House of Drumming.com

I'm hoping I'll be getting on that list soon. Won't have anything to do with my drumming, though.

I never said music sharing was a great thing. I'm only saying the writers are still making a large amount of money. Sure the sharing effects mechanicals. Mechanicals deal with units sold. Units are the C.D's or MP3's. But song usage and airplay, along with other artists covering the songs, is where writers make more money. It doesn't stop either. Dave Grohl is still making hundreds of thousands from having writing credit on that Nirvana release. Tori Amos, Paul Anka, and countless others have also remade smells like teen spirit. Trust me, this music sharing thing hurt the artists that didn't write their songs much more than the guys on this list, who most likely have publishing and writing. In additional to mechanical. If you have a platinum selling album, it doesn't matter if people are sharing your music. You still sold a million units. Depending on what the artist owes the record label , this is still a nice chunk of change. Usually a $15.00 unit will give the artist 2 dollars. That's two million dollars from mechanicals alone. Sure, pre-internet age, the artist would have been much richer, but come on. How greedy can someone be? Before this, people would make mix tapes.

Robert Bluman wrote:Sure, pre-internet age, the artist would have been much richer, but come on. How greedy can someone be? Before this, people would make mix tapes.

And who exactly are you accusing of being greedy? And which writers are still making a large amount of money? How much money is someone allowed to make before you decide they're being greedy?

What about the greed of the tech corporations who refuse to compensate or protect the copyright holders? Is Apple not being greedy taking the percentage they're taking from artists on iTunes?

To make a mix tape, you required the physical vinyl product. And the tape was of inferior quality to the original product. It's not an accurate comparison.

Please don't suggest that musicians and songwriters are still making stacks of cash. It just isn't true (aside from the minority). If you need to tell yourself this to rationalize theft, go ahead, but don't try and pretend that all is well in the world of digital music.

Paul Marangoni wrote:

Robert Bluman wrote:Sure, pre-internet age, the artist would have been much richer, but come on. How greedy can someone be? Before this, people would make mix tapes.

And who exactly are you accusing of being greedy? And which writers are still making a large amount of money? How much money is someone allowed to make before you decide they're being greedy?

What about the greed of the tech corporations who refuse to compensate or protect the copyright holders? Is Apple not being greedy taking the percentage they're taking from artists on iTunes?

To make a mix tape, you required the physical vinyl product. And the tape was of inferior quality to the original product. It's not an accurate comparison.

Please don't suggest that musicians and songwriters are still making stacks of cash. It just isn't true (aside from the minority). If you need to tell yourself this to rationalize theft, go ahead, but don't try and pretend that all is well in the world of digital music.

You make some great points.
I definitely think that Apple has their rate way too high, but they control that distribution network completely, so they make the rules.
Just a note, mp3's are inferior to vinyl and cd, not as much as tape was to either, but they are.

One thing I would like to add, the only people really making the loot are the juggernaut, poppers, rappers and country acts. The rest of the stuff is far below their take.
This whole juggernaut thing is what puts a bad taste in regular musicians mouths, because most of them, no all I stress, are just puppet acts with massive capital investment.
It's like Budweiser to a beer person. Definitely an inferior product, but shoved down America's throat on every commercial, billboard, etc...
I see a lot of the high grossing music being like this. Marginalized to fit the lowest common denominator in order to sell the most records.
Such is what happens when you let people with business degrees control and industry.
Now that the whole thing is falling apart, all the middle ground between the juggernauts and the regular musicians has receded, so you have an entire industry starving whilst the top 2% are still scroodge mcduckin' it.

It's very funny how this whole thing mirrors America's economic situation, and the whole marginalization of product for profit thing is the modus operandi of businesses in this country.
This type of "ethic" (not very ethical) is poisoning every facet of our lives and it's a shame because regular Joes can't do anything about it.

Everyone is tossing around the digital arguments, what about regular f*cking gigs?
I have two steadies a week, and in my city (Phoenix, AZ) that's like a miracle. My drum teacher I studied with at the university here works less.
Pay for gigs is a fucking joke now too. Rooms that used to pay 200 a man are trying to book at 100 or less and some places are levying food and cats are biting.
If you're playing the bar scene here, even getting paid is a squirrely notion.
I remember back about 4 or 5 years ago, I was making killing in the wedding/private/corporate thing, and right about now was when the book would be filling up... so far this year not so much, and it's not like we're not still hustlin', the fish aren't biting anymore. Even the, gasp, DJs I know are in bad shape.

Richest drummers... who even cares. How about just being able to play for a living?

Paul Marangoni wrote:lease don't suggest that musicians and songwriters are still making stacks of cash. It just isn't true (aside from the minority).

Did they ever is the question? I constantly see this argument, it basically runs - "Musicians make a lot less then they used to now because of pirating."

Here's my question, where is the empirical evidence that any is actually making less then their counter parts 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago? I'd like to see some charts or whatever that actually shows there were more musicians making more money pre-internet.

**** It seems to me that there are actually MORE musicians making money playing music now then ever before. ***


And also how much of the market share (The amount of money to be spent on a given year on music) is being sucked away by record companies manipulation of the market and pushing pop stars. Like Justin Bieber.

We can't say that a person who goes to a justin beiber concert would have for sure gone to a "rock" concert. But none the less that is just 1 pop star that dominates the world music industry.


In my opinion. Stealing is never right. But the plight of the musicians is far more caused from record companies and corporations pushing crap to the public. Dominating the markets with whatever they decide to sell and not letting anyone else in.

DeeP_FRieD wrote:

Paul Marangoni wrote: Please don't suggest that musicians and songwriters are still making stacks of cash. It just isn't true (aside from the minority). If you need to tell yourself this to rationalize theft, go ahead, but don't try and pretend that all is well in the world of digital music.

Everyone is tossing around the digital arguments, what about regular f*cking gigs?
I have two steadies a week, and in my city (Phoenix, AZ) that's like a miracle. My drum teacher I studied with at the university here works less.
Pay for gigs is a fucking joke now too. Rooms that used to pay 200 a man are trying to book at 100 or less and some places are levying food and cats are biting.
If you're playing the bar scene here, even getting paid is a squirrely notion.
I remember back about 4 or 5 years ago, I was making killing in the wedding/private/corporate thing, and right about now was when the book would be filling up... so far this year not so much, and it's not like we're not still hustlin', the fish aren't biting anymore. Even the, gasp, DJs I know are in bad shape.

Richest drummers... who even cares. How about just being able to play for a living?

Yes. This. Even $100 a man for a gig is a miracle. Here in Austin, you're lucky to get $50 for a bar gig. Maybe I need to check out Phoenix.

And Josiah, sorry mate, I can't quite see how you'd think more people are making money playing music than before. I've been in Austin for four years and, while being a tough town to be a professional in to begin with, I make less money playing gigs now than I did 2 to 3 years go. In fact, I play less gigs now, simply due to the overflow of musicians/bands willing to play for free and because the culture surrounding music here is that it's not cool to get paid and that wanting to get paid strips you of the coveted "artist" title.

But the hipsters & "artists" playing for free? They're all hypocrites and are causing these issues. They're not buying music either.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse sometimes with these discussions...

EDIT: one last thought...

The other issue is that due to all of the above (concerning live gigs and pay), the saturation of guys that 'just want to play', the standard has dropped. Nine times out of ten if you called for a gig by a venue or bandleader and begin to talk rates you get dismissed. They'd rather sacrifice talent than having to pay more or at all. Worst part is- 99% of the audience (if there is an audience) won't even notice the difference, because that singer or that band is playing music and that's great!

The Indusrty has sufferend on two fronts,for the average musician wages have stayed the same for the last 20 years and there is less upward mobiity.

With record companies making money there was at least somewhere to go as a musician. The record companies may have been ripping off artists with loaning say 500 grand to do an album, then having the band pay it back $1.50 an album which is insane.. But a least they put up the 500 grand that the band didn't have to pay back if things went bad.. If you were a pro level musician you could be part of that scene and not do bar gigs for dough..

Nowdays that money pool or pro level of things is gone, bar gigs used to be the farm team for pro levels. Now you have musicians that used to tour and record albums playing bars that for the most part the young up and comers would play..

If you take a big selling album in the 90's it would be around 10 to 12 million albums.. Of that the record company makes $8.50 an album or more.. That's around 100 million bucks give or take, that was reinvested to make more money for them..

The artists totally deserved more of what they recieved, however there was an industry because of it..

The artists totally deserved more of what they recieved, however there was an industry because of it.

They didn't deserve more. They received what they signed up for. Bands got signed and fronted money to record and album. With up front cash and some sponsorship bands went on tour. Why do musicians think they deserve "more". More respect? Acknowledge a musicians prowess? Years of practicing needs to be rewarded? Fuck that. Play and shut up. Every industry is fucked these days or any days. Just be happy to be alive and playing. I don't play for free. Fuck that. I get into situations where i get paid. I get the standard pay. Sometimes more, sometimes less and sometimes standard. Take it anyway you can get it. There's problems with the way things are handled. You have three choices. Whine, deal or do something about it.

Willyz, for starters you can't use your very specific time and place to base a generalize argument that sweeps a global scale.*
Secondly, are you referring to cover bands? $50 for a "bar gig" sounds like a cover band.

No offense, but that's totally outside the argument and frankly if you don't make money playing covers. Boo Hoo. It's a COVER BAND.


*Also I'm sorry it seems that bad, but that might also just be you, that specific area, a slump for that area, who knows. I live in a TINY city compared to Austin and easily make $100/night for any number of cover bands. Granted at 4 sets, that's only $25/hour, but none the less. Churches pay way better, but that's whole different conversation.

willyz wrote: And Josiah, sorry mate, I can't quite see how you'd think more people are making money playing music than before.

There are many many many times more people today making money with music, then ever before. Answer these simple questions -

How many artists on iTunes? Were more people then that selling their music BEFORE iTunes?

Come on man. There is an astounding number of artists and musicians pushing their products, SELLING THEM, on the market. WAY more then pre-internet and modern technology.



There's many many many times more musicians and artists making money off their music then ever before. You need to understand that fact. First.

Now move on to the crux of the conversation - the musicians aren't making AS MUCH. AS MUCH is the important part.

But everybody loves pizza, and we all know the more people fighting over the same pie, the smaller the pieces have to get if everyone gets a slice.


Fact of the matter is, sure I have 500,000 mp3's.... but there's no way in the world I would have bought even 1/10th of that anyway. So that's NOT lost revenue for the artist. It doesn't cost a dime for a digital copy. I'm not taking anything way, because frankly I would never actually go buy the entire Pink Floyd Discography.
Just like me having videos of Vinnie playing different gigs doesn't take any money from his pocket, I never would have been able to go in the first place. But it actually GROWS the music community because crazy drum heads like us devour these bootlegs and learn from them, we are evolving the art by amassing referenceable knowledge.

You know what takes money away from musicians though? Controlling the radio and media to only allow your particular pop artists into the open market. It's not the teenagers at home downloading FooFighters keeping your music off the radio.

Go try and get a song played on the radio, you'll find out real fucking quick the who what and why nobody's making money.

Most people I know that download music don´t give a shit about listening in a proper system or room. They do it cause it´s easy and quick. They wouldn´t be buying records if the file sharing thing stops (hey, radio was always for free, right?). I´m not sure they are the reason why the whole paradigm is shifting; I think that´s way deeper than that.