Equipment hire, business idea advice needed.

[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.

[Drew Stephenson]

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.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of pop music?

[CS70]

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.

It's very interesting to see how kids consume music nowadays with respect to the way we did back in the 80s).

First of all, they start listening to "grown up" music earlier. Due to smartphones, pads and streaming, kids jump in the "regular pop music" bandwagon much earlier.. they can man the control very easily (my 4 years old knows how to start and stop Spotify and YouTube, even if his skills in searching is, obviously, limited by the fact he can't yet read ). My 11 years old twin step-daughters have been dancing to r&b tunes for at least 4 years. And it gets easier and easier.

They still do love certain songs (said twins can sing some of these horrible pop pastiches by memory, even if truth be said what lyrics there are, are few and very simple) - but less so artists.

Long gone are radio and television: they steer what they listen to - and that's a major difference. The odds of discovering something new by random listening are very small - all listening is driven by social and peer advice and what you know. Just like in politics, it's far easier to be insular.

They absolutely listen to singles (or short pieces of singles). Albums aren't really even a concept. A song is a song, and you have a pool to listen from and you pick up from them. It so happens that they may like many songs from the same artist but it's just accidental.

Again, differently from radio, tv, tapes and vinyl - and even cds - often they listen to parts of songs, as it's incredibly easy and instantaneous to navigate. 20 seconds and on to the next. While part of this depends a bit on age (a bit older people, in their late teens and twenties tend to listen to songs a little longer) it's still present. Just have a look at young people on the subway and how often they operate their phones while listening on buds.
Imho it's not that they have short attention span: it's simply that the controls are much easier to operate and allow them to do what we wanted to, but couldn't.

Long, long gone is the hi-fi culture. It's never been really a thing for young people (whatever hifi was there, was usually dad's) but now it's really not an issue at all outside a very small niche. At most you get a nice mono bluetooth speaker which looks cool and has hipster factor, and that's as far as it goes. Vinyl is again most a hipster-y thing - to show you are different and above the mass and cool - but is still quite niche.

Of course, the social factor is still a major driver: if all friends like some artist, they will try and listen and probably like it. But it was always thus I think, nothing changes. The difference is that, since it's far less likely that you discover random music, social and word of mouth has becoming much more important than ever. If you have a litlle marketing money, use it in social-related stuff.

I also feel that there's less of the obsessive listening that we did.. by 13-14, both me and my friends were really into certain bands and albums and we were listening on repeat (or playing over, in my case) for hours. I suspect the immediate availability of immense music catalogs makes that less likely. Not sure about the 4 years old tough - these days, he could listen to "I'm blue" on repeat for hours

Video is more important than ever. YouTube and the phone/ipad screen is a major force, and visual content of some kind is paramount. This started already in our times with MTV etc but now it's become really fundamental. Without a video, a song does not exist. And it's not so crazy important that the video is amazing - only that it exists. Young people watch songs. An unintended consequences is that looks, which always were a factor, are even more important now. Not necessary good looks, but distinctive ones.

Quality is still important. Obviously people's tastes vary a lot, so it's all in over-general terms, but these kids are not acritical: they like good stuff - only it's what they consider good stuff, and it's different from what we did. Mostly, things must have a groove and be danceable to a degree. Since the standard four on the floor kick beat has become so enormously widespread (not that it was uncommon before), anything that doesn't have it is strange.. and strange can be either crap (often that's the result, they're humans after all) or wonderful. Which one it becomes depends, again, on social pressure. That said they love and swallow copycat music just as much as we did, only now it's hip hop and EDM instead of pop and rock.

As of sound quality, people don't give a damn just as they never did. A few may think they do (the ones manning vinyls, often) but in general they have zero clue of what really it is.

So the recipes for getting attention are a consequence: make good music (aka music that most people like); decide to go for copycat or try something very different knowing it may be a total flop; find out how to trigger the social/word of mouth aspect any way you can; always make video productions at some level.

[Arpangel]

So the recipes for getting attention are a consequence: make good music (aka music that most people like); decide to go for copycat or try something very different knowing it may be a total flop; find out how to trigger the social/word of mouth aspect any way you can; always make video productions at some level.

Andre Rieu doesn't even play his own music, he plays other people's music that people like.
On a smaller scale...bring on the pub covers band, you'll be able to make a "reasonable living" in the right area playing in one of those if you're good.
I've known a few very successful alternative musicians in my life, that have broken through to the pop scene, they have amazing ideas, that are quite traditional in terms of structure, but they always put a spin on them, just enough so that you are thrown a bit and can't trace the ancestory or influences. Go round to the house there will be records by Can, Soft Machine, Errol Garner, John Cage. Miles etc, all sorts, lots of them.
I've always been useless at all this stuff, I just do what I do, but then again, I think I may have made about £25 from my music in my entire life!

[CS70]

Andre Rieu doesn't even play his own music, he plays other people's music that people like.
On a smaller scale...bring on the pub covers band, you'll be able to make a "reasonable living" in the right area playing in one of those if you're good.

Oh yes, making money from covers is easier - pubs, weddings, events etc and if you make a little effort in a few months you get a following the old fashioned way, playing gigs.

What i was writing of was more about new music.

[Arpangel]

Andre Rieu doesn't even play his own music, he plays other people's music that people like.
On a smaller scale...bring on the pub covers band, you'll be able to make a "reasonable living" in the right area playing in one of those if you're good.

Oh yes, making money from covers is easier - pubs, weddings, events etc and if you make a little effort in a few months you get a following the old fashioned way, playing gigs.

What i was writing of was more about new music.

New music, I wouldn't know where to start, even giving advice.
I still think that a combination of talent (real ability) virtuosity, absolutely amazing ideas, and a bit of the old Victorian music hall novelty act will win through in the end.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8_xaSom3Lro

[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.

Both of those things may be true.

It's very interesting to see how kids consume music nowadays with respect to the way we did back in the 80s).

Long gone are radio and television: they steer what they listen to - and that's a major difference. The odds of discovering something new by random listening are very small - all listening is driven by social and peer advice and what you know. Just like in politics, it's far easier to be insular.

Long, long gone is the hi-fi culture. It's never been really a thing for young people (whatever hifi was there, was usually dad's) but now it's really not an issue at all outside a very small niche.

Of course, the social factor is still a major driver: if all friends like some artist, they will try and listen and probably like it. But it was always thus I think, nothing changes. The difference is that, since it's far less likely that you discover random music, social and word of mouth has becoming much more important than ever. If you have a litlle marketing money, use it in social-related stuff.

Video is more important than ever. YouTube and the phone/ipad screen is a major force, and visual content of some kind is paramount.

Quality is still important.

As of sound quality, people don't give a damn just as they never did.

Yes. Things are different now.

As to 'quality', that is very subjective. I see nothing but piles of poop covering up a very rare gem that is buried in the noise and not worth my effort to hunt for.

That goes for most videos too. Poorly done. Most of them unwatchable by me.

As to sound quality now they seem to be happy with low fi MP3s. All they care about is loud, thumping bass, and screaming lyrics. And many are deaf having had earbuds stuffed in their ears for too long with the volume set on max.

For me I will replay my Bach CDs.

[MOF]

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

How do you know so much about me?

[CS70]

As to 'quality', that is very subjective. I see nothing but piles of poop covering up a very rare gem that is buried in the noise and not worth my effort to hunt for.

'fraid that says more about you then them

That goes for most videos too. Poorly done. Most of them unwatchable by me.

Well, it's the same as for audio: technically now it's possible to make amazing quality video for a pittance - compared to just ten years ago. Of course, as for audio, that means little if you don't like the content.. and that's the matter: younger people like different stuff. You (or I) simply are not the target. As you say, it's subjective - and for them a lot of stuff we like is plain boring. Nothing new under the sun..

As to sound quality now they seem to be happy with low fi MP3s. All they care about is loud, thumping bass, and screaming lyrics. And many are deaf having had earbuds stuffed in their ears for too long with the volume set on max.

Well, don't know you - but when I was a kid we didn't have an hifi home, so no vinly, fancy speakers and amplifiers, and hardly could afford to buy original cassettes, so most of the music I listened to was from home-made duplicates made by friends. And lots of that was heard on a crappy mono player. Being cassettes what they are, the quality was technically awful.

And you know what? I couldn't care less. That music was speaking to me (and all the circle of friends) completely irrelevant of the audio quality. I suspect things aren't that different now.

I'd even say that audio quality is something for people whose primary interest is not the music.

It's perfectly possible to nail the commercial market - just as it always was - by doing a combination of what you like and what the market likes.