tyler_durden wrote:
> In the days before recording technology existed, musicians were paid to
> perform.
This has been true for thousands of years. Musicians traveled from town
to town, entertained and got paid.
In advanced economies, the rich (austrian princes, etc.) would pay to
keep musicians on hand (i.e. Beethoven, etc.)
> born. Now musicians could get paid for making a recording and selling
> copies (actually, the record company could get paid- the musician got
> screwed, but that's another topic). A few could get paid far beyond
> where any musician's work can be reasonably valued.
Its another topic, but key. And even within the model, its the song
writers who got rich, through ASCAP and BMI, not the musicians. Many
song writers got rich, only a handful of musicians, singers, etc. made
serious money. Ringo made far less than John and Paul, because John and
Paul got paid whenever anyone sang the song, Ringo only got paid when
Beatles records and concerts made money.
> What if we look at the situation this way: the era of money making on
> recordings has passed- it was just a fluke that it came into existence
> because of technology and now it's no longer viable.
There was only big money in it for roughly 50 years. Elvis made money,
the black musicians that he covered made none before or later.
Read Stan Getz's biography (he was a very successful saxophone jazz
artist). He never made money on his records, only his concerts.
> You wanna eat? You gotta play!
"The music business is a cruel and shallow trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men lie like dogs.
There is also a negative side."
Hunter S. Thomson, In Music
--
Pat Farrell PRC recording studio
http://www.pfarrell.com/PRC
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
