Gary Holt talking about the music industry.

detuned wrote:

Stender wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

If they want people to buy their CDs they should get rid of the mongoloid they have on vocals now and bring back Zetro.

Just sayin'.

and if they really REALLY wanted people to buy their CDs they should get rid of the mongoloid they have on vocals now and bring back Baloff....somehow.

Wouldn't they require the services of Herbert West for that?

...or a time traveling DeLorean and 1.21 gigawatts of electricity?

I think Gary has some good points, but he is whining as well. I do think that downloading music has hurt the music industry. When I was a teenager in the 80's, I wanted the new ALBUM by whatever bands I was into. Now my kids only care about downloading the one hit song from whatever band they are into. In the 80's if you purchased a single, there was a b-side. Many times that b-side turned people onto more of that bands music, or even became a hit itself down the line. Kiss' 'Beth' was actually the b-side to 'Detroit Rock City'. Aerosmith's 'Dream On' was a b-side as well. Many kids today hear that one hit song being pushed on them by the radio and that's all they care about. It becomes even more funny when they are listening to some cover song and they don't even realize it's a cover.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

If the music business was run in the 60s & 70s like it has been since the late 80s, there would never be a U2, or a Beatles, or a Led Zeppelin, or a Kiss...every one of those bands would have been dropped after 2 or 3 albums becase none of them caught on big until after that. These days it's "have a hit within 2 or 3 singles or you're done". The only way to try and get a hit that quick is seriously overexpose whomever they need the hit out of.

It's not just the majors. Look at Metal Blade or Century Media. How many bands do they have? Way too many. You have one, maybe two albums to make the label some money or they will not resign you. Metal Blade takes all the money Cannibal Corpse brings them and signs 27 other bands, all sounding the same, markets the hell out of them for 3 months, then you never hear from 24 of them again.

Am I ranting? I guess so...

No. Actually, you have many good points as well. It's the American Idol/Disney instant rock star bullcrap that is ruining modern music as much as anything else.

Artists are no longer allowed to develop. It's instant hits or nothing. Aerosmith would have been dropped after their first album.

Thin Lizzy never would have gone beyond the power trio sound to develop that twin guitar attack because they wouldn't have been able to release another album after the abysmal sales of their first three.

Judas Priest? Forget it! They would have been dropped like a hot potato after Rocka Rolla.

It's also partially to blame on the fact that independent radio doesn't exist any longer. Now it's all big corporations like Clear Channel programming the music. Whatever label is paying the most gets their music played. Again, surprise hits like "Beth" and "Dream On" became hits partially due to DJs who started playing them. There are no real disc jockeys any more. It's all computerized and programmed by some "President of Rock Programming" in a business suit that probably doesn't even listen to real rock and roll.

Downloading certainly doesn't help matters, but I see it as a result of a bigger screw up.

SpectreFate wrote:

They have always been inconsistent if you ask me. There isn't an album of theirs that doesn't have 3 or 4 boring songs.

That's true of many of the best metal bands though.

Temple of Blood wrote:

SpectreFate wrote:

They have always been inconsistent if you ask me. There isn't an album of theirs that doesn't have 3 or 4 boring songs.

That's true of many of the best metal bands though.

"Statistically, nobody hits a homerun everytime they step up to the plate.

The music industry is dead. It's just a matter of time. It may take 30 years, but there will be no more superstars anymore. And when the old superstars get too old to play anymore then that's it for large shows. There is no one to take their place.

This is a great blog from a guy who debated with Gene Simmons recently: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

I read there that no one has gone platinum so far this year. The dream is dead. Forget it. Forget about money.

I believe Shawn said this before and the more I thought about it, I agree: in the future music will be free. You might as well give it away, if you charged you would severely limit who would bother and you would only get back a small fraction of your costs anyway ... so you might as well give it away.

I think the days of anyone touring across the US, releasing CDs every year or two, are coming to an end. CDs are dying out. They're too expensive to make. With fewer shows you can forget about recouping costs with t-shirt sales or whatever merch ideas you can dream up.

Josh Freese is pioneering the new music business model. You are a servant of your fan base. He's basically debasing himself to sell his product (isn't this always how it has been done anyway?)

The music "industry" is certainly gasping for air. But the music "scene" will never die because people will always play music and people will always want to listen to it. They'll just have to find new ways to fund it/create it.

The future of music is indie...period. DIY all the way with some smaller "labels" who get it sometimes helping.

I was thinking about something else too:

Between scene overcrowding and the amount of money labels (indie and major) flush down the toilet signing too many copycat bands, it's no wonder there's no money now...it's like the music scene's version of the mortgage crisis.

Downloading isn't what's killing indie music in general...overcrowding is simply hurting indie CD sales...too many bands all reaching for the same cup and either wondering why A - they can't get hold of it or B - wondering why it's not as full as they expected it to be. The old model is dead/dying...stop thinking it's going to somehow suddenly start working again for you.

The playing field, because of the internet, is now global for indie bands, not just regional...you used to have to try and spread your band's name from your region outward....now because of the internet, once you have music ready to hear, your're automatically competing with every band in the world for attention.

And as for Exodus:

Exodus is an indie band on an indie label. They are no different at this point than a new band who just put out their debut on Metal Blade. I don't care where they were, they are now indie, period.

And I don't care how long you've been around, the bottom line is "Band X" managed to keep an audience and you didn't...you're not owed anything just because you were on the same label at one time or they have one of your old members or they opened for you at The Whisky once 25 years ago...

Record companies are clueless, their has never been a greater demand for music as there is now, ipods, downloading, itunes, gaming, movies, MY SPACE etc, people are hungrier for music than ever, and record labels still are losing money. They donot know how market bands, and as ULT stated they are not marketing careers for long term, they are looking for a quick buck and make most of their money from back catalogs.

Record labels want to blame anyone for their current predictament they need to look in the mirror. They treated musicians and artists as another box of Tide, just a product, and the music is not valued. Still these clueless tools want to charge $18 for a new CD.

Quote :

But the music "scene" will never die because people will always play music and people will always want to listen to it. They'll just have to find new ways to fund it/create it.

I would argue that there are absolutely no "new ways" at all. Sure, people will always want to listen to music. But:

1. How many really NEED to listen to NEW music? And pretty much any artist from the past that you've never heard qualifies as new music to you.

and

2. How many are willing to pay a dime for it? Enough to offset the relatively large cost of making it? Highly doubtful.

There is no "funding". Virtually all music will become charitable giving and without external funding of any kind. And I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Quote :

But the music "scene" will never die because people will always play music and people will always want to listen to it. They'll just have to find new ways to fund it/create it.

I would argue that there are absolutely no "new ways" at all. Sure, people will always want to listen to music. But:

1. How many really NEED to listen to NEW music? And pretty much any artist from the past that you've never heard qualifies as new music to you.

and

2. How many are willing to pay a dime for it? Enough to offset the relatively large cost of making it? Highly doubtful.

There is no "funding". Virtually all music will become charitable giving and without external funding of any kind. And I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing.

I donot agree with these statements, they will have to be more creative like kind of music deals that Korn and Madonna signed where they share in the profit sharing of not only record sales, but also tour and merchandising revune, and also share the risks.

The future is going to be independent labels look, Pearl Jam and Metallica are already exploring the possabilites since their contracts have just been fullfilled, or exclusive deals like AC/DC and Journey have done with Walmart. Or one shot CD releases like the White Stripes option, whatever is going to happen they will have to think outside the box, but I do feel it is going to be a DIY world in a few short years.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Quote :

But the music "scene" will never die because people will always play music and people will always want to listen to it. They'll just have to find new ways to fund it/create it.

I would argue that there are absolutely no "new ways" at all. Sure, people will always want to listen to music. But:

1. How many really NEED to listen to NEW music? And pretty much any artist from the past that you've never heard qualifies as new music to you.

and

2. How many are willing to pay a dime for it? Enough to offset the relatively large cost of making it? Highly doubtful.

There is no "funding". Virtually all music will become charitable giving and without external funding of any kind. And I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing.

To try and answer your questions:

1. I don't know how many NEED to hear NEW music, but they do exist...like people who still buy vinyl or go to non-cover band club shows. Just because the need may be smaller doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's almost like a purging...it got too big and is going back to basics for real music lovers...bands AND fans.

2. Again, smaller but still existent. With home recording as cheap as it is and the internet, people CAN get their own music out there...they just have to get past the idea of someone else paying for it. Small studios can be more affordable for small bands and ARE more affordable for bands today than 15 years ago. Remember when it was a HUGE deal to score 4 hours of time at the local 8-track studio? Now, that same money will score you a day at the guys "studio" in his den (Pro-Tools and direct gear).

As for funding, again, we need to get past the idea of "I make the music and someone else pays for me to do it". LOF was recorded on equipment owned by one of the band members. One of the band members bought and learned how to use the equipment himself thus eliminating the need to pay an outside party to do it. I know that everyone can't do this, but it is an option. The band can record/mix and even master their own music and with the internet can get it to people...but again THAT is where the challenge is because you're then in competition with the WORLD for attention.

Music may well end up being free at some point. But it is art, after all...not product. But, I think the need will still be there, it'll just be smaller...and "ringtone music" fans will fall away...who needs them anyway? Music will once again become artistic and not commercial.

Quote :

I donot agree with these statements, they will have to be more creative like kind of music deals that Korn and Madonna signed where they share in the profit sharing of not only record sales, but also tour and merchandising revune, and also share the risks.

The future is going to be independent labels look, Pearl Jam and Metallica are already exploring the possabilites since their contracts have just been fullfilled, or exclusive deals like AC/DC and Journey have done with Walmart. Or one shot CD releases like the White Stripes option, whatever is going to happen they will have to think outside the box, but I do feel it is going to be a DIY world in a few short years.

All established acts. I think the label thing will move more in the Retroactive vein where they give you some marketing help but you do most of the leg work yourself and they are on sites like cdbaby. I do think it will be very difficult to last though, as the work the artist puts in will be so much more and the rewards so much less.

As corny as it sounds, music should be its own reward.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

- Charging $15-$20 for a single CD that maybe cost $5 to make INCLUDING production/marketing costs, giving the artist $1 & the label keeping the rest to fund their own employees' ridiculously overpriced lifestyles

If this rumor is true. How can a band make money by getting a dollar per cd?
Then the album should be really good or have great advertisements to make some money

But this could be the reason why bands are turning into Itunes. But does the 1$ per song from Itunes goes directly to the band?

Quote :

If this rumor is true. How can a band make money by getting a dollar per cd?

A band makes a small fraction of it's income off of CD sales. They are lucky to get $1 - $2 per CD (AFTER the label makes its own money back) to split between the band members. It's a fact. Even "signing bonuses" are recoupable by the labels...as are "publishing advances".

Quote :

Then the album should be really good or have great advertisements to make some money

It's all in the marketing, but still bands make next to nothing on the sale of CD's alone. They make much more money selling t-shirts and playing shows.

Quote :

But this could be the reason why bands are turning into Itunes. But does the 1$ per song from Itunes goes directly to the band?

No, it does not...unless it's an independent band putting their own music on iTunes. If its an act on a label, the money goes to the label first, then a tiny cut is given to the artist.

Wow. This has been an awesome thread to follow along with. Very informative and lots to ponder. Thanks.

There were copycats in the 60s/70s. And just like competing band at present they faded into obscurity.

There is usually the issue about who pays what. So normally the record company gives the band money to produce the record and for marketing. However this is a loan, this means the band has to pay it back. So in other words the cost of the record will be paid from the bands share and the record company still gets money from its own share. So in the end the loan the band got from the record company has an interest rate of 500 % or more. Hey even a bank wouldn´t dare this. Also it can happen, that the record company made looots of money from the record but the band is heavily in debts.
:eyesore:
This does happen because the band will check the contract with a lawyer! However a lawyer can only check if the contract is against law. But thats hardly the case, and above business practice is not against the law anyway.
But it should be mentioned not every bands does have such a smurf poo contract.

I'm going through this with my own music. I have a Line 6 PODxt and I make clean recordings with it, I can record the guitars, bass and vocals through it, use a 4 track to record the drummer and mix it all on the computer. Use CDbaby to distribute it.

Someone said its not regional anymore, but that's not necessarily true. You put it on MySpace and the whole world can view it, but you still need to go to all the major metro areas and play shows, sell shirts and get noticed so you have the funding power to move even further out and play more shows ect. Its like building an Empire. Rome didn't go straight after Turkey, they went after Greece and France first.

Heres the thing, go indie and expect to make the bare minimum to live off of. I'd take that, the equivlilent to $8-$10 an hour to play my music. You need to be original, you need to get noticed in other words you need to be powerful.

Anyone can listen to Metallica or Megadeth and see why they did better then Exodus.

Funny how a kid can sell an original pressing of a lost 80's metal treasure on Ebay for hundreds and make more money than the artists ever did for the same thing. I played a few shows filling in for a sick friend (ages ago) They played gigs to pay back the record company for $ advanced for recording and touring costs. They said they could of done recording just as good for alot less money. That is just all part of the scam.

I agree with "Mr.Oracle"

the cookie cutter approach to music is killing the industry. I saw first hand how it began down in Hollywood in the early 80's.
A band would get signed, make a il $ and "boom" there were clones everywhere. Makes me wish I'd a bought stock in Aquanet and Maybelene. My .02

Thanks for the Info "Shawn On Fire" and "TUL"

So is bands don't make a penny from it, why is Gary Holt keep complaining about it?

If you don't make money from selling records, but you are on a big label, at least you are getting the luxury of big merchandise and touring

But if you are independent, you could probably make more money from albums, be freely of doing what you want, but you would not do tours.

Not every band has such a bad record deal. Also the best thing is you remake the recording costs through selling the album. This way you have merchandise and touring income for your own.
And very important. Promoters book bands because of records sells. So if a band doesn´t sell any records in a town it is very difficult to get a gig in this place, except your are a mega act. Maybe 5000 people downloaded the album in this town, but that noone knows. (I am quoting John Schaffer from Iced Earth on this one)

I've read stories about Kix and the problems they had with their Atlantic contract. Even after the huge success of Blow My Fuse, they were in major debt to Atlantic. Basically the band made nothing from their contract, the debts far outweighed what they made.

detuned wrote:

I've read stories about Kix and the problems they had with their Atlantic contract. Even after the huge success of Blow My Fuse, they were in major debt to Atlantic. Basically the band made nothing from their contract, the debts far outweighed what they made.

But why did they sign this contract? Forgot the calculator? Okay as an outsider it is easy to talk wise but this reminds me of something. Kai Hansen once said, bands do make the mistake by not doing any negotiation. They just sign ... .

Well, Kix signed their initial contract in 1981...aside from regional success they never really broke nationwide until Blow My Fuse in 1988. So they had quite a few years to rack up debts. I'm sure they made their share of mistakes (they weren't the most sober band in the world).