[Carey Carlan]

Time/CNN article
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/kdfcjLw...ormat=standard

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_11_]]

"What we are saying to artists is: The current model is
broken. Unless we find a new model, new music is dead."


duh...Unless the record companies find a new model they are
dead. RIP to the greedy *******s. They need us musicians now
not the other way around. **** them record company bitches.
Let them learn to beg like us musicians.

peace
dawg.


"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
...
Time/CNN article
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/kdfcjLw...ormat=standard

[Fletch]

Carey Carlan wrote:
Time/CNN article
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/kdfcjLw...ormat=standard

There is no surprise here. The Labels are finally realising that they
need to do something -- anything -- to keep their businesses alive.

So they will groom up and coming artists with lucrative contracts that
will benefit the artist in the long run, but the labels throughout.

Contract re-negotiation is typical if a band has a runaway hit with
their first album. The second album will fetch the band far more than
the original contract stipulated because of the re-negotiated terms.

Bands that choose to follow their own muse need to examine and study
Fugazi, Ani DiFranco and other truly independent artists to learn the
real work, and the many years it took/takes to make their careers a success.

You have to face nearly endless touring just to make a living until your
albums, yes plural, and swag begin to generate enough revenue that you
need not be on the road 48 weeks a year.

The reality is that regardless of what the major labels do, the music
business in general at all levels is a tough business. If you haven't
the fortitude to endure, to persevere, you will leave.

The industry as it is has people who are just entering, people who are
about to leave (because they can't hack the life), people who are in the
place where it is beginning to be profitable, people who are doing well,
and people who are very successful.

While this is no different than any other business on the surface, the
fact is that finding places to play is hard, dealing with club owners is
hard, using agents and managers is hard, it's all very, very hard on you.

But when you find good players who get along, good agents who work for
YOU, good managers who protect YOU, and you have good road gear and
transportation and great sound and roadie people it is the best life
there is.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

My philosophy is simple: the world is going to do whatever it does; the
labels are going to want my band or not. None of that is going to deter
me from doing what I was made to do, what I am doing, and nothing will
deter me from recording our music, making the swag to sell, and going
out there every night we play and giving 200% to the audience, whether
it is 10 or 10,000. Every one of them which shows up is going to get the
whole show without prejudice.

That's what we call professionalism. Yeah, it still exists for some of us.

--Fletch

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
"What we are saying to artists is: The current model is
broken. Unless we find a new model, new music is dead."


duh...Unless the record companies find a new model they are
dead. RIP to the greedy *******s. They need us musicians now
not the other way around. **** them record company bitches.
Let them learn to beg like us musicians.

peace
dawg.


"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
...
Time/CNN article
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/kdfcjLw...ormat=standard

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business. Only certain
people are gonna make it anyway. It seems like the ones bitching the
loudest don't deserve to make it (not meaning you, I'm speaking in
general!) The best solution is for the record companies to remain in
business and be more fair to the artist... and I don't mean the
Madonna's and the Prince's in the business, I mean the second and third
tier artists that actually subsidize the labels.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 21, 8:37 pm, Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business. Only certain
people are gonna make it anyway. It seems like the ones bitching the
loudest don't deserve to make it (not meaning you,

The major labels promote the major artists. The minor artists that
they let in the door are really probably better off as independents,
but everyone who dreams of a career in music dreams of a "major label
deal." This is nothing new, it's just that a few more are being
offered now than in the old days, and so there are more of those minor-
major artists that the labels can dump when they recognize that they
don't have a new major artist on their roster.

The best solution is for the record companies to remain in
business and be more fair to the artist...

And the way they can do that is to just say "no thanks" to people who
knock on their door and who they know they aren't going to promote
into big money makers. Fortunately there aren't too many of those
now.

Independent music is great for those with the talent and the drive for
success, but of the 2,000 aspiring new artists who put a few songs up
on a web site every week, how many are making a living in music the
old fashioned way, by touring, playing clubs and schools, sending out
mailers in the real mail (not just e-mail), hiring a manager and a
publicist . . ? That's all the stuff that major labels take care of
for their major artists, but (and yeah, I guess it's "unfair") don't
do it for the minors, who they expect to do that sort of work
themselves. There are probably a couple who do, and who move up the
corporate ladder.

Would it be asking too much for the artists to be fair to the record
companies?




and I don't mean the
Madonna's and the Prince's in the business, I mean the second and third
tier artists that actually subsidize the labels.

[hank alrich]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:36:58 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article ):

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

Unless this is just more of the "disappearance of the middle class" that's
been going on for some time. It has happened to recording studios, ad
agencies, video production companies, local retail, radio station chains,
etc..

The record companies have to figure out how what their talent spread can be
based on whether or not they can show decent profit figures to the board and
sometimes shareholders.

There have been periods of "generosity", but mostly that's been because the
big acts in a major label are bringing in enough money to allow the record
companies to speculate, and spend some money on developing who they think
might be the next big act.

"Real appreciation of live music" - Hmm, well, for established acts, it died
before in great part due to transportation expenses. (It'll be interesting to
see how many acts fall on the knife of the recently increasing gas prices.)
This also presumes that acts can actually perform well live, which is not
always the case.

The "temporary" solution has been to package 2-3 acts on the same tour, but
you don't have to look back very far to see that's been happening for years.
Economies of scale at work.

There has been a "house concert" circuit of low cost tours for a number of
years. Most of those folks are still looking for the "major label deal" to
help them get to the next level.

This discussion, or ones very similar to it, have been going on since before
I was born. It's the music BUSINESS, not the MUSIC business and it's always
been that way.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

I hope you're right. I really hope you're right. But I am seeing more
people who just view music as furniture that they surround themselves with
using their iPod or computer, and fewer people who just want to sit down
and listen carefully to music. On top of that, I see fewer kids in school
music programs. The combination seems disasterous to me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

I hope you're right. I really hope you're right. But I am seeing more
people who just view music as furniture that they surround themselves with
using their iPod or computer, and fewer people who just want to sit down
and listen carefully to music. On top of that, I see fewer kids in school
music programs. The combination seems disasterous to me.
--scott

I mostly agree, Scott. In most school districts in the country, it is
getting more and more difficult to keep kids in music programs due to a
shrinking amount of available time in the school day: few electives,
"block scheduling", shorter days, etc. Add to that the fact that arts
programs are usually the first to go during budget problems (CA was
making a comeback musically, but with the present crisis, we'll lose
ground again), and you have fewer kids in programs. There are pockets
of exceptions, of course, mostly in the mid-West and desert southwest
(AZ, for example).

[rochrist]

hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.


The problem is the shrinking base of venues for live music. Its a nice
idea, but cost is putting the small live music venues out of the
business. Certainly around here (MA) it is. Two long time quality places
near me have abandoned live music in the last couple of months, and
from what people who play out tell me, the scene in MA is as bad as its
ever been.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article

om,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

I hope you're right. I really hope you're right. But I am seeing more
people who just view music as furniture that they surround themselves with
using their iPod or computer, and fewer people who just want to sit down
and listen carefully to music. On top of that, I see fewer kids in school
music programs. The combination seems disasterous to me.
--scott

I mostly agree, Scott. In most school districts in the country, it is
getting more and more difficult to keep kids in music programs due to a
shrinking amount of available time in the school day: few electives,
"block scheduling", shorter days, etc. Add to that the fact that arts
programs are usually the first to go during budget problems (CA was
making a comeback musically, but with the present crisis, we'll lose
ground again), and you have fewer kids in programs. There are pockets
of exceptions, of course, mostly in the mid-West and desert southwest
(AZ, for example).

I should have also mentioned Texas.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.


It would certainly help us out. I'm still wondering if live music is
gonna survive Karaoke :-(

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.
The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

I hope you're right. I really hope you're right. But I am seeing more
people who just view music as furniture that they surround themselves with
using their iPod or computer, and fewer people who just want to sit down
and listen carefully to music. On top of that, I see fewer kids in school
music programs. The combination seems disasterous to me.
--scott

My daughter is playing the clarinet in her schools music program this
year, she's 11. (she already plays a little bit of guitar and keyboards)
Her instruction mostly consists of a DVD they sent home with her. I
could've done that... :-(

[Carey Carlan]

rochrist wrote in :

hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

The problem is the shrinking base of venues for live music. Its a nice
idea, but cost is putting the small live music venues out of the
business. Certainly around here (MA) it is. Two long time quality places
near me have abandoned live music in the last couple of months, and
from what people who play out tell me, the scene in MA is as bad as its
ever been.


What is driving up the cost for live venues?

I might understand live bands not drawing as they once did, but I don't see
the expense base of the venue increasing faster than inflation.

[jakdedert]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.
The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

I hope you're right. I really hope you're right. But I am seeing more
people who just view music as furniture that they surround themselves
with
using their iPod or computer, and fewer people who just want to sit down
and listen carefully to music. On top of that, I see fewer kids in
school
music programs. The combination seems disasterous to me.
--scott

My daughter is playing the clarinet in her schools music program this
year, she's 11. (she already plays a little bit of guitar and keyboards)
Her instruction mostly consists of a DVD they sent home with her. I
could've done that... :-(

Here in Nashville, it's a bit better in the public schools, at least the
ones my two daughters attend. My senior has been playing violin since
4th grade, and we have supplemented her musical education with vocal
ensemble training both at church and privately (Blair School of Music).
My 11yo had no desire for school (marching) band or the strings
program they also offer at her school. Her 3rd grade class offered a
guitar program that she did take to (sponsored privately by Washburn
Guitars). She participates in church choir, and did a year at Blair,
before deciding it wasn't 'for her'.

OTOH, our Metro Parks & Rec Dept. offers a 'Jam Band' program which she
has been in for several years. They throw a bunch of kids of similar
age and experience together to form a 'band', which they then teach a
couple of songs from scratch and drill them for a couple of months. It
operates on a semester system like school--two semesters, each of which
culminates in a public concert--plus a summer session.

Lots of fun to see my (then) 9yo get up and front a band, singing and
banging on her guitar, in front of a couple of hundred folks. I never
expected to roadie for my own daughter....G

jak

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 22, 7:49 pm, Carey Carlan wrote:

What is driving up the cost for live venues?

I'd guess the cost of real estate (rent or taxes) and the desire to
make a profit.

A band, at least one that gets paid a workingman's wage, costs more
than a DJ or a few TV sets, and doesn't draw in that many more
drinkers - or maybe more bodies but buying fewer drinks because they
have the music to entertain them. And people won't pay a $20 cover
charge to see a "local band" no matter how good they are.

[Scott Dorsey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.

It would certainly help us out. I'm still wondering if live music is
gonna survive Karaoke :-(

Usually when I have seen Karaoke, the music definitely was coming out
on the losing side of the battle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:54:02 -0400, rochrist wrote
(in article ):

hank alrich wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I agree with you to a certain extent, but without the record companies
it's a lot harder to be successful in the music business.

The whole superstar thing might be almost over with, and prob ably
rightly so, in my mind, but at the grassroots level I think we're going
to see a return to real appreciation of live music. And for me, that's
where the rubber meets the road, the engaging contract between artist
and audience.


The problem is the shrinking base of venues for live music. Its a nice
idea, but cost is putting the small live music venues out of the
business. Certainly around here (MA) it is. Two long time quality places
near me have abandoned live music in the last couple of months, and
from what people who play out tell me, the scene in MA is as bad as its
ever been.


I'm guessing that's due to undocumented house concerts. There's a ton of
original music happening here in the mid-atlantic. A lot of it in small
venues and house concerts. House concerts are a response to the venues who
need audiences to drink in order to make a profit. That's as broken a
business model as the one the record companies are trying to fix.

The option is to charge a cover instead of hoping people will drink enough to
pay the operating expenses. The problem with that is that in the mid atlantic
we have a LOT of singer-songwriters and bands. Maybe too many. Why pay a
cover when you can hear music for free at an open mic?

So with the glut of supply musicians end up playing for nothing at Open Mics
and maybe selling CDs if they brought any. The smart ones put out a signup
sheet to get names and email addresses so the audience becomes part of the
musicians' emailable database.

You don't have to look very hard to see there's a very real parallel between
the profusion of self-produced musicians, home studios and house concerts.
It's a growing business model.

Some musicians can pull off the production of their own projects, some can't.
I say, "try it and see." If it doesn't come off and the musicians can hear
that it doesn't measure up, they learned something and will try it again, or
get help. Most of the singer-songwriters I work with have tried to do it
themselves and have not been happy with the result.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

The problem is the shrinking base of venues for live music. Its a nice
idea, but cost is putting the small live music venues out of the
business. Certainly around here (MA) it is. Two long time quality places
near me have abandoned live music in the last couple of months, and
from what people who play out tell me, the scene in MA is as bad as its
ever been.


I'm guessing that's due to undocumented house concerts. There's a ton of
original music happening here in the mid-atlantic. A lot of it in small
venues and house concerts. House concerts are a response to the venues who
need audiences to drink in order to make a profit. That's as broken a
business model as the one the record companies are trying to fix.

House concerts are fine but they have one flaw, there is no beginning.
No place for a band to start out. I don't know what you have against
bars (or if you do at all), but buying booze at a 500% markup to is not
the reason why they go there. They go there because it is an adult
playground. They get to do the things that aren't socially acceptable
anywhere else. That's their business model. Loud music is just part of
the party atmosphere. So is the booze. Sometimes it's also band,
sometimes it ain't :-) DJ's and Karaoke are doing the most harm around
here. Musicians have lost Wednesday and Thursday nights to Karaoke in
large numbers.


The option is to charge a cover instead of hoping people will drink enough to
pay the operating expenses. The problem with that is that in the mid atlantic
we have a LOT of singer-songwriters and bands. Maybe too many. Why pay a
cover when you can hear music for free at an open mic?

Some place charge cover some don't. A cover turns a lot of people off,
especially if they find out later that they don't like the band. As for
the open mic thing, the guys that play those things generally suck (not
always) and it's usually acoustic guitars and vocals. Although I like
that sort of thing it gets old real fast. Open mic nights don't sell a
lot of booze, you usually find them on off nights and they are used
primarily as an alternative to having a full band. Don't get me wrong,
it's not always acoustic and vocal, the band I play for hosts a Sunday
jam session at a bar, we mostly get crappy singers and rank wannabees.
We have a lot of bands here, too (ever since Guitar Center moved in :-)
There are two types of bands here, the bands who hardly ever have a
paying gig and the ones who work at least 3 nights ever week. The trick
is that the bands who work are good with a crowd, they connect with
their audience and they play what the audience wants to hear, not what
they think is cool or what they feel is not "beneath them" Sometimes a
band is too much of a hassle for a smaller venue, too loud, takes up too
much space, etc. A good band that can get a crowd to party their asses
off and buy a lot of booze is still in high demand.



So with the glut of supply musicians end up playing for nothing at Open Mics
and maybe selling CDs if they brought any.

Which is why open mic nights suck. Besides that, what if the acoustic
guitar and vocal format doesn't fit their music?

The smart ones put out a signup
sheet to get names and email addresses so the audience becomes part of the
musicians' emailable database.

That's been replaced by myspace, check back in a couple of years and
find out what it will be called then :-)


You don't have to look very hard to see there's a very real parallel between
the profusion of self-produced musicians, home studios and house concerts.
It's a growing business model.

I'm all for it, but there are some problems that haven't been worked
out. The main problem is moving product. The competition has increased
100 fold to get people to buy your music. It's getting really hard to
promote on the internet now. There's too much utter crap clogging the
channel.


Some musicians can pull off the production of their own projects, some can't.

I agree, they always come back when they realize that it's harder than
it looks... And why is it that EVERYONE thinks they have a Sgt. Pepper
or a Dark Side Of The Moon in them?

I say, "try it and see." If it doesn't come off and the musicians can hear
that it doesn't measure up, they learned something and will try it again, or
get help. Most of the singer-songwriters I work with have tried to do it
themselves and have not been happy with the result.

Amen! I wouldn't try to roof my own house, either :-)

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:08:34 -0400, Romeo Rondeau wrote
(in article ):


The problem is the shrinking base of venues for live music. Its a nice
idea, but cost is putting the small live music venues out of the
business. Certainly around here (MA) it is. Two long time quality places
near me have abandoned live music in the last couple of months, and
from what people who play out tell me, the scene in MA is as bad as its
ever been.


I'm guessing that's due to undocumented house concerts. There's a ton of
original music happening here in the mid-atlantic. A lot of it in small
venues and house concerts. House concerts are a response to the venues who
need audiences to drink in order to make a profit. That's as broken a
business model as the one the record companies are trying to fix.

House concerts are fine but they have one flaw, there is no beginning.
No place for a band to start out.

That's not the case here in the mid-atlantic.

I don't know what you have against
bars (or if you do at all), but buying booze at a 500% markup to is not
the reason why they go there. They go there because it is an adult
playground. They get to do the things that aren't socially acceptable
anywhere else. That's their business model. Loud music is just part of
the party atmosphere. So is the booze. Sometimes it's also band,
sometimes it ain't :-) DJ's and Karaoke are doing the most harm around
here. Musicians have lost Wednesday and Thursday nights to Karaoke in
large numbers.

Amazingly, some people don't like bars. Go figure. No, it's not the reason
people go to a bar, but the reason bars exist is to sell alcohol. I kow a lot
of people who go to bars because it's social, and the "adult playground"
scenario is why most of 'em stopped. Ever stay sober in a bar and watch what
jerks some people become when they're juiced up?

The option is to charge a cover instead of hoping people will drink enough
to
pay the operating expenses. The problem with that is that in the mid
atlantic
we have a LOT of singer-songwriters and bands. Maybe too many. Why pay a
cover when you can hear music for free at an open mic?

Some place charge cover some don't. A cover turns a lot of people off,
especially if they find out later that they don't like the band. As for
the open mic thing, the guys that play those things generally suck (not
always) and it's usually acoustic guitars and vocals. Although I like
that sort of thing it gets old real fast. Open mic nights don't sell a
lot of booze, you usually find them on off nights and they are used
primarily as an alternative to having a full band. Don't get me wrong,
it's not always acoustic and vocal, the band I play for hosts a Sunday
jam session at a bar, we mostly get crappy singers and rank wannabees.
We have a lot of bands here, too (ever since Guitar Center moved in :-)
There are two types of bands here, the bands who hardly ever have a
paying gig and the ones who work at least 3 nights ever week. The trick
is that the bands who work are good with a crowd, they connect with
their audience and they play what the audience wants to hear, not what
they think is cool or what they feel is not "beneath them" Sometimes a
band is too much of a hassle for a smaller venue, too loud, takes up too
much space, etc. A good band that can get a crowd to party their asses
off and buy a lot of booze is still in high demand.

Agreed, but that's another topic. But that assumes the crowd is already
there. It doesn't work that way here. Where I am, the band brings their
crowd. If they don't have the crowd, they don't last long.

So with the glut of supply musicians end up playing for nothing at Open
Mics
and maybe selling CDs if they brought any.

Which is why open mic nights suck. Besides that, what if the acoustic
guitar and vocal format doesn't fit their music?

It's not a black and white world. CAN suck, but don't always. If a performer
can't play "unplugged", it's just his/her limitation.

The smart ones put out a signup
sheet to get names and email addresses so the audience becomes part of the
musicians' emailable database.

That's been replaced by myspace, check back in a couple of years and
find out what it will be called then :-)

Again, not here. Myspace is where you get people to go after you get their
email addresses. As you mention elsewhere, the web is already to choked.

You don't have to look very hard to see there's a very real parallel
between
the profusion of self-produced musicians, home studios and house concerts.
It's a growing business model.

I'm all for it, but there are some problems that haven't been worked
out. The main problem is moving product. The competition has increased
100 fold to get people to buy your music. It's getting really hard to
promote on the internet now. There's too much utter crap clogging the
channel.

Yes, as I said, too much supply. You have to think like a marketer.

Some musicians can pull off the production of their own projects, some
can't.

I agree, they always come back when they realize that it's harder than
it looks... And why is it that EVERYONE thinks they have a Sgt. Pepper
or a Dark Side Of The Moon in them?

I say, "try it and see." If it doesn't come off and the musicians can hear
that it doesn't measure up, they learned something and will try it again,
or
get help. Most of the singer-songwriters I work with have tried to do it
themselves and have not been happy with the result.

Amen! I wouldn't try to roof my own house, either :-)

or anyone else's, I hope.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[hank alrich]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I wouldn't try to roof my own house, either :-)

I would, and have done so. It's working out well, too.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam