thing).

In short, I don't think it's any harder now than it ever was, because you're not taking into account the additional challenges to make demos to succeeed back then through lack of equipment, and the fact that the Internet didn't exist, so you had to make demos to get an intro (unless you knew someone) ... and so on.

It's changed, certainly. I'd say if anything today's wannabe's have more opportunity than those of old (throw stuff on Bandcamp, promote it). However because there are a lot more of them, you need talent to rise above the crowd (well, one always did really) but more to the point you need to break through the marketing barrier.

However, if the likes of Zep, The Beatles (sorry CS70 I omitted them earlier but so ... many ... examples!), Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, ELP or Queen popped up tomorrow I suspect they would have little trouble breaking through. All they'd have to do would be to start a youtube channel and throw a few moody pics on instagram.

The talent would do the rest I'm fairly sure, and not being funny or nuffink, I've seen relatively little in the way of talent on that level in recent decades.

No regrets here, quite the opposite. I had an amazing time. If anything I'm sad that fewer people can perform in half decent-but-modest venues as regularly (with a bit of work getting bookings) as we could back then. Live music was much more of a thing in locals, clubs and theaters than it is now.

Still, you have the Internet, and we didn't!

I go back to the early 60s.

Some people still make a living. But it is getting smaller and there are more wannabees cluttering up the landscape making it hard to be found. And many of them are willing to work cheap while being good enough.

Exactly. Better gear is dirt cheap now and more people have it. And many of them want to try to make money which messes up the supply/demand ratio.

To make it now you have to be young and talented and be lucky like Bieber or work hard (dont forget the luck) like Gaga. I know bands that had a number of CDs, toured in Europe, yada yada but they quit because they could not support a family on what they made.

I still think it is harder now because of the competition being larger.
And if another Beetles or Gaga showed up they would have a very hard time succeeding. It is not as easy as putting stuff on utoob.
Are people really wasting their time searching utoob hoping to find the next Beetles or Bieber? Promotion is hard. Growing a following takes a lot of hard work and effort.

Those gigs in bars or local venues now charge the bands to let them play there. They will give them x free tickets to sell to make their pay from, but without a following its a money loser even for people who just want to perform. Getting a following is a catch 22 now.

[hobbyist]

Very true, but if i didn't make any music i would still need to earn money, but if i didn't need to earn money i would still make music.

Ah my friend, because you need to make music! Money feeds your stomach, music feeds your spirit.

And yeah, very interesting times.

And the article in Fortune magazine this last issue indicated it is only going to get worse.

And they didnt even consider that people are breeding faster than jobs can be created. Just the impact of automation on salaries. Things are dire now and will be impossible for the grandkids.

Throw in government that keeps raising taxes, wasting more money on pure pork, and over regulating business so it is impossible to start a small one successfully so only the big ones can compete and things are getting so we need armageddon to fix things.

[Drew Stephenson]

Very interesting points. I think we're largely seeing the same things but from different perspectives. I guess it'll take another couple of decades before it all shakes out and I buy you a pint and you can say, "I told you so."
The looming spectre of automation is a very interesting one, hence my comment about utopia vs dystopia.
Out of curiosity Hobbyist, are you based in the US?

[Hugh Robjohns]

You may not think that most of it is junk, whether music photog or writing, but in my view the amount of crud is massive and hides the few good things making them harder to find.

The 'digital revolution' has obviously made it possible for anyone and everyone to 'self-publish', and -- as always -- that has both 'good' and 'bad' aspects, largely depending on your viewpoint.

In the previous model, the 'crud' was filtered out of the public domain by the professional publishers and promoters... but so too was some of the really good stuff that just didn't happen to fit with their vision at the time.

I don't believe the actual balance of good things to crud has changed significantly -- although there are literally twice as many people making 'art' in all its forms today than there were in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the 'new technology' means that you now need to do some of the filtering yourself -- or take advantage of all the other people doing their own filtering on their own social media channels -- rather than have 'a professional's idea' of good stuff held up in front of you.

...photography, and writing used to be much easier and better to make money doing.

Possibly... From what I can see, those that are really good at it still make good money. It's the middle and lower tiers that struggle -- but then that was always the way with advancing technology.

It's the same with the multi-skilling point you raised earlier. When I started in the news broadcasting business we went out with a crew of four (reporter, cameraman, sound recordist, and sparks).

Over the course of a single decade the cameras became more sensitive and lighting wasn't needed anymore so the sparks went (or, thanks to their stronger union, they got retrained as a multi-skilled soundie, and the soundie went instead!). And then the camera became a cam-corder so the camerman started doing sound as well and the soundie went. Today, the reporter is often doing the whole thing on their own with an ultra-compact camera... or even their smart phone... and increasingly now, there isn't even a reporter; the broadcasters rely on Joe Public to send in their own (vertically framed) footage instead!

But it's all just the same old thing called CHANGE... and it's always happened and always will happen. The trick is to embrace it try to keep ahead of it, rather than always looking backwards and be trampled to death by it.

Going back again to when I started full time employment I remember listening in utter amazement (and some despair) at all my senior, very-experienced colleagues reminiscing about how good it was 'back in the day', and how standards (and new recruits!) are so terrible now (and this was 30+ years ago)... while there was me, in complete awe of the new technology all around me, and so excited over all the fantastic opportunities and prospects ahead of me...

It's certain that the model of employment will change in the future -- along with lots of other things. But that's entirely normal: the way our parents lived in the 1960s after the two World Wars was massively different from the way their parents or grand-parents lived in the 1900s before the Wars. And the way we live today is very different again from the way we lived in the 60s and 70s.... So it's absolutely for certain that the way our grand-kids live in 25 or thirty years time will be massively different again. Whether it's better or worse, or just different, only time -- and perspectives -- will tell...

H

[James Perrett]

I'm just wondering whether I'm in a little bubble here where I see more and more live venues starting up and plenty of opportunities for people to play live. In Portsmouth there seems to be a new venue every month and there are a whole network of music nights around here in mid Hampshire/Surrey that seem to attract new artists of a very high standard. I guess that the big problem for someone wanting to earn money is that many of these are run on a co-operative basis where very little money actually changes hands.

When I started off back in the early 80's we rarely made much money from gigs - most of the pubs wanted straight rock bands so we found ourselves playing youth clubs and benefit gigs where we might just about cover the petrol money. Later on, as the bands I was playing with improved and became more entertaining, we managed to break into the pub circuit and make a little money but not a huge amount.

The real money in the business is to be made offering services to musicians. Tuition, publishing and equipment are a few areas that come to mind. Even the recording business has opportunities if you can tap into the right customers - some people don't want the hassle of learning how to record and are happy to pay someone else to do it.

[Eddy Deegan]

I go back to the early 60s.

My bad - for some reason I assumed you were 10 years or more younger than me as opposed to a few older else I would have expressed my thoughts in different terms.

I'm just wondering whether I'm in a little bubble here where I see more and more live venues starting up and plenty of opportunities for people to play live. In Portsmouth there seems to be a new venue every month and there are a whole network of music nights around here in mid Hampshire/Surrey that seem to attract new artists of a very high standard.

That's good to hear James - in Brighton it's rather different, at least in terms of your average pub band. Before 2000 or so the live music scene was very different to what it is now in the area and a large number of the pubs and venues that we used to play no longer do live music. It was sad watching them all drop off the list over the years.

[Drew Stephenson]

York has a mixed scene. For solo/acoustic acts it's pretty good. Lots of small, real-ale pubs looking for a bit of low-key live music makes for a fairly healthy scene there. There's also a reasonable number of pubs regularly hosting rock covers bands.
The difficulty (it was ever thus!) is getting a full band spot playing originals. We have three or four venues that actually host that kind of set-up, payment is generally of the order of £1 per punter you bring in - which doesn't go far when you're a bunch of middle-aged folks without any strong connections to the universities...
But that was the case 15 years ago as well.
The other option of course is to bear the risk yourself and put on your own gigs.

[hobbyist]

You may not think that most of it is junk, whether music photog or writing, but in my view the amount of crud is massive and hides the few good things making them harder to find.

The 'digital revolution' has obviously made it possible for anyone and everyone to 'self-publish', and -- as always -- that has both 'good' and 'bad' aspects, largely depending on your viewpoint.

agreed

In the previous model, the 'crud' was filtered out of the public domain by the professional publishers and promoters... but so too was some of the really good stuff that just didn't happen to fit with their vision at the time.

again true

I don't believe the actual balance of good things to crud has changed significantly -- although there are literally twice as many people making 'art' in all its forms today than there were in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the 'new technology' means that you now need to do some of the filtering yourself -- or take advantage of all the other people doing their own filtering on their own social media channels -- rather than have 'a professional's idea' of good stuff held up in front of you.

I see the balance swinging far toward the bad side as anyone can now easily create and 'publish' whereas before you had to be more determined which kept some of the crud from getting out of desk drawers

...photography, and writing used to be much easier and better to make money doing.

Possibly... From what I can see, those that are really good at it still make good money. It's the middle and lower tiers that struggle -- but then that was always the way with advancing technology.

True. The few at the top do well.
It is the middle that hurts more now.
And the long tail has virtually no chance at all.

It's the same with the multi-skilling point you raised earlier. When I started in the news broadcasting business we went out with a crew of four (reporter, cameraman, sound recordist, and sparks).

Over the course of a single decade the cameras became more sensitive and lighting wasn't needed anymore so the sparks went (or, thanks to their stronger union, they got retrained as a multi-skilled soundie, and the soundie went instead!). And then the camera became a cam-corder so the camerman started doing sound as well and the soundie went. Today, the reporter is often doing the whole thing on their own with an ultra-compact camera... or even their smart phone... and increasingly now, there isn't even a reporter; the broadcasters rely on Joe Public to send in their own (vertically framed) footage instead!

True. So many usa stations advertise for free pictures that people are happy to send in. Even when they are the only one on site capturing something historical that is worth big money they still give it away.

But it's all just the same old thing called CHANGE... and it's always happened and always will happen. The trick is to embrace it try to keep ahead of it, rather than always looking backwards and be trampled to death by it.

Change is the only constant.
But IMHO what I see is the change making things worse for all of us.

Going back again to when I started full time employment I remember listening in utter amazement (and some despair) at all my senior, very-experienced colleagues reminiscing about how good it was 'back in the day', and how standards (and new recruits!) are so terrible now (and this was 30+ years ago)... while there was me, in complete awe of the new technology all around me, and so excited over all the fantastic opportunities and prospects ahead of me...

Another 3000 journalists lost jobs in the start of 2019

It's certain that the model of employment will change in the future -- along with lots of other things. But that's entirely normal: the way our parents lived in the 1960s after the two World Wars was massively different from the way their parents or grand-parents lived in the 1900s before the Wars. And the way we live today is very different again from the way we lived in the 60s and 70s.... So it's absolutely for certain that the way our grand-kids live in 25 or thirty years time will be massively different again. Whether it's better or worse, or just different, only time -- and perspectives -- will tell...

H

True.

But as Fortune magazine indicated last issue the model is looking worse for the masses of people.

[Drew Stephenson]

My take on it is that a significant part of the problem is that we're trying to solve new problems with old models.

[hobbyist]

....
The real money in the business is to be made offering services to musicians. Tuition, publishing and equipment are a few areas that come to mind. Even the recording business has opportunities if you can tap into the right customers - some people don't want the hassle of learning how to record and are happy to pay someone else to do it.

True but the competition is tough as big companies have automated it to own the really low end for cheap help, and many people prefer to DIY with the affordable gear that is so much better now and so much cheaper, making the middle smaller and the top non existent.

My laptop can outperform a million usd studio from the 70s without breathing hard.

The only issue is , IF I am making money from my work is could you do some task better faster easier cheaper than I can DIY.

[James Perrett]

The only issue is , IF I am making money from my work is could you do some task better faster easier cheaper than I can DIY.

While you, and quite a few others on here, are happy to DIY, some musicians prefer to get on with the process of writing and playing rather than learn to record themselves. One guy I work with will record a basic idea on his phone - sometimes just a vocal line and other times voice and guitar. He'll take them to his collaborator who will turn them into proper recordings and then bring those recordings to me for mastering/editing and possibly remixing. He doesn't want to get involved in learning about recording (although he must have spent hundreds or even thousands of hours in studios) and prefers to work with collaborators who understand what he wants and have the skills to produce it.

[James Perrett]

Before 2000 or so the live music scene was very different to what it is now in the area and a large number of the pubs and venues that we used to play no longer do live music. It was sad watching them all drop off the list over the years.

In Portsmouth probably the only privately run live venue that still exists from the 90's is the Wedgewood Rooms which seems to be doing OK (I hesitate to say well because running any venue is a precarious business). Quite a few pub venues have closed but the change in licensing laws seem to have made it easier for others to open and I heard last night that someone has even converted a local industrial unit into a venue.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I see the balance swinging far toward the bad side as anyone can now easily create and 'publish' whereas before you had to be more determined which kept some of the crud from getting out of desk drawers

Sure, there's a lot of deluded crud all over the interweb. But I would humbly suggest your viewpoint is one of a 'glass-half-empty' mindset. The fact that everyone can now easily create and publish means there's also some genuinely fantastic off-the-wall talent getting seen and shared on social media today that would never have been let through the front doors of the big agents in years gone by. It's really not all bad.

Even when they are the only one on site capturing something historical that is worth big money they still give it away.

But the audience get to see things that otherwise wouldn't have been captured at all... And I know of one very successful professional photographer who was inspired to become a pro precisely because his work was published directly without him having to work through an agency. It gave his CV the boost he needed that he would never otherwise have been able to achieve. It's really not all bad -- there are new, different opportunities, and new benefits.

But IMHO what I see is the change making things worse for all of us.

Glass half empty! You really do sound just like my senior workmates thirty years ago...

Another 3000 journalists lost jobs in the start of 2019

I find it hard to get upset at that particular statistic... However, it is obviously clear that more and newer technology may well mean fewer 'traditional' jobs. So our way of living (and earning) is going to have to evolve along with it... But that's not a new phenomenon is it? Think of all the ways people's working lives have evolved over the past decades and centuries because of new technologies. All those stagecoach drivers and stablemen put out of work because of those new-fangled trains, for example. It's an unsettling concept for those of us judging things from our past experiences, but would you really want to go back?

The only alternative is to restrict or do away with technology, have people to take on the dangerous, dirty, tedious, and drudgey jobs again, and to pay a lot more for goods, groceries, and things. Good luck with that as a manifesto!