My method against music piracy

[Yuri Degg]

1. Make 2 great albums. Develop adoring fan base;

2. set realistic, or moderately optimistic, sales goal for your 2nd
record, let's call this figure "X";

3. make 3rd great album;

4. put progress bar on your band's home page, along with the following
message: "Our awesome third album is ready! We will start selling it
as soon as our 2nd album reaches X copies sold!";

5. update progress bar daily with sales figures for your 2nd album.


If you already have a dedicated fan base, you may skip step #1.

If people want to hear more of your music, they'll do the right thing
and support you.

Yes, I am actually thinking of implementing this stuff for real. If
everybody did this, piracy would be reduced to marginality (no good new
music otherwise) and X would increase for all. Of course, the whole
process needs to be backed by quality albums.

Thank you for your comments.


--
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs,
I can do without the rock and roll.

-- Mick Shrimpton, "This Is Spinal Tap"

[Mark]

>(no good new music otherwise)

yes, it appears that there is no good new music


Mark

[gjsmo]

> Yes, I am actually thinking of implementing this stuff for real. If
> everybody did this, piracy would be reduced to marginality (no good new
> music otherwise) and X would increase for all. Of course, the whole
> process needs to be backed by quality albums.

Or other artists. People could just buy something from another artist
that doesn't do this. Of course, if you're Justin Beiber...

[Bill Graham]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >(no good new music otherwise)
>
> yes, it appears that there is no good new music
>
>
> Mark

"No" is a pretty strong word....I would say that there are still some good
writers out there, (Sondheim, Williams, etc.) but they are very few when
compared to the greats of Tin Pan Alley, (where hit songs were turned out
every hour on the hour, over a fifty year period.) I put most of the blame
for this on the tin-eared, teenaged buying public, who have somehow been
taught to have absolutely no musical taste....When my teen aged
grandchildren come to visit, I wow them with some of those wonderful tunes
from the 20's thru 50's.

[[email protected]]

Your method seems likely only to help the few artists that are
already rich and successful.

Yuri Degg > wrote:
: 1. Make 2 great albums. Develop adoring fan base;

: 2. set realistic, or moderately optimistic, sales goal for your 2nd
: record, let's call this figure "X";

: 3. make 3rd great album;

: 4. put progress bar on your band's home page, along with the following
: message: "Our awesome third album is ready! We will start selling it
: as soon as our 2nd album reaches X copies sold!";

: 5. update progress bar daily with sales figures for your 2nd album.


: If you already have a dedicated fan base, you may skip step #1.

: If people want to hear more of your music, they'll do the right thing
: and support you.

: Yes, I am actually thinking of implementing this stuff for real. If
: everybody did this, piracy would be reduced to marginality (no good new
: music otherwise) and X would increase for all. Of course, the whole
: process needs to be backed by quality albums.

: Thank you for your comments.


: --
: As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs,
: I can do without the rock and roll.

: -- Mick Shrimpton, "This Is Spinal Tap"

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham > wrote:

> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >(no good new music otherwise)
> >
> > yes, it appears that there is no good new music
> >
> >
> > Mark
>
> "No" is a pretty strong word....I would say that there are still some good
> writers out there, (Sondheim, Williams, etc.) but they are very few when
> compared to the greats of Tin Pan Alley, (where hit songs were turned out
> every hour on the hour, over a fifty year period.) I put most of the blame
> for this on the tin-eared, teenaged buying public, who have somehow been
> taught to have absolutely no musical taste....When my teen aged
> grandchildren come to visit, I wow them with some of those wonderful tunes
> from the 20's thru 50's.

I've been playing standards now for several years with a swing trio, and
for about 18 years before that on string bass with an acoustic swing
quintet. Yes, there are many moments of genuine brilliance both
musically and lyrically, but there are also several hundred tons of
device-bound music floating extremely trite or clumsy lyrics. It's easy
to put that era on a pedestal, but the pedestal is made of plaster.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Bill Graham]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>> "Mark" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >(no good new music otherwise)
>> >
>> > yes, it appears that there is no good new music
>> >
>> >
>> > Mark
>>
>> "No" is a pretty strong word....I would say that there are still some
>> good
>> writers out there, (Sondheim, Williams, etc.) but they are very few when
>> compared to the greats of Tin Pan Alley, (where hit songs were turned out
>> every hour on the hour, over a fifty year period.) I put most of the
>> blame
>> for this on the tin-eared, teenaged buying public, who have somehow been
>> taught to have absolutely no musical taste....When my teen aged
>> grandchildren come to visit, I wow them with some of those wonderful
>> tunes
>> from the 20's thru 50's.
>
> I've been playing standards now for several years with a swing trio, and
> for about 18 years before that on string bass with an acoustic swing
> quintet. Yes, there are many moments of genuine brilliance both
> musically and lyrically, but there are also several hundred tons of
> device-bound music floating extremely trite or clumsy lyrics. It's easy
> to put that era on a pedestal, but the pedestal is made of plaster.
>
Yes....There was certainly a lot of crap. But a song an hour for 50 years or
more has to have everything. One of the wonderful things about music is that
you can always turn it off. Today, I choose mostly to not tune it in to
begin with. I play the flugelhorn in a senior citizens dance band twice a
week, and that satisfies my craving for the good old tunes of yesteryear
perfectly.....

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>> "No" is a pretty strong word....I would say that there are still some good
>> writers out there, (Sondheim, Williams, etc.) but they are very few when
>> compared to the greats of Tin Pan Alley, (where hit songs were turned out
>> every hour on the hour, over a fifty year period.) I put most of the blame
>> for this on the tin-eared, teenaged buying public, who have somehow been
>> taught to have absolutely no musical taste....When my teen aged
>> grandchildren come to visit, I wow them with some of those wonderful tunes
>> from the 20's thru 50's.
>
>I've been playing standards now for several years with a swing trio, and
>for about 18 years before that on string bass with an acoustic swing
>quintet. Yes, there are many moments of genuine brilliance both
>musically and lyrically, but there are also several hundred tons of
>device-bound music floating extremely trite or clumsy lyrics. It's easy
>to put that era on a pedestal, but the pedestal is made of plaster.

Well, I think part of what made that era great was that so much music was
being written, so much all the time, and in so many different styles, that
some of it was _bound_ to be good.

What is wrong today is more a matter of there being a lot less music being
made, in part because there are fewer amateur musicians than there used to be.
And what IS made that is good has a harder time getting distribution.

But yes, there's good stuff out there, it's just not on the radio.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-09-03 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>I've been playing standards now for several years with a swing
>>trio, and for about 18 years before that on string bass with an
>>acoustic swing quintet. Yes, there are many moments of genuine
>>brilliance both musically and lyrically, but there are also
>>several hundred tons of device-bound music floating extremely
>>trite or clumsy lyrics. It's easy to put that era on a pedestal,
>but the pedestal is made of plaster.
>Well, I think part of what made that era great was that so much
>music was being written, so much all the time, and in so many
>different styles, that some of it was _bound_ to be good.
>What is wrong today is more a matter of there being a lot less
>music being made, in part because there are fewer amateur musicians
>than there used to be. And what IS made that is good has a harder
>time getting distribution.
>But yes, there's good stuff out there, it's just not on the radio.
Agreed, especially if you place the word "good" before
amateur in the previous paragraph.

Like Hank, and Bill I enjoy playing standards, standards
were supporting me quite well in NEw ORleans doing the piano
along with your dinner thing at a couple of fine restaurants
in the quarter and on ST. Charles.

THe problem is that the amateur musicians of today don't
have the performance venues where skills are honed
performing before audiences that actually want to hear them.
THere's a lot of amateur "talent" out there, but it doesn't
have the development opportunities we had when we were
coming up.






Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Bill Graham]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> What is wrong today is more a matter of there being a lot less music being
> made, in part because there are fewer amateur musicians than there used to
> be.
> And what IS made that is good has a harder time getting distribution.
>
> But yes, there's good stuff out there, it's just not on the radio.
> --scott

Well, if you read a couple of books (both called, "Tin Pan Alley") that I've
read recently, I think you'll find that you are correct....The reason (these
books seem to think) is that when Bill Haley hit the charts with "Rock
Around the Clock", he sold so many records that it spelled the death of Tin
Pan Alley....There just wasn't any reason to sell sheet music anymore, and
almost no more reason to try to sell anything but R & R vinyl.....

[Yuri Degg]

> wrote:

> Your method seems likely only to help the few artists that are
> already rich and successful.

Why do you think so? The only thing it needs to work, is to get people
to want to hear more of your music.

Sure, that's no small feat. But musicians have always needed to do that
anyway, in order to make a living.

--
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs,
I can do without the rock and roll.

-- Mick Shrimpton, "This Is Spinal Tap"

[alex]

On 03/09/2010 14:55, Yuri Degg wrote:
> 1. Make 2 great albums. Develop adoring fan base;
>
> 2. set realistic, or moderately optimistic, sales goal for your 2nd
> record, let's call this figure "X";
>
> 3. make 3rd great album;
>
> 4. put progress bar on your band's home page, along with the following
> message: "Our awesome third album is ready! We will start selling it
> as soon as our 2nd album reaches X copies sold!";
>
> 5. update progress bar daily with sales figures for your 2nd album.
>
>
> If you already have a dedicated fan base, you may skip step #1.
>
> If people want to hear more of your music, they'll do the right thing
> and support you.
>
> Yes, I am actually thinking of implementing this stuff for real. If
> everybody did this, piracy would be reduced to marginality (no good new
> music otherwise) and X would increase for all. Of course, the whole
> process needs to be backed by quality albums.
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
>
mmmh, fan base? we aren't in the seventies anymore. I think is *REALLY*
hard to be so "desiderable" from the audience point of view now. If you
are unknown and you put your music online for free is not easy to have
100 people downloading it, even with wonderful music.
In the past music companies created the "star" with a lot of marketing
efforts and with the bad (imho) pratice of talent scouting and artistic
hijacking, keeping the music offer low and well collocated in the genre
schema in order to get a higher selling price. in '70s and '80s, more or
less 500 artists represented the 99% of the overall sells.
Internet and internet music piracy contributed to ease the music
supplying and people are facing today much more music "alternatives" as
before, none of which are "indispensable".

alex

[Yuri Degg]

alex > wrote:

> mmmh, fan base? we aren't in the seventies anymore. I think is *REALLY*
> hard to be so "desiderable" from the audience point of view now. If you
> are unknown and you put your music online for free is not easy to have
> 100 people downloading it, even with wonderful music.

Of course, the old marketing methods still apply: promotion still needs
to be done, this method does not replace it (even though it will also
double as a publicity stunt for the first few to implement it).

You can't get 100 people to download good music if the promotion isn't
there. The music is there, but no one knows.

> Internet and internet music piracy contributed to ease the music
> supplying and people are facing today much more music "alternatives"
> as before, none of which are "indispensable".

Discovering those alternatives, however, takes work. Most people would
rather turn to the artist(s) they know and love.

--
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs,
I can do without the rock and roll.

-- Mick Shrimpton, "This Is Spinal Tap"

[alex]

On 04/09/2010 13:24, Yuri Degg wrote:
> Of course, the old marketing methods still apply: promotion still needs
> to be done, this method does not replace it (even though it will also
> double as a publicity stunt for the first few to implement it).
>
> You can't get 100 people to download good music if the promotion isn't
> there. The music is there, but no one knows.

The "marketing efforts" was only part of the old overall way to manage
the music business.
The big record companies had the ability to control the market from the
production point of view too. After the '50s and part of the '60s they
understand they had the ability not to saturate certain genres with
artists doing almost the same music, imposing who, how, when and how
much, in order to not overlap markets, avoiding unneeded competition
between own artists.
Until mid '90s only good record companies had the power to produce,
distribute and promote music (now we have inexpensive production
equipements and internet as distributor). They used this power to
carefully create the fan base for every single artist they managed. Of
course this can be still part of the "marketing" word, but we don't have
now the opportunity to do the same. Our marketing scenario is completely
different today, we can control our own work but we can't control the
market.

For this reason i think we can say that the "fans" phenomenon is
strictly connected with that past era, and what we see today is just the
tail of the slow disappearing old fashioned way to deal with the music
business.

bye
alex

[hank alrich]

alex > wrote:

> On 03/09/2010 14:55, Yuri Degg wrote:
> > 1. Make 2 great albums. Develop adoring fan base;
> >
> > 2. set realistic, or moderately optimistic, sales goal for your 2nd
> > record, let's call this figure "X";
> >
> > 3. make 3rd great album;
> >
> > 4. put progress bar on your band's home page, along with the following
> > message: "Our awesome third album is ready! We will start selling it
> > as soon as our 2nd album reaches X copies sold!";
> >
> > 5. update progress bar daily with sales figures for your 2nd album.
> >
> >
> > If you already have a dedicated fan base, you may skip step #1.
> >
> > If people want to hear more of your music, they'll do the right thing
> > and support you.
> >
> > Yes, I am actually thinking of implementing this stuff for real. If
> > everybody did this, piracy would be reduced to marginality (no good new
> > music otherwise) and X would increase for all. Of course, the whole
> > process needs to be backed by quality albums.
> >
> > Thank you for your comments.
> >
> >
> mmmh, fan base? we aren't in the seventies anymore. I think is *REALLY*
> hard to be so "desiderable" from the audience point of view now. If you
> are unknown and you put your music online for free is not easy to have
> 100 people downloading it, even with wonderful music.
> In the past music companies created the "star" with a lot of marketing
> efforts and with the bad (imho) pratice of talent scouting and artistic
> hijacking, keeping the music offer low and well collocated in the genre
> schema in order to get a higher selling price. in '70s and '80s, more or
> less 500 artists represented the 99% of the overall sells.
> Internet and internet music piracy contributed to ease the music
> supplying and people are facing today much more music "alternatives" as
> before, none of which are "indispensable".
>
> alex

A survey not long ago estimated that there are ten million songs offered
on the 'net that have never been downloaded.

The "stars" we meet today are delivered by the same mega-money machine
that delivered them in the past. There are just fewer of them and their
attributable revenues are encompassed by "360 deals". That's where the
label takes some of everything the aritst earns by any means.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 03/09/2010 13:55, Yuri Degg wrote:
> 1. Make 2 great albums. Develop adoring fan base;
>
> 2. set realistic, or moderately optimistic, sales goal for your 2nd
> record, let's call this figure "X";
>
> 3. make 3rd great album;
>
> 4. put progress bar on your band's home page, along with the following
> message: "Our awesome third album is ready! We will start selling it
> as soon as our 2nd album reaches X copies sold!";
>
> 5. update progress bar daily with sales figures for your 2nd album.
>
>
> If you already have a dedicated fan base, you may skip step #1.
>
> If people want to hear more of your music, they'll do the right thing
> and support you.
>
> Yes, I am actually thinking of implementing this stuff for real. If
> everybody did this, piracy would be reduced to marginality (no good new
> music otherwise) and X would increase for all. Of course, the whole
> process needs to be backed by quality albums.
>
> Thank you for your comments.


Here's a more realistic approach:
"Hey guys - we are cutting out the middlemen and the CD can be
downloaded from our site for $1"

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

[Scott Dorsey]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > wrote:
>
>Here's a more realistic approach:
>"Hey guys - we are cutting out the middlemen and the CD can be
>downloaded from our site for $1"

I don't know how effective this is. The barrier is getting people to
spend the money; I think people are almost as willing to spend $10 as
they are to spend $1 once they have made the decision to spend it. The
trick is getting them interested to the point where they are willing to
actually open their wallet.

Also there is the issue that cutting costs reduces the perceived value
of the item. I don't know how severe this is an issue in mainstream
record sales, but it's a severe one in the audiophile record market.
People are willing to pay more money for an import edition with the same
bits on it as the domestic edition, because there is a perception of
increased value. It must be better, otherwise why would it cost so much
more?

Pricing is an optimizing problem: too much and people won't buy because
they think the cost is too much... too little and people won't buy because
they think the value is too little.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

bob > wrote:

> On 3 Sep 2010 22:44:17 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >Well, I think part of what made that era great was that so much music was
> >being written, so much all the time, and in so many different styles, that
> >some of it was _bound_ to be good.
> >
> >What is wrong today is more a matter of there being a lot less music
> >being made, in part because there are fewer amateur musicians than there
> >used to be. And what IS made that is good has a harder time getting
> >distribution.
> >
> >But yes, there's good stuff out there, it's just not on the radio.
> >--scott
>
> Are you sure about this? I thought there was way more music than ever
> being made now... It might not be to your/our taste and it might not
> be on a major label, out of a big studio, but I think that "song per
> hour" number has turned into "CD per second". And although 2010 has
> been a weak year, there is still some great stuff being released.

Correct. But as Scott said, if it sees much radio it's runining in the
broadcast cappilaries, not in the arteries.

One show that played a cut of ours is called Music You Can't Hear on the
Radio. <g>

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

bob > wrote:
>On 3 Sep 2010 22:44:17 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Well, I think part of what made that era great was that so much music was
>>being written, so much all the time, and in so many different styles, that
>>some of it was _bound_ to be good.
>>
>>What is wrong today is more a matter of there being a lot less music being
>>made, in part because there are fewer amateur musicians than there used to be.
>>And what IS made that is good has a harder time getting distribution.
>>
>>But yes, there's good stuff out there, it's just not on the radio.
>
>Are you sure about this? I thought there was way more music than ever
>being made now... It might not be to your/our taste and it might not
>be on a major label, out of a big studio, but I think that "song per
>hour" number has turned into "CD per second". And although 2010 has
>been a weak year, there is still some great stuff being released.

I think there is less music being made, and a lot more music being released.
Consquently, with a higher proportion of music being released, the quality
per unit is lower.

Used to be folks in the Brill Building would churn out thousands of songs
for every one that was recorded. Now nearly everything anybody writes is
recorded. It's no wonder most of the stuff recorded isn't very good.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-09-06 (ScottDorsey) said:
<snip>
>>>And what IS made that is good has a harder time getting
>distribution. >>
<snip>
>I think there is less music being made, and a lot more music being
>released. Consquently, with a higher proportion of music being
>released, the quality per unit is lower.
>Used to be folks in the Brill Building would churn out thousands of
>songs for every one that was recorded. Now nearly everything
>anybody writes is recorded. It's no wonder most of the stuff
>recorded isn't very good. --scott
Would agree, and when you couple that with too many
performers recording self written material who haven't honed
their skills performing live before an audience not a very
good song becomes a not very good production as well. NO
arranger, no producer, no engineer, combined with unrefined
talent equals dreck.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, > wrote:
>On 2010-09-06 (ScottDorsey) said:
> >Used to be folks in the Brill Building would churn out thousands of
> >songs for every one that was recorded. Now nearly everything
> >anybody writes is recorded. It's no wonder most of the stuff
> >recorded isn't very good.
>
>Would agree, and when you couple that with too many
>performers recording self written material who haven't honed
>their skills performing live before an audience not a very
>good song becomes a not very good production as well. NO
>arranger, no producer, no engineer, combined with unrefined
>talent equals dreck.

I don't think that has changed. What is different is that back then,
folks would shop their dreck around and nobody would pick it up for
distribution. Today folks put it on the internet and get distribution.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 06/09/2010 15:17, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at > wrote:
>>
>> Here's a more realistic approach:
>> "Hey guys - we are cutting out the middlemen and the CD can be
>> downloaded from our site for $1"
>
> I don't know how effective this is. The barrier is getting people to
> spend the money; I think people are almost as willing to spend $10 as
> they are to spend $1 once they have made the decision to spend it. The
> trick is getting them interested to the point where they are willing to
> actually open their wallet.
>
> Also there is the issue that cutting costs reduces the perceived value
> of the item. I don't know how severe this is an issue in mainstream
> record sales, but it's a severe one in the audiophile record market.
> People are willing to pay more money for an import edition with the same
> bits on it as the domestic edition, because there is a perception of
> increased value. It must be better, otherwise why would it cost so much
> more?
>
> Pricing is an optimizing problem: too much and people won't buy because
> they think the cost is too much... too little and people won't buy because
> they think the value is too little.
> --scott
>

However, they do go to the trouble of downloading pirate material.
OTOH there are probably quite a lot of people like me who might download
pirate stuff, but would never have bought it anyway. Stuff I hear, and
like, I am willing to pay for. But it's not a lot, and I make a point of
not ripping off struggling artists.

The situation is even worse with movies - I almost never buy DVDs and
almost never watch the same movie twice. Once is enough - preferably at
the cinema.

Maybe there will be a return to the good old days when musicians played
music to people and that's how they made their money. But at $150 a
ticket for the headline stuff, count me out as well. I only go and watch
the relative unknowns who have yet to be infected with greed and music
management parasites.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

[[email protected]]

On 2010-09-06 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>Would agree, and when you couple that with too many
>>performers recording self written material who haven't honed
>>their skills performing live before an audience not a very
>>good song becomes a not very good production as well. NO
>>arranger, no producer, no engineer, combined with unrefined
>>talent equals dreck.

>I don't think that has changed. What is different is that back
>then, folks would shop their dreck around and nobody would pick it
>up for distribution. Today folks put it on the internet and get
>distribution.
RIght, or as Hank notes, on the web which isn't quite
distribution actually, as he notes, tens of thousands of
songs up but never downloaded.

The difference, at least in popular forms of music, was that
you'd write some songs, play them along with the usual
material at the clubs. Those that garnered the best
audience response were often cut on a 45. fOr the younger
set that's the disks with the big hole in the middle,
usually holding one 3-4 minute song per side <grin>. Which
meant you spent your limited studio bucks for a good
sounding pair of songs to go on a 45 and then ran off a
thousand somewhere, sold 'em off the bandstand and gave some
away. IF a & R somewhere picked you up then you recorded
the other also ran songs, but you at least tested those
tunes before real audiences, as well as honed your
performance skills. These days nobody wants to pay to hear
you play, no pressure's on, don't get paying gigs, cool sit
in your basement with your windows box and be a rock 'n roll
legend in your own mind.


Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>
>> In > wrote:
>>> On 2010-09-06 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>> >Used to be folks in the Brill Building would churn out thousands of
>>> >songs for every one that was recorded. Now nearly everything
>>> >anybody writes is recorded. It's no wonder most of the stuff
>>> >recorded isn't very good.
>>>
>>> Would agree, and when you couple that with too many
>>> performers recording self written material who haven't honed
>>> their skills performing live before an audience not a very
>>> good song becomes a not very good production as well. NO
>>> arranger, no producer, no engineer, combined with unrefined
>>> talent equals dreck.
>>
>> I don't think that has changed. What is different is that back then,
>> folks would shop their dreck around and nobody would pick it up for
>> distribution. Today folks put it on the internet and get distribution.
>> --scott
>
> Excerpt, for the most part, they do no get distro. All they get is
> putting it up on the web. That's clued via the ten million songs, most
> offered free, that have never been downloaded.
>


Bo Legg on the pedal steel pages (b0b.com) has suggested gently
in the past that if people want to make music these days, that
there are worse models than the '30s and '40s snake oil* model,
only instead of snake oil, one might consider flour, furniture
or farm products to be flogging.

*not actual snake oil, but a business model based on snake oil
salesmanship from the more distant past. A "you gotta know the
territory" sort of a business model...

I think a lot of the people we ... deify these days started off
that way, and it wasn't bad for *them*. Troubadourship might
be where you find it....

The world was different when the alternatives were %.50 an
hour pumping gas versus living on a bus. That $.50 an hour
was inflated much higher by the time I faced that choice.

I dunno. I grew up in the shadow of Cains Ballroom, and even
played there once, on a Sunday afternoon, opening for ...
Wishbone Ash. No doubt it was a hard time for Cains, but
those wall-sized pictures of Bob Wills should have taught me
something.

But back to Bo, maybe these here machines aren't very good
at generating actual community.

Maybe you had to be there and paying attention. And maybe
that's why Hank Williams could make more money in schoolhouses
than he could on WSM.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

> RIght, or as Hank notes, on the web which isn't quite
> distribution actually, as he notes, tens of thousands of
> songs up but never downloaded.

True, but every once in a while you hear about someone who
has has thousands of downloads of his music. Who's that
current pop singer who got famous from just a video on
YouTube? They don't all have thousands of downloads, of
course, but they can't all be lying, either.

There are some people who go out looking for music that
they've never heard before (and may never want to hear
again) just because they want to hear something different
from the radio top 20. They tend to make up the
"distribution" statistics, what there is of them.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[[email protected]]

MIke Rivers writes:
>> RIght, or as Hank notes, on the web which isn't quite
>> distribution actually, as he notes, tens of thousands of
>> songs up but never downloaded.
>True, but every once in a while you hear about someone who
>has has thousands of downloads of his music. Who's that
>current pop singer who got famous from just a video on
>YouTube? They don't all have thousands of downloads, of
>course, but they can't all be lying, either.
Right, can't think of his name either, but seen a couple
mentions in ROlling stone.
THing is, I"m one of these top 20 on the radio haters as
well, which I why I liked wwoz in NEw ORleans. IN fact,
often if I heard them on wwoz I was told when they were
going to be in NEw ORleans and could go see the act if I
liked what I heard. Also, there were progressive jazz cuts,
old jazz cuts, lots of stuff I might have heard at one time
but forgotten about. Was nice to get an earworm going
around in my head that was a song I hadn't heard since 20
years ago, or never before heard in my life.

But, as LEs notes, building that community is much harder in
virtual space than in realspace. HIs example of Hank
Williams Sr. who stated he could make more money doing
schoolhouse gigs than he could playing on wsm. YEt, wsm
built a real community, and a fan base in virtual space
before it was called virtual space <grin>. Yeah they did it
with a blowtorch am signal, and are the biggest reason there
is a musical community at all in Nashville today. tHanks to
later wsm and Opry owners though they nearly killed it.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[gjsmo]

On Sep 7, 8:09*am, wrote:
> MIke Rivers writes:
>
> * *>> RIght, or as Hank notes, on the web which isn't quite
> * *>> distribution actually, as he notes, tens of thousands of
> * *>> songs up but never downloaded.
> * *>True, but every once in a while you hear about someone who
> * *>has has thousands of downloads of his music. Who's that
> * *>current pop singer who got famous from just a video on
> * *>YouTube? *They don't all have thousands of downloads, of
> * *>course, but they can't all be lying, either.
> Right, can't think of his name either, but seen a couple
> mentions in ROlling stone.

Not that it's my topic exactly but... you mean Justin Beiber? Cause I
hate him.

[Mike Rivers]

gjsmo wrote:

> Not that it's my topic exactly but... you mean Justin Beiber? Cause I
> hate him.

I don't know. I don't remember the guy's name, just the
story. Apparently he was a big YouTube hit without a label,
and some band that also started on YouTube chose him as
their opening act for a tour because they thought it was
appropriate to have an opener with the same career path as
theirs.

I don't know if I like him or not. Probably not, but
probalby wouldn't hate him either. I don't think I've ever
heard him. And if he was playing on the radio when I was
with someone who recognized him and said "That's Justin
Beiber" I probably would have said "Who's that?" I'm not
good with names of people I don't care about.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers writes:
>gjsmo wrote:
>> Not that it's my topic exactly but... you mean Justin Beiber?
>>Cause I hate him.
>I don't know. I don't remember the guy's name, just the
>story. Apparently he was a big YouTube hit without a label,
>and some band that also started on YouTube chose him as
>their opening act for a tour because they thought it was
>appropriate to have an opener with the same career path as
>theirs.
>I don't know if I like him or not. Probably not, but
>probalby wouldn't hate him either. I don't think I've ever
>heard him. And if he was playing on the radio when I was
>with someone who recognized him and said "That's Justin
>Beiber" I probably would have said "Who's that?" I'm not
>good with names of people I don't care about.
dItto here. I care about pop music only if I"m being paid
to. Same with a lot of the new country. IF there's money
coming my way I care about the production values. IF the
$$$ is rolling somebody else's direction chances are I pay
no attention to it. I don't find most modern pop compelling
enough to care, it's not that I have any personal axes to
grind with those to make it. I just have no respect for
autotune and the like. THe production isn't something that
interests me.






Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[alex]

Il 08/09/2010 1.06, gjsmo ha scritto:
> Not that it's my topic exactly but... you mean Justin Beiber? Cause I
> hate him.
aaaarrgghh, never seen before. terrible.

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Scott > wrote:
> >
> >> In > wrote:
> >>> On 2010-09-06 (ScottDorsey) said:
> >>> >Used to be folks in the Brill Building would churn out thousands of
> >>> >songs for every one that was recorded. Now nearly everything
> >>> >anybody writes is recorded. It's no wonder most of the stuff
> >>> >recorded isn't very good.
> >>>
> >>> Would agree, and when you couple that with too many
> >>> performers recording self written material who haven't honed
> >>> their skills performing live before an audience not a very
> >>> good song becomes a not very good production as well. NO
> >>> arranger, no producer, no engineer, combined with unrefined
> >>> talent equals dreck.
> >>
> >> I don't think that has changed. What is different is that back then,
> >> folks would shop their dreck around and nobody would pick it up for
> >> distribution. Today folks put it on the internet and get distribution.
> >> --scott
> >
> > Excerpt, for the most part, they do no get distro. All they get is
> > putting it up on the web. That's clued via the ten million songs, most
> > offered free, that have never been downloaded.
> >
>
>
> Bo Legg on the pedal steel pages (b0b.com) has suggested gently
> in the past that if people want to make music these days, that
> there are worse models than the '30s and '40s snake oil* model,
> only instead of snake oil, one might consider flour, furniture
> or farm products to be flogging.
>
> *not actual snake oil, but a business model based on snake oil
> salesmanship from the more distant past. A "you gotta know the
> territory" sort of a business model...

King Biscuit Flour Hour, etc.

Worked well at the time, and something similar might work today.
However, there are precious few products of any kind that I would be
willing to flog, and almost none of them are marketed on a scale that
would support the old model.

"Thanks, folks, and now a word from Fire-Eye Development, makers of the
Red-Eye acoustic instrument preamp"... <g>

> I think a lot of the people we ... deify these days started off
> that way, and it wasn't bad for *them*. Troubadourship might
> be where you find it....

It certainly is. For groups like our trio the house concert circuit may
prove helpful. We're not bar music, though if there's room enough, a few
couples will dance to some of the higher energy offerings at our gigs.
Our stuff only makes sense where the listening is pretty good. Listening
clubs are few compared to bars, and their overhead compels them to focus
sensibly on acts that are further up the food chain than we are.

However, we've been going over very well live and that is spurring some
interest from those who like to have thirty or a hundred friends over
for a potluck house party with a concert in it. If we succeed at that
level we'll be able to get into some of the listening clubs and perhaps
onto some festival stages, too.

Right now my pitch to a few promoters of key gigs of a slightly larger
scale is that if they're looking for a really good opening act I have
one.

> The world was different when the alternatives were %.50 an
> hour pumping gas versus living on a bus. That $.50 an hour
> was inflated much higher by the time I faced that choice.

I remember living on a bus. That won't work for us now. The cellist is a
full-time pro in the SF Bay area, which means that so far, every time he
plays a gig with us he loses money. But he's way into it and feels
strongly that we have enough potential to grow into something
financially worthwhile, and so he's willing to make the investment.
Shaidri's more than full-time managing her older sister's dance studio,
while sis takes care of a new kiddo and handles a lot of admin off-site.
We have to line up schedules carefully in order to book gigs. If we were
to hop on the bus right now stuff would start falling apart all over our
lives. <g>

With enough lead time we can work it out, so I'm presently working on
bookings for spring 2011. We're definitely making progress. Given my age
who knows what will come of it.

> I dunno. I grew up in the shadow of Cains Ballroom, and even
> played there once, on a Sunday afternoon, opening for ...
> Wishbone Ash. No doubt it was a hard time for Cains, but
> those wall-sized pictures of Bob Wills should have taught me
> something.

If Wishbone Ash drew a crowd Cain's should have done okay, as long as
they didn't over-pay the opening act. <g>

> But back to Bo, maybe these here machines aren't very good
> at generating actual community.

That's a solid possibility in spite of the fact that although I have
never seen you I consider you part of my "community". I read an article
this morning that covered a research project looking into how today's
"digital generation" youngsters feel about community and their friends.
Turns out that the assumptions of the pundits are amiss. For the most
part the kids place much higher value on face-to-face personal
interaction with their friends than they do on any social networking
site. The exceptions, from another study, are those who are very
insecure and/or neurotic. Those folks apparently are much more likely to
become addicted to online "socializing", which relieves them of having
to deal with real people in person.

> Maybe you had to be there and paying attention.

Yes, and I think that holds now, too.

> And maybe that's why Hank Williams could make more money in schoolhouses
> than he could on WSM.

Before Willie Nelson was an international household name he often made
truckloads of cash playing large rural grange halls, rooms in the middle
of nowhere from a city slicker's viewpoint, that held as many as a few
thousand folks. He'd play as a duo with Paul English on drums, they'd
charge ten bucks at the door, and sell to capacity. Sometimes the take
was on the order of fifty grand, and on a week night. Thirty-five years
ago that was pretty good money for a night's work.

Unless one comes up with an Internet trick that gets millions running to
YouTube one has to be there paying attention and earning the interest of
the folks in the room, however many or few. Yes, having the web site is
important and some social networking is helpful, but it's not the driver
in general. Good performances generate interest, the interested parties
hit the web site, they network with their friends, sharing their
excitement, and some of those friends join them for the next show - and
so it grows. It's a slow process but it's also a rewarding activity in
and of itself to put on a good show in any room and have folks leave
feeling like their lives have been made richer by the experience, and
talking about you when they head home, hopefully with a CD.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[[email protected]]

On 2010-09-08 (hankalrich) said:
<snip>

>> there are worse models than the '30s and '40s snake oil* model,
>> only instead of snake oil, one might consider flour, furniture
>> or farm products to be flogging.
>> *not actual snake oil, but a business model based on snake oil
>> salesmanship from the more distant past. A "you gotta know the
>> territory" sort of a business model...
>King Biscuit Flour Hour, etc.
>Worked well at the time, and something similar might work today.
>However, there are precious few products of any kind that I would be
>willing to flog, and almost none of them are marketed on a scale
>that would support the old model.
>"Thanks, folks, and now a word from Fire-Eye Development, makers of
>the Red-Eye acoustic instrument preamp"... <g>
RIght, and the folks with products to flog are looking into
more bang per buck venues to flog their products. SHows are
expensive propositions to keep on the road and maintain a
quality performance. That advert you cut at the studio or
make the video for can be flogged until it's reached the
point of oversaturation, then you better have another advert
to throw at the rubes that makes 'em watch it. YEs PEarl
Jam might play the Verizon arena in some city, but Verizon
gets their advert out of their name on the arena, whether
it's PEarl Jam, Hank Junior or college basketball.

<snip again>

>> But back to Bo, maybe these here machines aren't very good
>> at generating actual community.
>That's a solid possibility in spite of the fact that although I have
>never seen you I consider you part of my "community". I read an
>article this morning that covered a research project looking into
>how today's "digital generation" youngsters feel about community
>and their friends. Turns out that the assumptions of the pundits
>are amiss. For the most part the kids place much higher value on
>face-to-face personal interaction with their friends than they do
>on any social networking site. The exceptions, from another study,
>are those who are very insecure and/or neurotic. Those folks
>apparently are much more likely to become addicted to online
>"socializing", which relieves them of having to deal with real
>people in person.
Would agree. Which means that you can't get traffic to your
web presence unless you're playing gigs, and actually
entertaining the punters. still it's live performance that
creates the buzz, and that buzz creates traffic.

And, this gets back to the point I was making to Scott.
music written performed and arranged in isolation is often
music that sucks. Music that is tested before an audience
is usually discarded if it doesn't go over, or eventually
recorded and sold. THat part of the equation is what's
missing.

k



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Henry Salvia]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>hank alrich wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>>Bo Legg on the pedal steel pages (b0b.com) has suggested gently
>>in the past that if people want to make music these days, that
>>there are worse models than the '30s and '40s snake oil* model,
>>only instead of snake oil, one might consider flour, furniture
>>or farm products to be flogging.
>>
>>*not actual snake oil, but a business model based on snake oil
>>salesmanship from the more distant past. A "you gotta know the
>>territory" sort of a business model...
>
> King Biscuit Flour Hour, etc.
>
> Worked well at the time, and something similar might work today.
> However, there are precious few products of any kind that I would be
> willing to flog, and almost none of them are marketed on a scale that
> would support the old model.
>
> "Thanks, folks, and now a word from Fire-Eye Development, makers of the
> Red-Eye acoustic instrument preamp"... <g>

The first thing I think of when this is proposed is all of the
stories from radio/tv days of artists' fights with sponsors over
content. I think people who think this is a good model don't know
why the artists moved away from the security of a single sponsor who
had veto power over what you said and how you said it. Maybe the
analogy doesn't hold up since we're not talking about a single portal
going out to a national audience of tens of millions, but I'd still
recommend watching the old Burns and Allen TV show to seen them doing
the Carnation Milk ads written into the script before they sign up to
pitch Monster Cable or Goldline...

>>I think a lot of the people we ... deify these days started off
>>that way, and it wasn't bad for *them*. Troubadourship might
>>be where you find it....
>
> It certainly is. For groups like our trio the house concert circuit may
> prove helpful. We're not bar music, though if there's room enough, a few
> couples will dance to some of the higher energy offerings at our gigs.
> Our stuff only makes sense where the listening is pretty good. Listening
> clubs are few compared to bars, and their overhead compels them to focus
> sensibly on acts that are further up the food chain than we are.
>
> However, we've been going over very well live and that is spurring some
> interest from those who like to have thirty or a hundred friends over
> for a potluck house party with a concert in it. If we succeed at that
> level we'll be able to get into some of the listening clubs and perhaps
> onto some festival stages, too.
>
> Right now my pitch to a few promoters of key gigs of a slightly larger
> scale is that if they're looking for a really good opening act I have
> one.

Yes, an opportunity for exposure. Sincerely, good luck with pitching
the festivals. Its a crowded market these days, and my experience
being an old guy in a band of not-famuous old guys
(http://www.houstonjones.com) is getting their attention is a challenge.
There's a lot of competition for that captive audience. I like to think
of the headliner at the Telluride Bluegrass festival the year we played
there a few years back, the famous bluegrass acts Counting Crows and Los
Lobos.

>
>>The world was different when the alternatives were %.50 an
>>hour pumping gas versus living on a bus. That $.50 an hour
>>was inflated much higher by the time I faced that choice.
>
>
> I remember living on a bus. That won't work for us now. The cellist is a
> full-time pro in the SF Bay area, which means that so far, every time he
> plays a gig with us he loses money. But he's way into it and feels
> strongly that we have enough potential to grow into something
> financially worthwhile, and so he's willing to make the investment.
> Shaidri's more than full-time managing her older sister's dance studio,
> while sis takes care of a new kiddo and handles a lot of admin off-site.
> We have to line up schedules carefully in order to book gigs. If we were
> to hop on the bus right now stuff would start falling apart all over our
> lives. <g>

Hee. Living on a bus is the most possibly awesome thing to do when
you're in your 20's and sleeping on top of the PA is no problem if
there's enough beer backstage. In you're 50's, no so much.

> With enough lead time we can work it out, so I'm presently working on
> bookings for spring 2011. We're definitely making progress. Given my age
> who knows what will come of it.

The journey is its own reward, or something. But, you get to have that
moment playing good music for people who are listening. That's a feeling
you can't buy, and you may as well enjoy it while its happening/possible.
>
>>I dunno. I grew up in the shadow of Cains Ballroom, and even
>>played there once, on a Sunday afternoon, opening for ...
>>Wishbone Ash. No doubt it was a hard time for Cains, but
>>those wall-sized pictures of Bob Wills should have taught me
>>something.
>
> If Wishbone Ash drew a crowd Cain's should have done okay, as long as
> they didn't over-pay the opening act. <g>

I think Cains was an old dance hall in Oakland dating from the 20's? If
that's the one, Wishbone Ash was near the end of a long run. They had
everything from jass bands to country to mexican to R&B to rock. I would
guess Les was intimating that the content may vary, but the rules
remain the same.

>>But back to Bo, maybe these here machines aren't very good
>>at generating actual community.
>
> That's a solid possibility in spite of the fact that although I have
> never seen you I consider you part of my "community". I read an article
> this morning that covered a research project looking into how today's
> "digital generation" youngsters feel about community and their friends.
> Turns out that the assumptions of the pundits are amiss. For the most
> part the kids place much higher value on face-to-face personal
> interaction with their friends than they do on any social networking
> site. The exceptions, from another study, are those who are very
> insecure and/or neurotic. Those folks apparently are much more likely to
> become addicted to online "socializing", which relieves them of having
> to deal with real people in person.
>
There's a relatively ancient on-line social network caled Usenet. The
history there is pretty clear that a virtual community can both enhance
and replace face-to-face interaction. Being able to pretend to be who
you wish you were (or believe you are) is pretty seductive.

>>Maybe you had to be there and paying attention.
>
>
> Yes, and I think that holds now, too.

Megadittoes, to quote a great American huckster.

>
>>And maybe that's why Hank Williams could make more money in schoolhouses
>>than he could on WSM.

From what I've read it was always pretty clear to the artist with a
clue that being on the radio was a marketing tool, whether it was Hank
on WSM or Duke Ellington in the Cotton Club with "a wire" as they used
to say. Bands don't line up to beg to appear on late night TV or Prarie
Home Companion these days for the money.

>
> Before Willie Nelson was an international household name he often made
> truckloads of cash playing large rural grange halls, rooms in the middle
> of nowhere from a city slicker's viewpoint, that held as many as a few
> thousand folks. He'd play as a duo with Paul English on drums, they'd
> charge ten bucks at the door, and sell to capacity. Sometimes the take
> was on the order of fifty grand, and on a week night. Thirty-five years
> ago that was pretty good money for a night's work.
>
> Unless one comes up with an Internet trick that gets millions running to
> YouTube one has to be there paying attention and earning the interest of
> the folks in the room, however many or few. Yes, having the web site is
> important and some social networking is helpful, but it's not the driver
> in general. Good performances generate interest, the interested parties
> hit the web site, they network with their friends, sharing their
> excitement, and some of those friends join them for the next show - and
> so it grows. It's a slow process but it's also a rewarding activity in
> and of itself to put on a good show in any room and have folks leave
> feeling like their lives have been made richer by the experience, and
> talking about you when they head home, hopefully with a CD.

This. A thousand times this. Lots of this. Its the old
school/grind-it-out/5 years on the road method, but unless you win the
YouTube lottery its your only option. 10 years ago the "Internet trick"
was "throw up a web site and sell 100,000 CDs". 20 years ago it was "buy
add time on latenight TV and pitch your album". Now its go viral on
YouTube. Personally, I think if we knew what else a given artist who
"came out of nowhere and went viral on YouTube" was doing at the time,
it would be less of a mystery why a given artist "goes viral". Boxcar
Willie and Zamfir, King of the Pan Flute, didn't just buy those adds and
wait for the phone to ring, after all.

Henry Salvia.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les > wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>> Scott > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In > wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-09-06 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>>>> >Used to be folks in the Brill Building would churn out thousands of
>>>>> >songs for every one that was recorded. Now nearly everything
>>>>> >anybody writes is recorded. It's no wonder most of the stuff
>>>>> >recorded isn't very good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would agree, and when you couple that with too many
>>>>> performers recording self written material who haven't honed
>>>>> their skills performing live before an audience not a very
>>>>> good song becomes a not very good production as well. NO
>>>>> arranger, no producer, no engineer, combined with unrefined
>>>>> talent equals dreck.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that has changed. What is different is that back then,
>>>> folks would shop their dreck around and nobody would pick it up for
>>>> distribution. Today folks put it on the internet and get distribution.
>>>> --scott
>>>
>>> Excerpt, for the most part, they do no get distro. All they get is
>>> putting it up on the web. That's clued via the ten million songs, most
>>> offered free, that have never been downloaded.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bo Legg on the pedal steel pages (b0b.com) has suggested gently
>> in the past that if people want to make music these days, that
>> there are worse models than the '30s and '40s snake oil* model,
>> only instead of snake oil, one might consider flour, furniture
>> or farm products to be flogging.
>>
>> *not actual snake oil, but a business model based on snake oil
>> salesmanship from the more distant past. A "you gotta know the
>> territory" sort of a business model...
>
> King Biscuit Flour Hour, etc.
>
> Worked well at the time, and something similar might work today.
> However, there are precious few products of any kind that I would be
> willing to flog, and almost none of them are marketed on a scale that
> would support the old model.
>
> "Thanks, folks, and now a word from Fire-Eye Development, makers of the
> Red-Eye acoustic instrument preamp"...<g>
>

:)

>> I think a lot of the people we ... deify these days started off
>> that way, and it wasn't bad for *them*. Troubadourship might
>> be where you find it....
>
> It certainly is. For groups like our trio the house concert circuit may
> prove helpful. We're not bar music, though if there's room enough, a few
> couples will dance to some of the higher energy offerings at our gigs.
> Our stuff only makes sense where the listening is pretty good. Listening
> clubs are few compared to bars, and their overhead compels them to focus
> sensibly on acts that are further up the food chain than we are.
>
> However, we've been going over very well live and that is spurring some
> interest from those who like to have thirty or a hundred friends over
> for a potluck house party with a concert in it. If we succeed at that
> level we'll be able to get into some of the listening clubs and perhaps
> onto some festival stages, too.
>
> Right now my pitch to a few promoters of key gigs of a slightly larger
> scale is that if they're looking for a really good opening act I have
> one.
>

I think y'all are on to something here.

>> The world was different when the alternatives were %.50 an
>> hour pumping gas versus living on a bus. That $.50 an hour
>> was inflated much higher by the time I faced that choice.
>
> I remember living on a bus. That won't work for us now. The cellist is a
> full-time pro in the SF Bay area, which means that so far, every time he
> plays a gig with us he loses money. But he's way into it and feels
> strongly that we have enough potential to grow into something
> financially worthwhile, and so he's willing to make the investment.
> Shaidri's more than full-time managing her older sister's dance studio,
> while sis takes care of a new kiddo and handles a lot of admin off-site.
> We have to line up schedules carefully in order to book gigs. If we were
> to hop on the bus right now stuff would start falling apart all over our
> lives.<g>
>
> With enough lead time we can work it out, so I'm presently working on
> bookings for spring 2011. We're definitely making progress. Given my age
> who knows what will come of it.
>

no telling.

>> I dunno. I grew up in the shadow of Cains Ballroom, and even
>> played there once, on a Sunday afternoon, opening for ...
>> Wishbone Ash. No doubt it was a hard time for Cains, but
>> those wall-sized pictures of Bob Wills should have taught me
>> something.
>
> If Wishbone Ash drew a crowd Cain's should have done okay, as long as
> they didn't over-pay the opening act.<g>
>

Ah, we had to send the Boy out for extra leaf-springs for the
wagon to carry all the gold-bars home*. Nah, I don't
even think we were paid.

*who is T. Herman Zweibel?

Cains ran into trouble, and is operated as a semi-public
place now.

>> But back to Bo, maybe these here machines aren't very good
>> at generating actual community.
>
> That's a solid possibility in spite of the fact that although I have
> never seen you I consider you part of my "community".

Well, likewise.

> I read an article
> this morning that covered a research project looking into how today's
> "digital generation" youngsters feel about community and their friends.
> Turns out that the assumptions of the pundits are amiss. For the most
> part the kids place much higher value on face-to-face personal
> interaction with their friends than they do on any social networking
> site. The exceptions, from another study, are those who are very
> insecure and/or neurotic. Those folks apparently are much more likely to
> become addicted to online "socializing", which relieves them of having
> to deal with real people in person.
>
>> Maybe you had to be there and paying attention.
>
> Yes, and I think that holds now, too.
>
>> And maybe that's why Hank Williams could make more money in schoolhouses
>> than he could on WSM.
>
> Before Willie Nelson was an international household name he often made
> truckloads of cash playing large rural grange halls, rooms in the middle
> of nowhere from a city slicker's viewpoint, that held as many as a few
> thousand folks. He'd play as a duo with Paul English on drums, they'd
> charge ten bucks at the door, and sell to capacity. Sometimes the take
> was on the order of fifty grand, and on a week night. Thirty-five years
> ago that was pretty good money for a night's work.
>

Yep. He used to throw picnics at the Ken Lance Sports arena
in Ada, but not by the time I got there. This is not an easy
place to *find* unless yer trying to get there...

> Unless one comes up with an Internet trick that gets millions running to
> YouTube one has to be there paying attention and earning the interest of
> the folks in the room, however many or few. Yes, having the web site is
> important and some social networking is helpful, but it's not the driver
> in general. Good performances generate interest, the interested parties
> hit the web site, they network with their friends, sharing their
> excitement, and some of those friends join them for the next show - and
> so it grows. It's a slow process but it's also a rewarding activity in
> and of itself to put on a good show in any room and have folks leave
> feeling like their lives have been made richer by the experience, and
> talking about you when they head home, hopefully with a CD.
>

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Henry Salvia > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Les Cargill > wrote:
> >>hank alrich wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
> >>
> >>Bo Legg on the pedal steel pages (b0b.com) has suggested gently
> >>in the past that if people want to make music these days, that
> >>there are worse models than the '30s and '40s snake oil* model,
> >>only instead of snake oil, one might consider flour, furniture
> >>or farm products to be flogging.
> >>
> >>*not actual snake oil, but a business model based on snake oil
> >>salesmanship from the more distant past. A "you gotta know the
> >>territory" sort of a business model...
> >
> > King Biscuit Flour Hour, etc.
> >
> > Worked well at the time, and something similar might work today.
> > However, there are precious few products of any kind that I would be
> > willing to flog, and almost none of them are marketed on a scale that
> > would support the old model.
> >
> > "Thanks, folks, and now a word from Fire-Eye Development, makers of the
> > Red-Eye acoustic instrument preamp"... <g>
>
> The first thing I think of when this is proposed is all of the
> stories from radio/tv days of artists' fights with sponsors over
> content. I think people who think this is a good model don't know
> why the artists moved away from the security of a single sponsor who
> had veto power over what you said and how you said it. Maybe the
> analogy doesn't hold up since we're not talking about a single portal
> going out to a national audience of tens of millions, but I'd still
> recommend watching the old Burns and Allen TV show to seen them doing
> the Carnation Milk ads written into the script before they sign up to
> pitch Monster Cable or Goldline...

I think that's right on. If one wishes to express ideas that run against
the prevailing grain one is not going to find a sponsor. If the musical
material itself deals with issues transcending romantic hearbreak
sponsors could be few and far between, if to be found at all.

Imagine Halliburton sponsoring a Dylan "Masters of War" tour.

> >>I think a lot of the people we ... deify these days started off
> >>that way, and it wasn't bad for *them*. Troubadourship might
> >>be where you find it....
> >
> > It certainly is. For groups like our trio the house concert circuit may
> > prove helpful. We're not bar music, though if there's room enough, a few
> > couples will dance to some of the higher energy offerings at our gigs.
> > Our stuff only makes sense where the listening is pretty good. Listening
> > clubs are few compared to bars, and their overhead compels them to focus
> > sensibly on acts that are further up the food chain than we are.
> >
> > However, we've been going over very well live and that is spurring some
> > interest from those who like to have thirty or a hundred friends over
> > for a potluck house party with a concert in it. If we succeed at that
> > level we'll be able to get into some of the listening clubs and perhaps
> > onto some festival stages, too.
> >
> > Right now my pitch to a few promoters of key gigs of a slightly larger
> > scale is that if they're looking for a really good opening act I have
> > one.
>
> Yes, an opportunity for exposure. Sincerely, good luck with pitching
> the festivals. Its a crowded market these days, and my experience
> being an old guy in a band of not-famuous old guys
> (http://www.houstonjones.com) is getting their attention is a challenge.

Hey, that's a very good band! And you're right. It's a crowded field,
which isn't surprising, really. Once upon a time, before the rise of an
industry built around prerecorded music, nearly everyone played music.
(The early music publishing business fed that desire, and from looking
over songbooks from the 1800's I'd say the prevalance of crap is not
different today than it was back then.)

In the early 1900's there were approximately 7000 shops or factories
building pianos in the USA. On a per capita basis that is astounding.
Some of them were major factories and some of them were a couple/three
guys with a shop.

> There's a lot of competition for that captive audience. I like to think
> of the headliner at the Telluride Bluegrass festival the year we played
> there a few years back, the famous bluegrass acts Counting Crows and Los
> Lobos.

I have to wonder WTF when I see stuff like that. Do the promoters not
have confidence that bluegrass fans will attend a bluegrass festival to
hear bluegrass performers? I guess there's a chance they're hoping to
draw pop music fans to a bluegrass festival in hopes that the bluegrass
virus will catch on with a wider portion of the general public.

> >>The world was different when the alternatives were %.50 an
> >>hour pumping gas versus living on a bus. That $.50 an hour
> >>was inflated much higher by the time I faced that choice.
> >
> >
> > I remember living on a bus. That won't work for us now. The cellist is a
> > full-time pro in the SF Bay area, which means that so far, every time he
> > plays a gig with us he loses money. But he's way into it and feels
> > strongly that we have enough potential to grow into something
> > financially worthwhile, and so he's willing to make the investment.
> > Shaidri's more than full-time managing her older sister's dance studio,
> > while sis takes care of a new kiddo and handles a lot of admin off-site.
> > We have to line up schedules carefully in order to book gigs. If we were
> > to hop on the bus right now stuff would start falling apart all over our
> > lives. <g>
>
> Hee. Living on a bus is the most possibly awesome thing to do when
> you're in your 20's and sleeping on top of the PA is no problem if
> there's enough beer backstage. In you're 50's, no so much.

I remember being in my 50's. I can't remember if it seems like a long
time ago or just yesterday...

> > With enough lead time we can work it out, so I'm presently working on
> > bookings for spring 2011. We're definitely making progress. Given my age
> > who knows what will come of it.
>
> The journey is its own reward, or something. But, you get to have that
> moment playing good music for people who are listening. That's a feeling
> you can't buy, and you may as well enjoy it while its happening/possible.

It's a perfect time to forget about how much money you're not making and
savor the richness of the moment.

> >>I dunno. I grew up in the shadow of Cains Ballroom, and even
> >>played there once, on a Sunday afternoon, opening for ...
> >>Wishbone Ash. No doubt it was a hard time for Cains, but
> >>those wall-sized pictures of Bob Wills should have taught me
> >>something.
> >
> > If Wishbone Ash drew a crowd Cain's should have done okay, as long as
> > they didn't over-pay the opening act. <g>
>
> I think Cains was an old dance hall in Oakland dating from the 20's?

I think Les meant the famous old dance hall in Tulsa, Oklahoma. But
you've piqued my interest in the Oakland venue. Know anythign more about
it? A quick googlation doesn't get me what I'm after.

> If that's the one, Wishbone Ash was near the end of a long run. They had
> everything from jass bands to country to mexican to R&B to rock. I would
> guess Les was intimating that the content may vary, but the rules remain
> the same.

Yep, even though they didn't have GPS to help find the gig in those
days. OTOH fewer roads and smaller cities helped there.

> >>But back to Bo, maybe these here machines aren't very good
> >>at generating actual community.
> >
> > That's a solid possibility in spite of the fact that although I have
> > never seen you I consider you part of my "community". I read an article
> > this morning that covered a research project looking into how today's
> > "digital generation" youngsters feel about community and their friends.
> > Turns out that the assumptions of the pundits are amiss. For the most
> > part the kids place much higher value on face-to-face personal
> > interaction with their friends than they do on any social networking
> > site. The exceptions, from another study, are those who are very
> > insecure and/or neurotic. Those folks apparently are much more likely to
> > become addicted to online "socializing", which relieves them of having
> > to deal with real people in person.
> >
> There's a relatively ancient on-line social network caled Usenet.

<!!!> <G>

> The history there is pretty clear that a virtual community can both
> enhance and replace face-to-face interaction. Being able to pretend to be
> who you wish you were (or believe you are) is pretty seductive.

Easier for some folks than figuring out who they are and accepting that.
Then again sometimes I pretend I can play banjo.

> >>Maybe you had to be there and paying attention.
> >
> >
> > Yes, and I think that holds now, too.
>
> Megadittoes, to quote a great American huckster.
>
> >
> >>And maybe that's why Hank Williams could make more money in schoolhouses
> >>than he could on WSM.
>
> From what I've read it was always pretty clear to the artist with a
> clue that being on the radio was a marketing tool, whether it was Hank
> on WSM or Duke Ellington in the Cotton Club with "a wire" as they used
> to say. Bands don't line up to beg to appear on late night TV or Prarie
> Home Companion these days for the money.
>
> >
> > Before Willie Nelson was an international household name he often made
> > truckloads of cash playing large rural grange halls, rooms in the middle
> > of nowhere from a city slicker's viewpoint, that held as many as a few
> > thousand folks. He'd play as a duo with Paul English on drums, they'd
> > charge ten bucks at the door, and sell to capacity. Sometimes the take
> > was on the order of fifty grand, and on a week night. Thirty-five years
> > ago that was pretty good money for a night's work.
> >
> > Unless one comes up with an Internet trick that gets millions running to
> > YouTube one has to be there paying attention and earning the interest of
> > the folks in the room, however many or few. Yes, having the web site is
> > important and some social networking is helpful, but it's not the driver
> > in general. Good performances generate interest, the interested parties
> > hit the web site, they network with their friends, sharing their
> > excitement, and some of those friends join them for the next show - and
> > so it grows. It's a slow process but it's also a rewarding activity in
> > and of itself to put on a good show in any room and have folks leave
> > feeling like their lives have been made richer by the experience, and
> > talking about you when they head home, hopefully with a CD.
>
> This. A thousand times this. Lots of this. Its the old
> school/grind-it-out/5 years on the road method, but unless you win the
> YouTube lottery its your only option. 10 years ago the "Internet trick"
> was "throw up a web site and sell 100,000 CDs". 20 years ago it was "buy
> add time on latenight TV and pitch your album". Now its go viral on
> YouTube. Personally, I think if we knew what else a given artist who
> "came out of nowhere and went viral on YouTube" was doing at the time,
> it would be less of a mystery why a given artist "goes viral". Boxcar
> Willie and Zamfir, King of the Pan Flute, didn't just buy those adds and
> wait for the phone to ring, after all.
>
> Henry Salvia.

Indeed. They were working their butts off. Still, it's hard to predict
sometimes what people will find fascinating (excluding roadside wreckage
which always draws a crowd wanting to cause another wreck). Lots of
people with mad skills have worked their butts off and driven their
busses into the ground without getting to go viral. At least now and
then maybe some of them go to go fungal.

http://www.boxcarwillie.com/biography/


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Henry Salvia wrote:
> hank alrich wrote:
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>> hank alrich wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Bo Legg on the pedal steel pages (b0b.com) has suggested gently
>>> in the past that if people want to make music these days, that
>>> there are worse models than the '30s and '40s snake oil* model,
>>> only instead of snake oil, one might consider flour, furniture
>>> or farm products to be flogging.
>>>
>>> *not actual snake oil, but a business model based on snake oil
>>> salesmanship from the more distant past. A "you gotta know the
>>> territory" sort of a business model...
>>
>> King Biscuit Flour Hour, etc.
>>
>> Worked well at the time, and something similar might work today.
>> However, there are precious few products of any kind that I would be
>> willing to flog, and almost none of them are marketed on a scale that
>> would support the old model.
>>
>> "Thanks, folks, and now a word from Fire-Eye Development, makers of the
>> Red-Eye acoustic instrument preamp"... <g>
>
> The first thing I think of when this is proposed is all of the
> stories from radio/tv days of artists' fights with sponsors over
> content. I think people who think this is a good model don't know
> why the artists moved away from the security of a single sponsor who
> had veto power over what you said and how you said it. Maybe the
> analogy doesn't hold up since we're not talking about a single portal
> going out to a national audience of tens of millions, but I'd still
> recommend watching the old Burns and Allen TV show to seen them doing
> the Carnation Milk ads written into the script before they sign up to
> pitch Monster Cable or Goldline...
>

But that would have stayed the model had the value of the
record albums themselves, or the advertising in the case of TV,
not escalated greatly over time.

<snip>
>>
>> If Wishbone Ash drew a crowd Cain's should have done okay, as long as
>> they didn't over-pay the opening act. <g>
>
> I think Cains was an old dance hall in Oakland dating from the 20's?

Tulsa.

> If
> that's the one, Wishbone Ash was near the end of a long run. They had
> everything from jass bands to country to mexican to R&B to rock. I would
> guess Les was intimating that the content may vary, but the rules remain
> the same.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain's_Ballroom

<snip>
>
> This. A thousand times this. Lots of this. Its the old
> school/grind-it-out/5 years on the road method, but unless you win the
> YouTube lottery its your only option. 10 years ago the "Internet trick"
> was "throw up a web site and sell 100,000 CDs".

I knew people who might have had 1000 paid downloads on mp3.com, but
that was about it....

> 20 years ago it was "buy
> add time on latenight TV and pitch your album". Now its go viral on
> YouTube. Personally, I think if we knew what else a given artist who
> "came out of nowhere and went viral on YouTube" was doing at the time,
> it would be less of a mystery why a given artist "goes viral". Boxcar
> Willie and Zamfir, King of the Pan Flute, didn't just buy those adds and
> wait for the phone to ring, after all.
>

To be sure...

> Henry Salvia.
>

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Henry Salvia > wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of competition for that captive audience. I like to think
>> of the headliner at the Telluride Bluegrass festival the year we played
>> there a few years back, the famous bluegrass acts Counting Crows and Los
>> Lobos.
>
>I have to wonder WTF when I see stuff like that. Do the promoters not
>have confidence that bluegrass fans will attend a bluegrass festival to
>hear bluegrass performers? I guess there's a chance they're hoping to
>draw pop music fans to a bluegrass festival in hopes that the bluegrass
>virus will catch on with a wider portion of the general public.

I think that's basically the plan. I think it can work if the headliner
is something that sort of crosses over into the festival genre, but it
can also turn people away too.

And speaking as a sound guy, it is absolute hell because now we need a
sound system capable of dealing with a solo fiddle player and not making
him sound blown out of proportion, while ALSO being able to deal with
a high energy rockband with a loud backline and not running out of steam.
I am not sure that such a system actually exists in the real world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-09-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>>the year we played there a few years back, the famous bluegrass
>>>acts Counting Crows and Los Lobos.
>>I have to wonder WTF when I see stuff like that. Do the promoters
>>not have confidence that bluegrass fans will attend a bluegrass
>>festival to hear bluegrass performers? I guess there's a chance
>>they're hoping to draw pop music fans to a bluegrass festival in
>>hopes that the bluegrass virus will catch on with a wider portion
>of the general public.
>I think that's basically the plan. I think it can work if the
>headliner is something that sort of crosses over into the festival
>genre, but it can also turn people away too.
IT can, but, when I was doing a performance education
nonprofit venue a few years ago we hosted some weekend
afternoon Bluegrass stuff, and I heard more ****ing and
moaning because the main band that rehearsed there left a
friggin' drum kit on the riser. MOre ****ing and moaning
among a few bluegrassers there about a drum kit nobody was
going to use. I didn't feel like wrestling it off the stage
and setting it back up, especially when we were doing an
open blues jam the next afternoon.

>And speaking as a sound guy, it is absolute hell because now we
>need a sound system capable of dealing with a solo fiddle player
>and not making him sound blown out of proportion, while ALSO being
>able to deal with a high energy rockband with a loud backline and
>not running out of steam. I am not sure that such a system actually
>exists in the real world. --scott
IT doesn't, but remember that the volume controls work in
two directions <grin>. I always opt for a little less sound
system when faced with that dilema, at least for the solo
fiddle player <grin>.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Les Cargill]

wrote:

>
> But, as LEs notes, building that community is much harder in
> virtual space than in realspace. HIs example of Hank
> Williams Sr. who stated he could make more money doing
> schoolhouse gigs than he could playing on wsm. YEt, wsm
> built a real community,

Oh, certainly - but before the radio, there was ... nothing.
Sheet music, maybe.

> and a fan base in virtual space
> before it was called virtual space<grin>. Yeah they did it
> with a blowtorch am signal, and are the biggest reason there
> is a musical community at all in Nashville today. tHanks to
> later wsm and Opry owners though they nearly killed it.
>
>

What's weird is - nowadays, *everybody* kills it. ClearChannel
went through reorg last year or two, the major labels don't
really even try any more, the movie business just gets worse
year by year, TV has all but stopped making material that
is not intended to ultimately be sold by DVD on cable
channels...

We're doing it wrong.

>
>
>
> Richard webb,
>
> replace anything before at with elspider
> ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > But, as LEs notes, building that community is much harder in
> > virtual space than in realspace. HIs example of Hank
> > Williams Sr. who stated he could make more money doing
> > schoolhouse gigs than he could playing on wsm. YEt, wsm
> > built a real community,
>
> Oh, certainly - but before the radio, there was ... nothing.
> Sheet music, maybe.
>
> > and a fan base in virtual space
> > before it was called virtual space<grin>. Yeah they did it
> > with a blowtorch am signal, and are the biggest reason there
> > is a musical community at all in Nashville today. tHanks to
> > later wsm and Opry owners though they nearly killed it.
> >
> >
>
> What's weird is - nowadays, *everybody* kills it. ClearChannel
> went through reorg last year or two, the major labels don't
> really even try any more, the movie business just gets worse
> year by year, TV has all but stopped making material that
> is not intended to ultimately be sold by DVD on cable
> channels...
>
> We're doing it wrong.

Hence, the blisters.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 11/09/2010 03:31, Les Cargill wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>
>> But, as LEs notes, building that community is much harder in
>> virtual space than in realspace. HIs example of Hank
>> Williams Sr. who stated he could make more money doing
>> schoolhouse gigs than he could playing on wsm. YEt, wsm
>> built a real community,
>
> Oh, certainly - but before the radio, there was ... nothing.
> Sheet music, maybe.

Which in its day was big business and suffered issues of piracy.


--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show