Equipment hire, business idea advice needed.

[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!

[Hugh Robjohns]

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

It's certainly true that the tools have evolved fantastically. But a cloth-eared novice with the world's most powerful MacBook Pro will still struggle to mix a hit record, and good though it is, the technology still can't yet make a pokey bedroom sound like Oceanway or Abbey Road's no.2 studios, let alone accommodate an 80-piece orchestra.

So it's different, but not necessarily worse, and if there are opportunities lost at the low end, there are also new opportunities opening up for those brave enough to run at the leading edge.

[hobbyist]

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

It's certainly true that the tools have evolved fantastically. But a cloth-eared novice with the world's most powerful MacBook Pro will still struggle to mix a hit record, and good though it is, the technology still can't yet make a pokey bedroom sound like Oceanway or Abbey Road's no.2 studios, let alone accommodate an 80-piece orchestra.

So it's different, but not necessarily worse, and if there are opportunities lost at the low end, there are also new opportunities opening up for those brave enough to run at the leading edge.

True, but the cheap cost of the tools has given more people the chance to prove how bad they are. And when they all compete the income for those who do succeed is lower.

Also with more entertainment options there are fewer buyers for music or any given segment.

Opportunities are always changing. But like Fortune magazine just said they are not coming as fast as we need them now. Jobs are being killed off faster and people are breeding faster than job replacement can suffice to handle.

[awjoe]

...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.

H

Yeah, I think this is one of the more perceptive and pertinent comments in this thread. The recording revolution opened up opportunities for lots and lots of variously talented people to:

a) join the game

b) not make much money

I mean, if you're not making money in any given field, there's a strong possibility that you're just not as good at it as the people who *are* making money at it. I can instance my own self-delusion here. I've written some pretty good songs (is that the self-delusion kicking in?) but my recordings and mixes of them aren't as good as I thought they were when I made them. Just not close to pro. So now I'm going for it. Concentrating on that all-important 'performance at the recording stage'. I want to see if I can do better than the 'middle tier' that Hugh describes. More self-delusion? Maybe, but now that I know that the self-delusion is my biggest enemy, I stand a better chance of spotting it, a better chance of not boring the world with mediocre music.

[Hugh Robjohns]

But like Fortune magazine just said they are not coming as fast as we need them now. Jobs are being killed off faster and people are breeding faster than job replacement can suffice to handle.

So apart from banning procreation, what's your solution?

H

[hobbyist]

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.

Not all bad. Just not as good as it was. Too many of them making bad stuff so the stuff that is good even harder to find.

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.

Harder for the pros to work at all when every cell phone owner can snap the pic and email it in on the spot. And uncle Bob shoots weddings for free, while soccer moms take the team pics for free.

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...

Perhaps. Or maybe we are looking at different parts of the elephant.
I call them as I see them. The glass is not only half empty. The glass is now smaller as more people put their straws into it at once.

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?

Nothing lasts forever. Especially trends and extrapolations.
All systems saturate. Job growth is saturating while population keeps growing exponentially.

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!

Ideally technology would serve all of us so we ALL could work say 3 days a week and support our family because goods are so cheap with machines doing all the work. Nobody out of work, nobody working excessive overtime.

In the longer run that too would fail as only a few people would be needed who have exceeding high levels of education and experience to keep designing bigger and better machines and maybe operating/maintaining them too, while most people would be free to self actualise while never working.

Would the supersmart be forced to work? Could you pay them enough to want to work when nobody else has to? Who would want to suffer through all the crud at the uni for a decade or so to be able to be the one that has to work? How many would deliberately flunk so they would be free all day like most of the people are?

The problem is government and special interest groups. They only care about themselves, not optimising the system to benefit everybody equally. And no that is not socialism just a constrained market to guarantee fairness where everybody should be working their share and no special group at the top effsupp things like now while living really high on the hog.

[hobbyist]

But like Fortune magazine just said they are not coming as fast as we need them now. Jobs are being killed off faster and people are breeding faster than job replacement can suffice to handle.

So apart from banning procreation, what's your solution?

H

As a systems engineer I see no solution that is feasible.

There are some possibilities but you could not get enough people willing to work together to make it happen. Certainly not before the antis start a war or do something to sabotage the effort.

We do need to severely limit population growth anyway , but that will never happen. We are past peak food, water, energy, and a dozen other key parameters. We may have decades or a century but it will end badly; if not for us then our grandkids.

I believe that like all systems this one we have on the planet for civilisaton will grow until some massive disaster helps stabilise things again. Or Armageddon writes =30=.

[hobbyist]

...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.

H

Yeah, I think this is one of the more perceptive and pertinent comments in this thread. The recording revolution opened up opportunities for lots and lots of variously talented people to:

a) join the game

b) not make much money

I mean, if you're not making money in any given field, there's a strong possibility that you're just not as good at it as the people who *are* making money at it. I can instance my own self-delusion here. I've written some pretty good songs (is that the self-delusion kicking in?) but my recordings and mixes of them aren't as good as I thought they were when I made them. Just not close to pro. So now I'm going for it. Concentrating on that all-important 'performance at the recording stage'. I want to see if I can do better than the 'middle tier' that Hugh describes. More self-delusion? Maybe, but now that I know that the self-delusion is my biggest enemy, I stand a better chance of spotting it, a better chance of not boring the world with mediocre music.

There are two factors, luck and skill , that are key. But you also have to work hard and promote yourself.

And nepotism often plays a role. Look at hollywood where so many actors kids get the breaks while newcomers have a harder time to break in. Most people that made it started young. Very few old people decide to have a go and then succeed.

The skill levels keep increasing. You may be better than those a decade or two ago, but the bar keeps getting higher. And there are more people just under you trying to improve their game to go ahead.

A better strategy is to have a job they cant ship to some other 3rd world country and do music for fun. If you did make it you could still switch.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Not all bad. Just not as good as it was. Too many of them making bad stuff so the stuff that is good even harder to find.

Or... Just as good as it was, but not not spoon-fed some else's idea of what is good?

Harder for the pros to work at all when every cell phone owner can snap the pic and email it in on the spot.

Utter nonsense... An amateur cell-phone pic will never be better than an image captured by a skilled and talented pro. It's not the tech, its the eye (and the experience)... But equally, an image from a amateur on the spot will always be better than a pro still sat in the office whining about how hard it is to make a buck...

And uncle Bob shoots weddings for free, while soccer moms take the team pics for free.

Possibly... But in those cases the chances are the budgets wouldn't be available ~today~ for a pro anyway. Times change. Why would anyone not take advantage of the technology now available if the delivered results are adequate/acceptable?

If a business model is entirely reliant on low-budget weddings and school sports games the time has probably come to re-evaluate the business. But there will be other specialist areas where the talents and skills haven't been usurped and are still valued and profitable.

I call them as I see them.

I get that. I'm just suggesting there is another way to see them, if you choose to.

Ideally technology would serve all of us so we ALL could work say 3 days a week and support our family because goods are so cheap with machines doing all the work. Nobody out of work, nobody working excessive overtime.

Sure. Maybe we will get there one day, when greed, profit and selfishness have all been eradicated from the human psyche. Won't be in my lifetime...

[Hugh Robjohns]

I believe that like all systems this one we have on the planet for civilisaton will grow until some massive disaster helps stabilise things again. Or Armageddon writes =30=.

Unfortunately, I agree with you here. The patent absense of self-regulation means things will continue growing until curbed either by natural regulation -- disease, for example -- or some form of global warfare. Either way the human population will be massively diminished and a new way of living established for the survivors... Hopefully.

[Drew Stephenson]

Also with more entertainment options there are fewer buyers for music or any given segment.

Just to drag us away from Armageddon and back to music for a moment, , this ^^^ is a really good point that often gets overlooked when people talk about the demise of the music industry.
When I was a kid there were three (then four) channels of TV, your bike, your mates and music. That was your entertainment.
Nowadays music is competing against a much broader range of entertainment options.

[hobbyist]

Not all bad. Just not as good as it was. Too many of them making bad stuff so the stuff that is good even harder to find.

Or... Just as good as it was, but not not spoon-fed some else's idea of what is good?

sonic quality is certainly easier and cheaper to do well now
artistically IMHO it has gotten much worse
but fortunately for them I am not the marketplace

Harder for the pros to work at all when every cell phone owner can snap the pic and email it in on the spot.

Utter nonsense... An amateur cell-phone pic will never be better than an image captured by a skilled and talented pro. It's not the tech, its the eye (and the experience)... But equally, an image from a amateur on the spot will always be better than a pro still sat in the office whining about how hard it is to make a buck...

true. newspapers prefer cheap and fast to paying for higher quality photogs who arrive after the incident is being cleaned up

And uncle Bob shoots weddings for free, while soccer moms take the team pics for free.

Possibly... But in those cases the chances are the budgets wouldn't be available ~today~ for a pro anyway. Times change. Why would anyone not take advantage of the technology now available if the delivered results are adequate/acceptable?

that is my experience. there used to be budgets for at least semi pro or a cheap mass production photoshoot company to come in and do it in a day

If a business model is entirely reliant on low-budget weddings and school sports games the time has probably come to re-evaluate the business. But there will be other specialist areas where the talents and skills haven't been usurped and are still valued and profitable.

the mid range depended on those

the high end for weddings still seems to be doing okay according to the rangefinder magazine. the high end for portraits is hurting with a couple major studios hanging on

I call them as I see them.

I get that. I'm just suggesting there is another way to see them, if you choose to.

I choose to see reality using logic. I understand others will disagree.

Ideally technology would serve all of us so we ALL could work say 3 days a week and support our family because goods are so cheap with machines doing all the work. Nobody out of work, nobody working excessive overtime.

Sure. Maybe we will get there one day, when greed, profit and selfishness have all been eradicated from the human psyche. Won't be in my lifetime...

utopia wont ever happen until after the 2nd coming of Christ

[Eddy Deegan]

This thread got a bit philosophical didn't it!

Reading back through everything, applying a coarse filter I think there are two broad camps of musos. Those who enjoy the process of creating music for its own sake, anything else being a bonus and those who seek to obtain fame and/or material reward from it. The two not being mutually exclusive.

The first category isn't really the subject of the discussion. As for the second, 'back in the day' (barring unusual circumstances) you had to make it through the filtering process applied by A&R folks and once on the other side of that oftentimes sign much of your creative life away.

How many bedroom artists were there in the 60s 70s and 80s ... a lot, I'd warrant. How many of them got through to a wider audience without the Internet? Hardly any.

I think Hugh's point about the same mix of good/middling/poor productions is an astute one. The real differences today being that there are more of them than back then and that the internet provides a platform for anyone to promote and have their work stand on its own merits.

Thus we have a sea of choice, and yes there is terrible stuff in droves which previously would have been filtered and nobody would ever have heard, but I'm not convinced that such filtering is a good thing.

I rather like the democratic nature of things these days. I also welcome the advances in technology that permit even the most cash-strapped bedroom artist to produce something representative of their work and get it into a position such that it can be heard by a wider audience.

I think that the modern way is preferable to the old way. I don't feel I need an A&R layer gatekeeping the material I listen to and I'm very happy that my music collection contains a significant amount of material from individuals and bands who have no affiliation with any label. Many (not all) of them from this forum. I've got to the point now where I actively seek obscure things that I like, and I buy them.

Far from being dispirited by the way the recording scene is going, I welcome the changes. One can analyse music all day, both in technical and artistic terms but ultimately if people end up with something they like to listen to then I believe analysis to be redundant, even if I personally hate a lot of it.

Music is to be enjoyed, and if someone enjoys it then that's a good thing.

[hobbyist]

This thread got a bit philosophical didn't it!

I think there are two broad camps of musos. Those who enjoy the process of creating music for its own sake, anything else being a bonus and those who seek to obtain fame and/or material reward from it. The two not being mutually exclusive.

The first category isn't really the subject of the discussion.

As for the second, 'back in the day' (barring unusual circumstances) you had to make it through the filtering process applied by A&R folks and once on the other side of that oftentimes sign much of your creative life away.

How many bedroom artists were there in the 60s 70s and 80s ... a lot, I'd warrant. How many of them got through to a wider audience without the Internet? Hardly any.

Much fewer bedroom artists as the gear cost so much more then.

I think Hugh's point about the same mix of good/middling/poor productions is an astute one. The real differences today being that there are more of them than back then and that the internet provides a platform for anyone to promote and have their work stand on its own merits.

Thus we have a sea of choice, and yes there is terrible stuff in droves which previously would have been filtered and nobody would ever have heard, but I'm not convinced that such filtering is a good thing.

Not so good for aspiring artists, but very good for those looking to find something they want to hear.

I rather like the democratic nature of things these days. I also welcome the advances in technology that permit even the most cash-strapped bedroom artist to produce something representative of their work and get it into a position such that it can be heard by a wider audience.

While it could be heard wider, the sheer quantity of artists and the shrinking audience means that most wont have any real audience at all.

I think that the modern way is preferable to the old way.

Far from being dispirited by the way the recording scene is going, I welcome the changes.

Music is to be enjoyed, and if someone enjoys it then that's a good thing.

Unfortunately there are fewer people listening to enjoy it with all the other distractions we have now , and the amount to go through to find what you find enjoyable is harder.

I like the idea that everyone has a better chance now, but dislike the difficulty of getting a significant following.

[Eddy Deegan]

How many bedroom artists were there in the 60s 70s and 80s ... a lot, I'd warrant. How many of them got through to a wider audience without the Internet? Hardly any.

Much fewer bedroom artists as the gear cost so much more then.

Disclaimer: I've no empirical knowledge of the recording scene prior to the early 80s so everything I'm talking about here is anchored against that as a starting point.

Fewer, but still plenty. I knew a few at school, even back before I got into it. Recording gear in the 80s was hugely more modest, but not much more expensive at the beginner level. You could get a basic 4-track for reasonable money for example and a lot of people did great things with them. A mate of mine had a Jupiter 8, Pro One and TR909 in the mid 80s (as well as an XR3i and a Suzuki RG Gamma 500!) and he was working a modest job.

Not so good for aspiring artists, but very good for those looking to find something they want to hear.

I disagree on the former. I don't think it's any worse for aspiring artists, quite the opposite. Rather than a tiny percentage getting through the vetting process (and all others doomed to total obscurity) anyone can now get stuck in. If they are not good enough to get a significant following now then they wouldn't have been good enough then and wouldn't have got even that following. The real difference is that you have to put more effort into promotion, which would have been done for you had you passed the filter in the old days, but that's no bad thing.

Music is to be enjoyed, and if someone enjoys it then that's a good thing.

Unfortunately there are fewer people listening to enjoy it with all the other distractions we have now , and the amount to go through to find what you find enjoyable is harder.

I don't think for a minute there are fewer people listening to music, and more choice is good. You still have the usual places to go check out for the pre-filtered "A&R-vetted" stuff.

I like the idea that everyone has a better chance now, but dislike the difficulty of getting a significant following.

You simply can't have it both ways. Either a tiny fraction get through and enter the PR machine of the monolothic gatekeepers or there is more visibility all round. I know which I prefer. Getting a significant following today, if you have good enough material, is no harder than it was then and I'd say it's easier for anyone in the middling bracket.

The butter is best spread evenly as opposed to bare toast with thicker lumps dotted around here and there by someone who isn't going to eat it

[hobbyist]

How many bedroom artists were there in the 60s 70s and 80s ... a lot, I'd warrant. How many of them got through to a wider audience without the Internet? Hardly any.

Unfortunately there are fewer people listening to enjoy it with all the other distractions we have now , and the amount to go through to find what you find enjoyable is harder.

[quote
I don't think for a minute there are fewer people listening to music, and more choice is good. You still have the usual places to go check out for the pre-filtered "A&R-vetted" stuff.

there may be the same number listening but they are listening less and doing more video games, streaming, and other diversions.

overall i still say there is less listening going on and certainly less listening/amount_of_'music' now being created.

[Eddy Deegan]

there may be the same number listening but they are listening less and doing more video games, streaming, and other diversions.

overall i still say there is less listening going on and certainly less listening/amount_of_'music' now being created.

Both of those things may be true. I like a good album and think it's a shame that things are more track-orientated these days but other than that I'm not seeing the relevance to people producing the music as that would apply to both the old and new models?

Musicians and engineers produce material. How the masses consume it after acquisition is of relatively little concern though I would imagine there's some scope there for an imaginative artist to somehow lever the short attention span that seems prevalent these days. Having said that, if someone likes something they tend to listen to it so I'm not sure of the merits of such an approach and in my case, they can literally Take It Or Leave It (the album was so named for that very reason).

Unless you're simply bemoaning that times are a'changing, in which case that's always been the way. I recall my Grandfather complaining about 'modern rubbish' in the 70s, my Mother going on about similar a decade later, I currently judge many contemporary traits and I have little doubt that in 10-20 years the children will be doing likewise and theirs after that.

Other than turning back the clock, what is it you want in practical terms? I have to confess I'm little confused as to what you're actually saying at this point if it's other than a general 'things are different now' sentiment, which I think we all agree on.

To the OP (Arpangel): I'd love a staff discount at B&Q, just saying

[Arpangel]

Looks like a lot of water has gone under the bridge here since my last post!
I'll get a part time job if I need to, but working for myself isn't very attractive, or anyone else for that matter, I'm hoping my savings will see me out, hopefully.

[MOF]

so we need armageddon to fix things

Or maybe we'll finally get what Tomorrow's World promised us in the 1970's, lots of free time to do the things we want to do, not the things we have to do.

[Drew Stephenson]

And we'd still never quite, quite finish that mix properly!

[James Perrett]

How many bedroom artists were there in the 60s 70s and 80s ... a lot, I'd warrant. How many of them got through to a wider audience without the Internet? Hardly any.

Much fewer bedroom artists as the gear cost so much more then.

My first reel to reel cost me a fiver back in the late 70's and I used to use it to record all kinds of creations. Adding a second reel to reel allowed me to bounce between the two and build up multi track recordings. I knew quite a few other people doing similar things and, once Teac brought out the portastudio in 1979, everyone who wanted to was making their own recordings. When I started out it was at the time of punk and DIY where it was the done thing for a band to put out something on vinyl. My first 3 bands all ended up on vinyl compilation albums. Most bands also made cassettes to sell at gigs of varying quality.

Back in those days there was a vibrant music press - Sounds, Melody Maker and NME all covered new bands and it was a sign of getting somewhere to get a mention in one of those. However, they all had extensive gig guides at the back so, even if you didn't get a mention in the main section, you could often get a listing for your gigs that week. There were also plenty of specialist magazines and then there were fanzines which were a whole different sub-culture. So there were plenty of ways to discover new music before the Internet.

[hobbyist]

there may be the same number listening but they are listening less and doing more video games, streaming, and other diversions.
overall i still say there is less listening going on and certainly less listening/amount_of_'music' now being created.

Musicians and engineers produce material. How the masses consume it after acquisition is of relatively little concern though I would imagine there's some scope there for an imaginative artist to somehow lever the short attention span that seems prevalent these days.

It costs time and money to produce material. Either you do it for fun or you are trying to make money. It is harder to make money now IMHO because of the changes over the past couple decades.

Do not have any idea how to leverage a short attention span.

Having said that, if someone likes something they tend to listen to it so I'm not sure of the merits of such an approach and in my case, they can literally Take It Or Leave It (the album was so named for that very reason).

They can not listen if they dont find it. I still claim it is harder to find things you want to hear and it takes a lot more effort than it used to.

Other than turning back the clock, what is it you want in practical terms? I have to confess I'm little confused as to what you're actually saying at this point if it's other than a general 'things are different now' sentiment, which I think we all agree on.

Just stating the situation. No way to change it. Just be aware of it and change your plans and goals to be realistic considering the changes.

[Arpangel]

Making money out of music "now" ?
I had to go toHolland last week to see Andre Rieu, totally not my cup of tea. My partner loves him so I had to make a compromise, she comes to see the Bohman Brothers and goes to Cafe Oto with me so....
Rieu was an education, but for the life of me I cannot see why he's so popular? There was no expense spared on the live production, of course, it was a sell out too. It was like the whole town was there.
But why??? cheesy classical music goes to Hollywood big time, even more cheesy sentimentality and romanticism gone berserk. But the age range of the audience was interesting, all ages, that was surprising.
Everyone was crying, dancing, singing along (I even had tears in my eyes at one point, probably because my beer had run out) but all I can think of is that he gives people what they want, sometimes all they want is a bit of uncomplicated fun and something that's not difficult to appreciate, and is a whole family experience.