The Modern Music industry sounds like a shit-show

Submitted by coolguysteve21 t3_yapfoo in Music

Disclaimer: I am a layman who listens to music for fun I have no connection to the industry so don’t take any of this for fact

After the article that got popular yesterday about Blink-182 and ticket master got popular I started doing more research into it and man it sounds like the music industry is fucked in todays age.

So from what I read (this will all be based on if you had a good contract with a label) musicians used to release an album and then from that album get a portion of cd/tape/album sales then they would go on tour and get a portion of those sales and then a portion of merch sales. In the end it sounds like if you had a good contract you could make a nice living as a semi big musician.

Now with streaming adding the biggest middle man there could be, the artist has to split its streams with the record label, and the streaming company. So to make up for their loss they go on tour, but on tour they realize they are making less money, Ticketmaster comes to them and says “hey I know how to help you make more money! You are losing it to scalpers. So here is a sweet program that lets you sale your tickets so you are getting the most profits you can… and we make a little percentage.” They start making the money back but not all of it so then they increase merch prices as well.

Bada boom bada bing. Slowly and surely the average fan can’t afford tickets anymore or they max out their credit cards to see their favorite band live.

Now does this mean the artist is off the hook? No. I think it is sad and some artist have even put there foot down somewhere (some would cite Pearl Jam and RATM I don’t have evidence of that though)

Even my favorite artist The Boss Springsteen is probably the worst most recent perpetrator of this.

At least that’s the way I see it.

What do you guys think?

60

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zoqfotpik t1_itc740q wrote

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

--Hunter S. Thompson

64

MUCHO2000 t1_itcp3lf wrote

Yeah if OP thinks the modern music industry is a shit show they should look into how much worse it used to be.

6

attorneyatslaw t1_itc6407 wrote

Its always been a mess. Record labels have always signed bands to terrible contracts that take all their rights and don’t pay them much if anything.

34

rumpghost t1_iteul98 wrote

Always pour one out for folks like Big Mama Thornton, John Fogerty, countless others before and since. They were robbed.

2

Reelplayer t1_itca5pu wrote

And without those record labels you would have never heard of the band

−8

thorpie88 t1_itcdrrk wrote

Not always. Tame Impala got big because his demo disc ended up on the head of Triple J's desk and he played it on his show. Then modular came along and fucked him over by stealing all the international album sales profit.

Triple J also have a dedicated website where anyone can put their music on and have a chance to be played on air. Like a shit load of Aussie bands have gotten their big break because of it.

8

DomesticApe23 t1_itewg1l wrote

Richard Kingsmill has caused the death of more local bands than he ever made famous. Triple J will be better off when he leaves. He's basically Australian music's gatekeeper and he can fuck off.

−1

Mind43dom t1_itcho07 wrote

Because they ring fence and gate keep the industry. They built the system to ensure you get fucked and they get rich.

Now places like tiktok and social media are cutting them out the loop, if you hit it in tiktok and have released your own music through streaming services with no label you’re laughing.

Touring is still fucked, tickettek and others have deals with venues and gate keep access and ticket distribution.

3

Reelplayer t1_itekar5 wrote

>if you hit it in tiktok and have released your own music through streaming services with no label you’re laughing.

That's a rare achievement. You can count how many artists pull this off every year on one hand. It's incredible expensive to record and produce music at a high quality. People who try to do it for themselves usually end up making music that sounds like shit. Then of course there's distribution. Sure, put it out on free sites with tens of thousands of other new songs. You might even get 200 people to listen! At the end of the day, it still takes money to get big. The artist doesn't have money. That's where the labels come in.

2

Mind43dom t1_itfxlvo wrote

Hitting it on tik tok is just as “rare” as being signed by a label. If you’re only getting 200 listens you should probably reflect on your music. I’ve had piano jam solos pull thousands of listens.

Not sure why anyone is sucking on the dicks of labels, but hey be my guest.

2

RadioFloydHead t1_itiogkv wrote

“It's incredible expensive to record and produce music at a high quality.”

No, it’s not. Without even getting into how affordable at home recording is, studio time is as cheap as it’s ever been. There are tons of decent studios all over where you can record for less than $200 a hour including an experienced engineer. I know Grammy award winning guys who will mix and master an entire album for a few grand to polish it off.

1

Reelplayer t1_itjpmd0 wrote

Sound engineer, mix engineer, mastering, studio time, travel, hotels, possibly new gear that actually sounds good... So you're looking at $15-$50k at least to get an album done. Big artists spend a lot more. And you haven't even gotten to marketing and publicity yet. Good luck finding many bands with that kind of start up money.

1

RadioFloydHead t1_itju555 wrote

Your comment said it’s expensive to record music at a high “quality”. That’s simply not true. I know of at least ten places you could book this week for $600 to $1000 bucks a day, all with some of the best gear you could want. I’m talking hundreds of thousands in instruments and microphones. Some of these places have recorded many albums that made it big.

There is a reason for the exodus in the studio industry over the last ten years which caused so many big names to close their doors. The reason is that digital recording is dirt cheap to produce. Many newer artists are doing it by themselves at home and so are most professionals. It is entirely possible to record 90 percent of an album at home and finish it off in a studio for next to nothing. I know many people who used to charge $200-300 dollars an hour and, today, they are lucky to average ten percent of that. Again, I’m talking guys that have credits hundreds of albums with big name labels.

For perspective, my band was negotiating with a major label back in 2006 and their proposed budget for recording the album, eight songs, was $20K. It’s practically peanuts compared to what it was in analog times.

Again, I didn’t say anything about marketing and publicity. That isn’t part of recording.

1

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_ite5j7y wrote

Okay, sure. But people who are independent from any record label and sell their albums on Bandcamp probably walk away with more of that money than a big name act would .... Even when people were still buying physical CDs, the bands themselves maybe only got 10 cents from every CD sold.

"The percentage that you receive for each album sold is a negotiating point, but typically it can fall anywhere between 10% and 20%. Most new artists get a royalty percentage at the low end of the range, and 10% is common."

Someone selling their music via a website like Bandcamp is taking more from those sales than a major label artist would.

2

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_ite66u4 wrote

Also, the only reason DIR EN GREY (a Japanese Metal Band) ever got any traction in the U.S. is because of a few English-language websites talking about the band and ILLEGAL FILE SHARING VIA P2P CLIENTS....

Without someone uploading DeG's music to Grokster, Morpheus, Kazzaa, LimeWire etc -- nobody outside of Japan would even know about DIR EN GREY.... And much like Rammstein before them (German band) their big entry point came when they were selected to play the Family Values Tour with Korn.

2

SpiffHimself t1_iteijhu wrote

You may eat some down votes, but in the case of 90% of bands that "changed my life" or "defined my youth" this is absolutely true.

Doesn't mean it's right or good, but it's true

2

DoctaMario t1_itcapb8 wrote

Producer/songwriter working in the industry here.

To be fair, it's always been bad, but I'd argue it's actually better than it used to be because knowledge about it is out there more than it used to be and there are more possibilities for making a living now that you have streaming platforms like Spotify out there.

Back even as recent as the 90s, if a major label didn't like you, chances are you weren't going to have a career. Now you can book your own tours (assuming you even need to tour what with people now being able to build audiences online), sell you own merch, and keep all the money for yourself. If you sell 10,000 copies of a $10 CD (people like these as souvenirs) on your own, that's $100k that goes into YOUR pocket. So while you don't have as many big stars now as we used to, musicians that would never get signed still have the potential to get out there, find an audience and actually make a living off their music. Florida Georgia Line was doing so well independently that it was actually a pay cut for them when they signed to a major label.

As for concerts, that's always been the same. The artist sets the price and Ticketmaster is there to absorb the blowback as they have always been. Springsteen and Blink 182 have older audiences that are more established and they know those folks will pay whatever they're asking if they want to be at the show badly enough. So I can't blame them for charging what they do, especially now since album sales are non-existent, if their audiences are willing to pay.

21

_90s_Nation_ t1_itcb78a wrote

Don't you think it's better when things were more controlled, though?

Like... You could name a roster of pop acts from each decade. Like you can name a sports team, or WWE's top guys.

Now, there's an oversaturation of people. Which in turn gives no major stars, or makes it harder for major stars to be sold or consumed by people.

Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo, already seemed to have fazed out. After one hit, basically.

Bieber was the last one I can remember who was like... Major. Like Katy Perry, Rhianna, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Adele etc.

None of the Millenial stars have been replaced by copies. Or even a similar thing.

−6

Mind43dom t1_itcjfug wrote

No I don’t think it’s better, the focus on one artists popularity and suppression of access to the other millions of artists is not a reason to go back to the heavy gatekeeping of the industry.

Let’s also not forget even the period you’re taking about for every major like Bieber there were thousands of 1 hit wonders who went nowhere.

Like everything in life, holding onto what was a horrible system that endeavoured to destroy the artists they promoted for the sake of nostalgia is not the way forward.

Record labels were selling the artist on the idea of Fame, not buying them for their talent or music. Artists had their egos fed and bank accounts robbed.

People are also far more connected than ever before and people can find new artists with ease, the music industry does not need major artists, the music industry is evolving as people evolve and our connected world evolves and more unique artists create their own platform. The public is the arbitrator of the success.

The current system is on a much better projection for the artists than ever before. Now an artists can go viral on tiktok and distribute their music globally with no record label.

8

_90s_Nation_ t1_itcjqs0 wrote

I never said it was about one. I said there was a roster, that consistently had songs in the charts around that time. Those stars haven't been replaced.

−1

Mind43dom t1_itcmf7j wrote

I don’t see any negatives to the current evolution of the industry. I am all for seeing the end of rosters.

5

ytinasxaJ t1_itcjs5u wrote

Completely disagree that this is a bad thing

5

roflcopter44444 t1_itdrkhg wrote

>None of the Millenial stars have been replaced by copies.

This is for a number of reasons.

a) the next generation is more diverse in terms of musical choices so there aren't huge all encompassing acts that can speak for entire swathes of a particular generation. This is actually a good thing because there is more musical choice for listeners as well as artists have more freedom to explore different sounds rather than try and fit an industry template. Thats why you see more mixing of genres today, if you do listen to a lot of artist interviews from the 90s, 2000s a common theme is that when they wanted to take a risk and try to go a different way than the "industry trend" the labels would push back a lot and sometimes hold their contract over their head so that the artist would do what they were told.

b) the metrics have changed, due to different ways of consumption If an artist songs are huge on a platform like tiktok or soundcloud none of the traditional music metrics actually captures that

c) the fact that younger people are using different form of media also affects the coverage of those artists in traditional media. Why would a top 40 station play music geared to 15-19 year olds when hardly any of them listen to radio.

If you are heavily reliant on getting your music from traditional forms of media you aren't really going to see any of the newer acts coming up.

4

DoctaMario t1_itcjv7j wrote

Is IS still very controlled, at least at the major label pop/country level. Pop acts are super curated but you also have the counterbalance to that which is journeyman Americana acts like John Moreland who are also able to make a living. People's tastes have splintered so we aren't forced to listen to top 40 radio anymore, which is why there are fewer "big stars" than there used to be. I prefer a music industry where we have more choice of what to listen to, and with how good recommendation algorithms are, it's easier than ever to find something you like.

I don't think many of the millennial stars have been around long enough to be replaced, and I actually think Billie Eilish is on an upswing. She's one of the few people most can agree is a star so she'll likely be getting a big promo push.

2

_90s_Nation_ t1_itckdt8 wrote

They're not controlled or promoted properly, because no-one knows anyone. You couldn't name like... 4 really popular singers now.

Dua Lipa and BTS,yes. Maybe. Even that - They're not shoved in our face like Britney or Backstreet Boys, Beieber etc were

Beyonce is still having hits in the top 40 and she was going when I was about 16. I'm now 30.

−1

DoctaMario t1_itcmdla wrote

Beyonce, Britney, BSB all got in under the old paradigm before things really changed though. They'll always be stars because they came up when stars were still a big thing.

I think labels are smart enough to know that promoting Dua Lipa to people who listen to rock or 90s country is just flushing money down the toilet and that because the radio isn't as ubiquitous as it used to be, people can stay in their own backwater and be completely unaware of what's going on in other genres if they want to. Nobody knows anyone in the top 40 but that cuts both ways, as people who listen to top 40 probably don't know the people these other folks listen to.

2

_90s_Nation_ t1_itcmtrp wrote

I can't really follow you.

There's no household names. Is what I'm saying. Everyone knows Michael Jackson.

In 70 years, no current popstar will be remembered.

0

DoctaMario t1_itcoe2o wrote

Simplest way I can put it is, people's listening habits have changed and there's more to compete with music now in terms of entertainment so big stars are going to be fewer and far between. If Michael Jackson came out now, he'd have the same recognizability issues Dua Lipa has. More choice=less ubiquity=less big stars.

3

_90s_Nation_ t1_itcpbiz wrote

You're exactly right, which is what I'm saying.

Music is just not as big as it used to be.

1

TFFPrisoner t1_itd3d8i wrote

The Weeknd? Harry Styles?

1

_90s_Nation_ t1_itd3hkz wrote

They're old, though.

Again... I'd say more millenial targeted.

1

TFFPrisoner t1_itd3xep wrote

Styles is as old as Bieber, both were teen stars but Styles seems to have increased his appeal whereas I haven't heard much from Bieber recently.

The Weeknd is a bit older but didn't get famous (at least in Germany) until later than Bieber.

2

thequicknessinc t1_itc5ebj wrote

It’s even more complicated at the “release an album and get a percentage of sales” part. Been a while since my college music business classes, but labels will generally front the band money to record which is recouped from the album sales first before anyone gets paid- this alone is tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. After that, there are further splits of the revenue between the label, management, PRO’s, and credited writers. Regarding credited writers, the only musicians getting paid are those with writing credits- which often don’t include all members of the band, and in some cases don’t include any members if they didn’t write the song. Frequently, the bassist and drummers and keyboardists of your favorite band are only getting paid through touring and merch sales.

11

TFFPrisoner t1_itd36pp wrote

This is why Marillion - pioneers of crowdfunding and having their own label - are now making more money than when they were really famous - the contracts in the 80s were so shitty that they took years to repay the money EMI fronted them.

5

obidie t1_itcj28r wrote

Why do you just assume that bassists, drummers and keyboardists aren't songwriters? In all the bands that I was in, the best songwriter out of everyone was a bass player. Come to think of it, isn't that bass player that used to be in the Beatles a pretty decent songwriter? Or Brian Wilson, Larry Graham, Dee Dee Ramone, Stanley Clarke or Lemmy? For songwriting drummers, Don Henley, Phil Collins and Levon Helm, Dave Grohl and Jim Capaldi immediately come to mind and for keyboardists, Christine McVie, Michael McDonald, Elton John, Billy Joel, Warren Zevon, Keith Emerson, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bruce Hornsby, Edgar Winter and Gregg Allman got the songwriting taken care of. They got a little bit more than just the proceeds from touring and merch sales.

3

thequicknessinc t1_itcqwze wrote

Appreciate you adding these. These are great examples of those that are. You may have misread what I wrote. Frequently, many aren’t given writing credits and so they don’t make any money from record sales. No assumptions made on the nature of their contribution at all.

6

FrivolousPositioning t1_itcvdmp wrote

Pearl Jam is a good example too since OP mentioned them in their post. Every member with multiple writing creds or entire songs they wrote themselves.

1

Competitive_Vast9832 t1_itc596f wrote

Then stop indulging the music business and go bandcamp and archive.org and be done with it. It's quite simple to step away from them.

8

Dreadhead55 t1_itcvmy9 wrote

Touring musician here…Unless you become super huge, you will NOT make any money from a label. Most people stay indie until they have an issue with national distribution. In most cases, major labels will take portions of everything you make and more often than not, you’ll wind up owing money to them. The best case scenario- INXS was on a major label. Instead of taking money from the label, they borrowed money from their bank and paid for the recording themselves. They also retained complete artistic control.It was the smartest $$ move at the end of the day and they sold tons of records. The only thing the label provided was distribution and ( maybe ) some promotion.

Since the collapse of the industry a few years ago, those that could afford to continue figured out ways to retain rights to their masters, merch, and to some extent, ticket sales. There’s only so far you can go with entities like Ticketmaster. Keep in mind that these days, if people aren’t touring, they aren’t making money. So, the burnout level will be high and people’s health will be at stake.

Finally, if your favorite mid-level band comes through, buy a ticket, buy some merch and thank them for hanging in there. They’ll never say it publicly, but most are barely getting by and are literally pouring everything they have into their art. Your generosity will be richly rewarded!

7

drumzandice t1_itga3gr wrote

Great response!

2

Dreadhead55 t1_itgbtwy wrote

Thank you! Sadly, all of it's true. Rock n roll will never be the money maker it was 40 years ago. I hope everyone that wants to be in a band takes this into account before they start on their path. I wish everyone the absolute best and I'm rooting for everyone that wants to stick their neck out and give it a shot!!

1

metbass t1_itc6hjj wrote

It was a big learning experience for me.

I got into a band with minor local success. We played gigs frequently and had some good shows and a lot of bad too.

We already had an album recorded and released and we had just finished a new one that we were shopping around to labels.

Well one bit!

And it was the almighty Metal Blade!

Before that opportunity knocked I swore I would never sign with them. I had heard a couple horror stories that just made think I'd never want to do it.

So once that offer came we were all jumping around like little kids who got promised ice cream. The contract came and we read through it and boy was it not what we thought.

Although, we could have gotten a better deal down the line if we played our cards right. I've met Brian and he was a really cool guy and I don't blame him for it. He was taking a chance and we didn't do all that well in the end. The New Wave of Thrash fad ended and we got the boot.

Fun ride though. After that there were a lot of parties and overall good feelings. But it was kind of swift...

Edit: Some spelling

Clarification: I didn't want to go too into detail about our contract because I felt it would be bad form. They didn't hold a gun to our heads so that's on us.

But at that time CD sales started the heavy decline that it's come to today. Even then the record company takes a large amount for themselves and the band has to hustle for their share.

6

SummonWurm t1_itc8w14 wrote

Band name?

1

metbass t1_itc9z8t wrote

Ravage

I was their bass player during the original Spectral Rider recording and I ended up going out on tour with them for The End of Tomorrow.

If you did a search on YouTube for anything I'd be the one wearing the death metal shirts.

3

SummonWurm t1_itcb2sl wrote

Wicked old school thrash! You guys were/are awesome!

Do u guys still jam? Sounds like you are all old friends.

5

metbass t1_itccw1q wrote

Thank you so much! Awesome to see people still appreciate that style.

As for jamming.. I think they still get together but it seems like they are more focused on Iron Will at the moment.

We haven't spoke in a while and I think that's just life getting in the way. No hate. People move and lose touch. I still reach out every now and then. All solid guys.

The last thing I did was with a different group called Voidbloom. If you like the angry mathcore style you might check that out too. It's on Spotify and YouTube.

1

SummonWurm t1_itcdeaw wrote

I certainly will. I'm ready to move on from Spiritbox's Eternal Blue which has been on repeat for a month.

2

metbass t1_itcezhc wrote

Holy shit! They've got some bangers on there for sure. Thank you for the recommendation.

Also, I think there may be some other bands or groups that use the name Voidbloom. The album is called The Tongues of God

2

SummonWurm t1_itcg82i wrote

I've been listening. Guitar tone is killer. You def made a new fan today

2

Speedking2281 t1_itl3abd wrote

>Ravage
>
>I was their bass player during the original Spectral Rider recording and I ended up going out on tour with them for The End of Tomorrow.

DUDE! Spectral Rider was released my last year of college (while also a pizza delivery driver). My friend got that CD from a record store (that had a good metal section). He let me borrow it. At the time, I was huge into making mix CDs of completely awesome songs for delivering pizzas. Spectral Rider (the song) was on that mix CD. Such an awesome mix of modern metal while being very old school sounding. I remember loving that CD though. I loved End of Tomorrow as well. Both Spectral Rider and End of Tomorrow were mainstays for me personally in terms of albums I would regularly listen to.

Sorry that things didn't go long-term or like you were hoping, but I really appreciate the bass work you put into Spectral Rider. I thought you guys were awesome. \m/ \m/

1

metbass t1_its3eiz wrote

Thank you! But I can't take credit for the recordings.

At that time the bass was being recorded by Eli and Nick. It was a timing issue of member changes.

I was mainly a live musician but I hope you got to see me play. There was a lot of flare I added. (Or at least I think) The tappy part of Spectral Rider could've been only heard live but I think it did add to the song not just my ego. (I suck at tapping)

I hope you guys still support them and I love Iron Will's album, it's sick and they just released The Worldwide Resistance in 21.

Thanks again for the support. If you want to hear more of my playing check out the Shroud demo, Crawl because you're worthless, and Voidbloom The Tongues of God. (None of it is like Ravage)

1

TyAD552 t1_itcd6v1 wrote

While this is true for big bands, smaller bands (if they have a handle on marketing online) can do amazing things on their own. Sure, you have to put in way more of the work yourself, but you get to keep that money, and you can afford to do smaller costs. I’m friends with a band that has made over $1000 a show (pretty good for a band never on tour yet) and they got a record offer. They turned it down because they want full creative control over their brand, and they instead took it as a sign that they’re doing the right things as a band.

They won’t have tens of thousands of dollars to put behind each and every thing they do compared to if they were signed, but their freedom was worth taking that chance in their opinion. Super cool to hear them talk about.

6

canadianformalwear t1_itc84a3 wrote

Problem 1. Sales and profits of hard copies of music in the industry (CD’s being the most profitable in its history) and also hard copies of sheet music (a rare thing now), have vanished. MP3 and music ownership has dwindled to a tiny % of what previously drove the industry. Streaming is more like radio royalties and tiny %. By losing 50% of historic income, musicians and entertainers are stuck with just income from performances, and licensing; which is why many concerts are expensive, some artists are touring until death instead of graceful retirement, and also you see artists selling out to cringeworthy commercial tie ins.

Problem 2. De-regulation of media ownership (thanks Clinton!) has largely ruined and homogenized American musical cultures for a few decades and destroyed radio, by allowing giant conglomerates to buy up radio, publications and TV stations which was previously illegal to do so. This leads to many complications.

Problem 3. Budget cuts to enrichment and education, causing entire generations of people to never have the opportunity to have music be a part of their lives as a player (thanks Regan and everyone else!), in effect has stunted cultural growth, and robbed entire generations of musical experience.

Offsetting all of this is the fact that information tech has made so much readily available, and music recording tech has brought the prices down 90% of what it takes to produce and record a national quality release.

5

graemo72 t1_itccmkj wrote

As somebody who works up to my neck in it, I can confirm. The same greedy idiotic psychopaths are still running the show, but now with Accoutants.

3

talesfromthegutter t1_itcrr20 wrote

I mean, yes, you're absolutely right. Big players in music who want to make big time money are only able to do it with aggressive practices, and I for one am not here for it. I've loved Blink for ages, same as the next guy, but I'm not down for that kind of pricing and so I'll let the rich kids have their fun rich kid "punk" concert.

I know it's a boomer thing to say, but I get much more satisfaction going to see the little guys. I go to shows at venues with ~1,000 attendee cap. Tickets are ~$20 and don't sell out anyway, so scalpers are a non-issue. I buy my tickets at the box office in-person so TicketMaster doesn't get to double the price with fees for a "service" that I don't want.

Granted, this works for me because I seek it. I listen to these little bands on the regular, and so I'm full mast excited with a 12 square foot stage and a strobe light. It ain't the cinematic experience of an arena. But I have a great time, the band gets money directly from me at the merch table, and if you're lucky you'll meet your heroes as humble incognitos instead of big-headed superstars.

They say vote with your wallet, and I do. Fuck TicketMaster, they don't own the concert experience.

3

RobLA12 t1_itc5zdt wrote

Just finished watching 'The Playlist' on Netflix. YUP!

2

Adept-Elephant1948 t1_itc6ffs wrote

Been a shit show in various forms over the years, it's just that the modern iteration is hitting the pockets of the audience now and is blowing up the debate once more.

Used to play in a few bands and the only difference from starting out to my later ones was the closure of local venues making booking shows harder.

2

ivoiiovi t1_itcarmf wrote

I think music streaming is indeed a big problem and I won’t use any of it, instead I buy digital releases from independent artists on Bandcamp or, if unavailable, I feel like piracy is largely the higher moral option as at least it doesn’t support the services that have caused so much damage and would only give the artists I like a cent or two for the 20 times I may listen to an album in a year.

That said, I don’t believe streaming services are a great contributor to crazy ticket prices, that is just down to opportunistic greed. RATM or Blink 182 are bands of rich guys who know that many obsessive fans will pay what they want, especially when many who grew up with that music have now had careers and filled up bank accounts. If you can charge $500+ for a ticket it’s a good way to make a big pile of money without the need to even be creative and write new music. It sucks, but a lot of these bands only get together or keep going because their bands are businesses. System of a Down apparently hate each other and haven’t made any new music since I was still a fan some 15 years ago or so, but they still do concerts when they can get a fat cheque. and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that really, except when it contradicts a deceptive image (à la RATM, who were always as fake as could be). I get that it sucks for fans who can’t afford the prices but this is how art works within capitalism and we have to accept it.

Thankfully the most I have had to pay for a concert ticket in the last decade or so was about €120 for a three day festival of exceptional music at the now-no-more RIO events in France. The last gig I went to was an american death metal band for 190SEK (€16-17), and I’ll probably go see Cleric at about the same price and maybe Kayo Dot at an event in NL which is €40 for five bands or so. Most of these artists probably have day jobs and can’t live off music alone, but I have attended cheaper gigs of bands who seem to be making it on record sales and touring, even in the streaming age. It may be that the fanbases of these kinds of artists are a little more into buying music and see the need to directly support those more independent artists so streaming isn’t messing them up as much, but it definitely doesn’t seem any of these artists are starving while doing these small, cheap concerts where ticket sales are just a tiny fraction of those of these bigger bands - they just aren’t taking in enough money to buy a new home and car every time they do a tour or a few fests.

2

mobileKixx t1_itcfvu5 wrote

On the plus side, record companies aren't run by the mafia anymore.

2

Unfair_Welder8108 t1_itcop13 wrote

It's just that at the very top level of any multi-billion dollar industry sit a bunch of very old, very miserable, white men. And they don't give a shiny shit about the many millions of people involved, as long as they see the many millions of dollars they can produce, it's always been that way. The fact that now all these red-faced fat bastards still think it's 1967 and all this "Technology" is just a fad only compounds the issue. It's Mad Men selling teenage boys to teenage girls and vice versa.

TL;DR It's been fucked from the start.

2

BrandonJamal t1_itcoqpb wrote

I think the music business is just a business...look how big industry treats any worker.

I will say this ...artists can be some of the most entitled among us, without the appreciation for the money and resources it takes to break an artist. And make claims about what they are owed without it being backed up by fact. And worse yet weaponize their public, a public that wouldn't exist without said money and resources.

But sure it can be quite shitty

2

Competitive_Vast9832 t1_itdqj28 wrote

Notice it's frequently not at all about music and more about the entire multimedia package with shoes and bling and offensive t-shirts and all of that. I have no interest in the "music business" because it's more about that. Plus, having three CEOs tell me what's good music based on lowest common denominator and how many jagged little sales they can rack up? Bitch, please.

2

CaptainMacMillan t1_itdznkk wrote

And my friends wonder why I don’t wanna pay $850 to sit in the nosebleeds, pay $14 per beer, and then pay $50 for a crappy t-shirt that will get destroyed with a single warm water wash. Concerts aren’t fun anymore. They just make you feel obliged to have fun.

“Shit, I spent 2 weeks worth of paychecks on this. I gotta force myself to have fun so that it’s worth it.”

2

FlyingV555 t1_iteibpl wrote

When it comes to that, it’s not fun anymore.

1

Squire513 t1_ited5xa wrote

Independent labels are roughly 40% of the market and revenue is growing which is only a sign the modern music industry is thriving.

Today indie labels often setup licensing and distribution deals with a major for a portion of the profits. The 1975 for example are on an indie label Dirty Hit with a distribution deal with Universal (Polydor in UK and Interscope in US).

It's similar to the 1980s when most new wave/alternative artists were on indie labels but might have had a distribution deal with a major like The Smiths (Rough Trade) and Depeche Mode (Mute) under Sire (Warner) in the US.

Major labels most likely aren't going to acquire bigger indies such as Beggars Group or Secretly Group, so don't think you will see a return to the 1990s when the underground went mainstream after Island, A&M, Geffen, and Virgin were acquired in the late 80s/early 90s.

1

Crazy-Cat-Man318 t1_itftdb0 wrote

The music industry has historically always screwed musicians. I doubt that has changed at all. The only way for a big act to finally be somewhat more in the driver’s seat is if they last long enough to be negotiating a contract renewal or seeking better offers elsewhere as an established big act upon the expiration of their previous contract. Even then, their power is limited. The big money holds all the cards. That’s true universally not just in music.

Ticketmaster is setting prices based on what the market will bear. One can easily argue that they have also manipulated the market to exert undue control over it which contributes significantly to this problem. No artist that wants to play at Ticketmaster venues is dictating what ticket prices will be. There may be negotiations particularly regarding percentages but Ticketmaster is negotiating from a position of substantial power. Neither side wants to throw away money I’m sure but Ticketmaster has far deeper pockets than any musical act on this planet. You can from this imagine who’s in the driver’s seat and who is not generally speaking.

Until a significant number of venue seats remain empty and profits are impacted prices will not go anywhere but up.

This is just one example of what can go wrong with unbridled capitalism. Human decency is not anything we can depend on particularly when the temptations of wealth and power are factored into the equation.

What’s going on with ticket prices and how we got here is just a micro example of a far larger problem impacting nearly every aspect of our lives. In other words if you really want change, change begins with you. What the hell does that mean exactly? It means participating actively in the governance of the place where you live. That’s where you can get results over time. A boycott by those feeling wronged won’t work because those who can afford it will still go as they are now. Ticketmaster knows as so many large businesses do that a passive public and a corrupt government subject to undue outside influence (campaign contributions, lobbying) means they have little to worry about. Consumers complain and companies apply the usual spin and life goes on.

1

jimmyzee1 t1_itg4lz4 wrote

Music sucks today

1

_90s_Nation_ t1_itc4dd3 wrote

Common knowledge that it's fucked. Wouldn't surprise me if music just doesn't exist as a form of entertainment ( like football) in 100 years.

I'm a musician, myself and if I could go back and tell my 14 year old self. I'd say - The bad outweighs the good. Too much stress. Pick another hobby/future dream.

0

Reelplayer t1_itcasu0 wrote

>Wouldn't surprise me if music just doesn't exist as a form of entertainment ( like football) in 100 years.

Music as a form of entertainment has been around for thousands of years. It isn't going anywhere in the next hundred. Or thousand. The business, accessibility, method of listening, etc will most certainly change, but we'll always make and enjoy music.

11

_90s_Nation_ t1_itcbn1m wrote

Gen Z have already lost interest. Compared to older generations.

Gen Z want to be influencers and YouTube stars. Instead of Britney Spears.

−5

Mind43dom t1_itcjrva wrote

gen z are singing along to every hit on tiktok. It’s just being distributed in a new way.

2

_90s_Nation_ t1_itckhce wrote

https://youtu.be/Ag4iFa6E_yY

−1

Mind43dom t1_itcmx63 wrote

Do you typically take one persons view and then preach it as gospel?

He is using an anecdotal event in his life to explain his opinion.

I’m not dismissing his opinion, he’s entitled to it. Music has been around for a Millenia, it will be around another Millenia as long there is humans to play and experience it.

2

_90s_Nation_ t1_itcn37c wrote

No, I take my own view as gospel. Especially when I've educated myself and been into the hobby/industry for 20 years.

−1

Mind43dom t1_itebf0j wrote

You sound jaded, also Gen Z listen to more music than any other generation.

study

Listen to more diverse music than any other generation. link

More information link

2

Accomplished_Ad8211 t1_itcfq86 wrote

True artists will always find their way to music in the end, just because there's a new job people get exposed to doesn't mean that music will die. Most of the people that wanted to be Britney ultimately decide against making music .

1

MuzBizGuy t1_itd9y2l wrote

There’s plenty of people who play music as a hobby regardless of the industry existing.

Music will always be a form of entertainment, it’s baked into our DNA.

The industry probably will be be unrecognizable in 100 years though.

3

Karl_Marx_ t1_itcp6g6 wrote

Imagine liking ThE BoSs, the corporate hack in "blue color" clothing. His music is a joke. Dude can't sing, can't play guitar, and his lyrics are hypocritical. This is more egregious than scalping imo.

0

coolguysteve21 OP t1_itd8dld wrote

Yeah man nothing worse a musician can do than being a hypocrite.

1