The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on April 13, 2017, 12:09

The real money for musicians lies in touring

Absolutely not! You are incorrect. It costs a lot of money to tour.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on April 13, 2017, 21:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 13, 2017, 18:59

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on April 13, 2017, 12:09

The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

The real music lies in advertising. Licensing a famous song for a commercial can easily cost $1 million or more. I was surprised McCartney was offering some of his library (post-Beatles, of course) for practically nothing....only $250K.

Interesting and true. He's still trying to buy back his own works, from the Beatles era, from Sony. But also, more modern of his own is not going to get the play or residuals that The Beatles will get over the long run. There's just so much long term with the Beatles that McCartney doesn't hold. However he is still one of the best.

What was he trying to license for $250K that's pretty low. Or was it one song or what?

As for other people who think Napster or iTunes is the answer, go read some more about how bands make more on touring than on the songs or albums or iTunes. They can make more on shirts in one concert tour than an entire lifetime of royalties for an album. It sucks but that's the world now with digital.

Ask any musician which takes more study, time and life investment. Learning any instrument or pushing a button on a DSLR or phone. I'm not trying to put down musicians, but just point out that there's an abundance of over the top exceptional players and most are working a job to support their musical talents. It's like actors in Hollywood. You want pretty faces and knock out bodies, go look at cocktail waitresses in Las Vegas.

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.

If somebody doesn't have something different, cutting edge or marketable, they are just another starving artist. Pick your area, painting, drawing, music, photography, metals, pottery, oils, basket weaving, writing, or anything creative. There are just far too many, very talented and capable people. I've seen thousands of them. I'm in awe of their skills and talent. I can turn a corner tomorrow and see a thousand more.

There's no end to the number of creative people who are far above the really good or talented level.

That's the competition. Nothing is easy.

McCartney had a whole long list of songs available for licensing...none of which I'd heard. All stuff from his post-Wings days. I might recognize some of it now since I've renewed my nearest in his music, but at the time I didn't know any of them, and none of the titles sounded like they'd be appropriate for our commercials. A shame...I really wanted to license something of his.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on April 13, 2017, 21:59

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.

so true, and the best ones are usually the hungriest. look at youtube, great music like robert johnson, or videos of buddy guy, bb king, even chuck berry ,etc.. get far less views than say
some copycat dressed in halter top ...
last i looked each video got like 2 million viewers in 6 months. i don't think robert johnson even got 200 in 6 years.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on April 13, 2017, 12:09

The real money for musicians lies in touring

A $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents, less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.

Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. You would need to get about 13,000 downloads a month to equal minimum wage.

Being a musician is worse than trying to be a digital photographer. Anyone with a pencil and paper can be an artist and draw. Musicians work hard and study for years to get underpaid because honestly, really good guitar players are on every street corner. That's how some make a living. Singers are even more common. Buy a camera and make 15% is better than what musicians in the real world make. Sure there are some stars and then the other 99%. Same for Microstock.

Dare to dream and hope you make it, but a dose of reality is also good for the soul. Don't expect that the world will come to you, expect that you need to be different and the best of the best just to barely make it in the arts.

Absolutely not! You are incorrect. It costs a lot of money to tour. Only the biggest artists in the world make money touring (and they of course make a lot of it). Most struggle to break even and most often lose money. That means most artists that are not Avicii/Kygo/Ed Sheeran. Even bands with several albums out that are somewhat famous don't make much money touring.

Your iTunes numbers can be anything from 0% to 70%. It all depends on the contracts. There is no normal. An indie artist gets 70%, and there are more and more of those making decent money. A big new artist with upfront money from the label makes 0% until the upfront money is paid back. This can be a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

The good money is in licensing for non-superstars (and sometimes merchandise if you are good at branding).

It is much easier to make money (licensing/stock etc.) with music than photography, trust me on this one. Sure, there are lots of musicians in this world, but you can't write, record and produce a selling track by accident. That is indeed possible with photography. And there are countless more photographers than musicians in the world.

There are many more opportunities for a track to make money after the sync fee in the form of YouTube money and PRO money (broadcast). This is not available for images/footage.

A placement in a commercial can easily get you an extra $1,000-2,000, and sometimes MUCH more. A bigger commercial that runs for a while can mean an extra $20-40k.