Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The end of music recording for profit for most everyone?

Far more interesting is the fact that 90 percent of the people I see everyday day have earbuds listening to something, like what?

Some “changes in technology” may have contributed to the problems described in this thread, but the real culprit lies in changes to attitudes and standards among audiences.

Changes in attitude: Just as Bennevis stated, there has developed this sense that one should be able to listen to whatever one wishes, on demand, and pay nothing for the privilege. Availability, and anonymous consumption, have contributed to this attitude change. Also, there is virtually NO PENALTY, and no enforcement, for violation of what is free and what is not. I never, EVER, snuck into a concert. I never stole an LP, or a tape, or a CD. I never copied sheet music without explicit permission. But now, miraculously, there is no longer any cost - neither in terms of payment, nor in penalty. “Legal-schmeegal! Just let me consume freely.”

Changes in standards: Generally, the recording industry went to great lengths to make recorded music sound “live”. Without exception, every single aspect of recording and reproduction was examined, analyzed, and developed. There was fierce competition among studios, and among “labels”, to capture and present the “truest” sounds. Inferior recordings, along with inferior performances, fell by the wayside.

And today? It accomplishes very little to use a perfectly placed, studio-grade Neumann microphone for recording, when playback will be through $5 earbuds, or on a cell phone. “Signal-to-noise ratio? Don’t bother me with math, dude, I’ve got tunes to download.” “Balance? We’re talking music -- not gymnastics here!” “Overtones? What I can’t hear is (obviously) not important.” And so, the Mickey Mouse recording group responds to the requirements of the new standards . . . and on it goes.

Sadly, we musicians have allowed these changes. In some instances, we have even facilitated them. But here is what really gets to me: Most musicians, even on these Forums, are completely oblivious to what we have allowed to happen, and to where it is leading. And, of those who are aware, only a small percentage even cares.

[Descending from soap box . . . . . putting podium away . . . . . taking blood pressure pill . . . . . returning to placid frame of mind . . . . . donning ear buds . . . . . listening to new age . . . . . I feel oblivion is at hand . . . . .]

Ed

It leads to lower standards and lower quality mass produced music. Change always leads to change though and there are a lot of young musicians out there who have stellar talent.

Maybe we'll go back to vinyl which is a harder medium to copy from or maybe some computer genius will come up with a way to encrypt every CD or digital song in a way that doesn't allow it to be copied but once.

Where there's a will there's a way. Things come and go as fads and MP3's in their Apple form are quite horrible to listen to as is the Apple line in their restricted medium.

Hem... there is a way to protect and encrypt every CD or digital song in a way that doesn't allow it to be copied but once. I present to you the biggest flop in recent history of music: DRM ladies and gents

I don't know if it's still the case, but at some point itunes was selling two different versions of the same track: One in low bitrate and DRM and one in higher bitrate and without DRM. Talk about poking your own eye out, right?

Yep, it's a great marketing pitch, but I'm not sure it will overcome the opportunity cost perspective of your average buyer. Not to mention, I can watch those same live performances on YouTube, and if I want to really ratchet up the sound, I'll buy some extra speakers (which I can re-use, whereas I can't re-use my concert ticket).


wr- thank you for clearing that one up. I was about to jump all over it, until your witty retort beat me to it.


I think it's important to realize that the most successful artists are often the ones who exploit attitudes and standards among audiences, not the ones who go against the grain and try to define those things. You can fight the fight, but at the end of the day, you won't get paid, and you might lose an arm in the process. Or, you can follow the trends and find a way to get paid using current attitudes and standards. Just depends on how you choose to look at things..

And, regarding the "free sheet music" comment.. most (if not all) classical music is now in the public domain. Newer editions exist solely to preserve copyright claim on the music, and hence claim on potential revenues for selling said music.


Change happens, but for the vast majority of the time, it is neither good nor bad. Change is change. Where we perceive it to be good or bad lies in what we are used to/comfortable with, what we are willing to give up, and what we are not. There is a very famous saying that, "To be great, you must be willing to give up being good." Perhaps the music industry has been 'good', and is now working towards greatness. Certainly, there are more artists performing and playing now than ever before, especially with the advent of new mediums for the transmitting of that media. The more people do it, the more people value and celebrate it, and the better the 'thing' gets.

But I think the music industry has a LONG way to fall if we're going to say it's hurting. As long as execs, top artists, etc are all making mega millions, it's not the industry as a whole--it's the margin the bottom guy receives. Heck, you can't claim the industry is hurting when the freakin' janitor at Carnegie Hall makes half a million... nowhere else in the world does a janitor make that much!

Have you ever tried cleaning Carnegie Hall?



I certainly do not want to get into defining terms like “most successful artists”, and I agree with you about the MECHANICS of going with the flow. I also think in these terms: The Beatles certainly “exploit[ed] attitudes and standards among audiences”, and it was a very nice payday for them. In contrast, V. Horowitz, for example, essentially played his music on his terms (not in Russia, obviously), without much regard for changes in audience preferences. Monetarily, he did O.K., too. I am not sure who may have been more successful, or by what standards.

For Christmas, I received two recordings -- A CD with Yo-Yo Ma performing the music of Ennio Morricone, and a DVD documenting the musical development of Louis Armstrong. As you might expect, Mr. Ma’s playing is beautiful, and brilliant, and vibrant, and full of life. The recording engineer was wise enough to leave in the sounds of Mr. Ma’s breathing, as he articulates and phrases his bow. The playing is compelling!

One might expect similar from Mr. Armstrong - I did. I was disappointed. The chronologically early stuff was great: small group Dixieland Jazz. “Sachmo” was every bit the leader, and the innovator. When he improvised, one can hear him stretching the boundaries that existed at the time. His extroverted personality comes out the bell of the horn. But as time passed, the excitement, and the innovation, and the creativity noticeably subsided. The clothing changed, the band changed, the sets changed, the repertoire became “soft” and popular. Sadly, I believe Mr. Armstrong BECAME one of those who “follow the trends and find a way to get paid using current attitudes and standards.” He sold out, and it was a great artistic loss.

As I am certain I wrote earlier in this thread, it is a very complex subject. At least, we here, are wrestling with it!

Have you ever tried cleaning a school cafeteria?

The average salary for a school janitor is $18,000.
The average salary for a hospital janitor is $23,000.

You can't tell me, in good conscience, that cleaning Carnegie Hall is more taxing, demanding, or requires any level of expertise not found in the two janitorial professions above.


Yeah, I don't want to get into definitions, either. It detracts from the discussion, focusing on a "specific million dollars" (as if someone who makes $11M 'made it', but someone who only made $10.9M 'didn't make it').

I certainly agree that Vladimir Horowitz "made it". I'm not sure about your depiction of him, though. Was he not the gentleman who wrote a transcription of the "Stars and Stripes" to perform in Central Park on "I Am An American Day" in 1945? Wasn't that the year we won WW2, and when American Patriotism was at its highest? Certainly seems like he catered to the crowd on that occasion.

But even Horowitz was a product of attitudes and standards. Look at his performance style versus, say, Lang Lang's. Horowitz adopted a very conservative style of playing the piano, much like many of his contemporaries. Was it a product of his personal tastes? No. Who is born with the desire to sit still and pound keys? Was it taught to him through years of training within the community? Possibly, but regardless of whether it was an active or passive choice on Horowitz's part, he still performed in a manner the audience appreciated.

He also performed in the way that brought in the most money. In other words, he took to the stage, and when recording was "in vogue," he made many. I would argue that his career was as carefully crafted as any artist's, whether it's the Beatles or Justin Bieber. I think the biggest difference is that, until the dawn of the computer age, there were fewer avenues to choose from in terms of medium. But there were still choices to be made, and except for Horowitz's extreme duress when he stopped performing for a number of years, he seemed to make the choices that would bring in the most money.

And Horowitz certainly did more than "OK". haha I would say, based on what I can figure out about his revenue streams, that he was one of the wealthiest performers who ever lived. I can't find an accurate value of his net worth, but I would guess he's way up there with the top earners in the history of music.

I found an article in the Chicago Tribune, written the day after Horowitz's death, supporting my earlier claim that he took in 80% of the gross from his concerts: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...dary-pianist-vladimir-horowitz-keyboard.

I feel the monies maestro earned from his career are well overstated. At his death his entire estate was valued at just over three million dollars. This included his home so I feel some inaccuracies are being played here.

Don't be such a Smart Ass. We all know DRM was a failure. That doesn't mean other methods can't be used to protect music. Heck the industry can't even protect CDs and DVD's.

I don't consider Apple in anything I do on the computer. Maybe you're different. I purposely avoid Apple like the plaque. I'm amazed that people pay for a product which restricts what they do. Still can't get around that concept. I have heard that the sound quality of the players themselves, leaves a lot to be desired.

I can't understand that. I have used Macs in a professional capacity (writing, arranging, mixing and composing) on a daily basis since '95 and I have nothing but praise for how excellent they work. Restrictions? I haven't noticed any specific; I mean come on, it's a computer - a tool - if there's any restriction it's only my imagination.

As for the sound quality in iPods, iPhones they are fine; and that's my professional opinion. Sure, it's not vinyl (still sounds best), but for my everyday use they sound great.

But this is a digression from the OP's topic.

As you pointed out, ChrisBell, the topic was (generally) recording; but in my mind, "recording" and "playback" are as inseparable as a basketball and a hoop. And that brings me to my question:

When you professionally evaluate the sound quality of iPods and iPhones as "fine", and as "they sound great", are you actually asserting that the amplification, and the "speakers" within these devices produce a realistic musical sound?

Ed

Not sure what you mean with "a realistic sound". As soon as music is recorded it goes from being realistic to being approximated. When I feel an urge for realistic, I go to a concert or a jazz club . . .

They are loud enough for my ears and sound great whatever I play on them; orchestral, jazz, piano solo, etc. I prefer a non-coloured sound so I use the new in-ear plugs from Apple.

I am refering to fidelity, not loudness. Do they sound like you are right in the room with the orchestra, or the jazz combo, or . . . ?

Why am I explaining this to a professional?

Mainly because we're not sitting in the same room talking, I don't hear your voice, intonation, etc. And as we are on different continents with a different command of English I like to be really clear what we are talking about.

Fidelity has all to do with the production; good production equals = good sound.
Great mix, great room/hall = great sound.
What one needs then is speakers, monitors or ear-phones/plugs that can replicate faithfully that production. And as all these iThingies come with the ability to EQ the end product to ones hearts content.

A pop artist named Beck Hansen recently produced an album but didn't record it. He turned it into a book of high quality sheet music. 20 songs total. He wanted to give back to the music community in a different way. Music fans all over the world produced their own videos of these songs. It's seems to have turned into a big hit. I'd be curious as to the sales of his book. I bought it and it was a steal for twenty something dollars.

Payment for the original artist is about to get even worse:

http://singularityhub.com/2013/02/1...al-music-amazon-moves-in-that-direction/

Amazon will probably end up taking the remaining profits of used .mp3 sales. The original artist will get a small cut of the first initial sale, but probably not from subsequent 'used' resales.

To answer the OP's original question: yes.

So, it would seem that the chances to " make it big " in the music business which were slim in the beginning have now become almost astronomically tiny.

Recorded music is everywhere and is getting cheaper and easier to access by the day.

At the same time, recent psychological research indicates that human happiness is often most positively impacted by anticipating, enjoying and reflecting on shared "experiences" rather than from buying "things".

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/0...-not-things-tied-to-happiness/34167.html

There is also a movement under foot that craves natural, authentic, organic, real, live, etc.

So, it would seem that musicians, particularly classical musicians, need to focus on providing accessible, differentiated, meaningful, memorable, perhaps even spiritually uplifting live performance experiences to a (local) audience.

As the fastest-growing religion in most Western nations is " none ", many people also no longer avail themselves of the healing power of coming together to sing in a group every week. Combining musical performances with the opportunity to make music together could be just the kind of niche waiting to be filled. For example, the so-called " mee-zing concerten " (sing-along concerts) where the audience takes the role of the choir have been wildly successful in the Netherlands. http://www.meezingconcerten.nl/Inc/Home.php#.USMn0KU4vK8

The Dutch football hero Johann Cruijff had a saying " Every disadvantage brings an advantage." What kinds of advantages do local musicians have and what are the new kinds of opportunities that are appearing on the horizon? These could be exciting times for all.

I saw this, too, and I think it is an abomination. There is no reason for this, except that Amazon wants to cut out everyone except itself. When someone can point me to the difference in quality between a new eMedia product, and a used eMedia product (whether book, track, etc), I might be inclined to understand why this patent was granted. Until then, absolutely not.

And it is atrocious that the artist will not get a cut. I can see Amazon "limiting production," so first-users will pay a premium for content. Then, as they resell the content, it becomes available only through used content, and on a first-come, first-served basis. (Or worse, a bidding/auction war to get the "rights" to read the content.)

Great money-making scheme on Amazon's part. Horrible for every other person on the planet.

One more reason I don't use or support Amazon or its products. Ever.

The idea is so offensive to common sense that I thought it was satire for the first few paragraphs...