A question for the music producers on board, please? [Archive]

Nege

11-10-2003, 03:04 PM

MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!

MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS MONEY !!!!!!!
MAKING MUSIC COSTS..................
It has to be made back!

[ November 10, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Nege ]

alex zen

11-10-2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by St Magus the Reviled:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by alex zen:
i would like to make enough to never have to work a day job again. i don't need to be filthy rich (athough i'd take it), i just don't want to have to worry about cash flow problems. If you are a producer you have not answered the question...please be genuine [/QUOTE]of course i want commercial success. but i'm more rock&roll oriented than house.

upliftdisco365

11-10-2003, 03:20 PM

I believe that you can make and sell (in large supply; 25,000 to 50,000 units per pressing)Deep House and sell lots of Deep House to whoever wants to buy it, without compromising the music.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; or reality for the sake of our discussion. Many producers change the music to fit the vibe. I think you can create music that creates the vibe and the interest/fascination of people, to the point that they'll find and purchase your music, no matter how small the label, no matter how "connected" the creative/backing force. This theory will be proven/refuted in the not-too-distant future.

I'd love to be in a position to say to Brittney Spears' handlers, "No, I won't refit, this pop-machine, generated song as a dance record. Keep your money. But, I will do a real Deep-House record with Ms. Spears..."

[ November 10, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: upliftdisco365 ]

DeesKo

11-10-2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by St Magus the Reviled:

Are you willing to state that you are NOT trying to have commercial success and all that that implies?

As an artist (both as a producer and a DJ) I can't front, I would love to produce something (a mix CD, a full length album of original music, or a single) that I think is quality, and have the masses enjoy it (ie the crossover).

I don't know that this constitutes trying or not trying. I'm still trying to just be successful at being creative, I don't think I've reached the point of being able to decide what the outcome of that creativity is going to be (ie commercial or underground).

Peace

The Buddy Love Show

11-10-2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by upliftdisco365:
I believe that you can make and sell (in large supply; 25,000 to 50,000 units per pressing)Deep House and sell lots of Deep House to whoever wants to buy it, without compromising the music.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; or reality for the sake of our discussion. Many producers change the music to fit the vibe. I think you can create music that creates the vibe and the interest/fascination of people, to the point that they'll find and purchase your music, no matter how small the label, no matter how "connected" the creative/backing force. This theory will be proven/refuted in the not-too-distant future.

I'd love to be in a position to say to Brittney Spears' handlers, "No, I won't refit, this pop-machine, generated song as a dance record. Keep your money. But, I will do a real Deep-House record with Ms. Spears..." John, I appreciate the response but Yes or No?

upliftdisco365

11-10-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by St Magus the Reviled:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by upliftdisco365:
I believe that you can make and sell (in large supply; 25,000 to 50,000 units per pressing)Deep House and sell lots of Deep House to whoever wants to buy it, without compromising the music.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; or reality for the sake of our discussion. Many producers change the music to fit the vibe. I think you can create music that creates the vibe and the interest/fascination of people, to the point that they'll find and purchase your music, no matter how small the label, no matter how "connected" the creative/backing force. This theory will be proven/refuted in the not-too-distant future.

I'd love to be in a position to say to Brittney Spears' handlers, "No, I won't refit, this pop-machine, generated song as a dance record. Keep your money. But, I will do a real Deep-House record with Ms. Spears..." John, I appreciate the response but Yes or No? [/QUOTE]Are you willing to state that you are NOT trying to have commercial success and all that that implies?

Yes. I'm willing to state that I'm not trying to have commercial success. I'm trying to have financial/fiscal success. I believe with every part of me, that the two ("commercial" and "success") aren't synonymous. I have to.

[ November 10, 2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: upliftdisco365 ]

O'love

11-10-2003, 04:52 PM

i really don't care to much.... not about making money with it..i have my internet company where i earn my money, and music is what i do because i feel and want/need to do it.... what i like to receive is respect from people i look up to, musicwise, that's all..the rest is a bonus...i must say that is an ideal situation for me, as i don't feel stressed and forced to make music because i have to earn money to make a living.... i know enough people who tried or try to make a living out of music, and it's very hard and it almost always forces you to do things you rather would not do, in a creative/musical sense..

Olaf

[ November 10, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: O'love ]

Number Two

11-10-2003, 05:09 PM

Oh hell yea!!! I will sell out in a heartbeat!!! Even if I am just a flash in the pan. I don't think I am frontman material though. I wouldn't mind working with some of the most "Bling Blingingest" recording artest. And if I have to switch my sound to something more accessable,I would. Dignity dont pay my bills. The older I get,the more I turn into a whore. I ain't playing,I am being serious! I want to win a Grammy. I want some of those 50,000 dollar checks cut from just one session with Justin Timberlake and Britney Speirs doing a sappy duet. It is easy! You just have to know the right people at the right place at the right time. I used to say "oh,I am only in it for the art" while my stomach was growling. I would like to work with some commercially successful people,but I would like to do some of my own sh*t as well. So the answer is: YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES...well maybe...YEEEESSSSS!!!!

did that answer your question? Peace.

Huey P. Freeman

11-10-2003, 05:28 PM

K. Otembo

11-10-2003, 05:30 PM

No, if "commercial success" implies selling lots of records. Regardless of occupation, everyone likes to be compensated well for what they do, so why should producers be an exception?

I have lots of ways to get at this, and could probably ramble on, but it seems the issue has something to do with "commercial success" being understood as the antithesis of "underground" which, in my opinion, is rather unfortunate. This might explain why a track may burn up the deepest of deep house dance floors today, but 6 months later when the masses get a hold of the same mix, the headz who first heard, supported, and loved on the track start hating it (i.e., they feel it's no longer "underground"). And that feeling of resentment inevitably gets transferred to the producer for accepting all the fame and lavish gifts that go along with a commercially successful track.

On the other hand, I note that most consumers of this music listen to it precisely because it's not all over the radio--it's something enjoyed by a select few (or so it would seem) and therefore it's more personalized on this scene.

As a producer, and for all the producers I know, commercial success in and of itself is never a bad thing--in fact, it's what we strive for in order to pay the bills so we can keep doing what we're doing. How to reach critical mass and maintain that initial deep house fan base that is so important to us is something I'd like to know.

dennis f

11-11-2003, 01:06 AM

I do what I do because I love to....I don't know any better...whether it's house, jazz or whatever. It's all I think about. As I've said before, It is my disease and I choose to live with it. Therefore if I turn out to be a commercial success well then that's great but if I don't well...that's great also. As long as I make enough money so that my kids don't have to long for anything that'll be fine with me. I feel blessed to be able to do what I do full time and be able to pay the bills....Of course i'd love to be paid a ridiculous amount of money but then again...who wouldn't?

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2003, 03:59 PM

Thanks for the responses

I can't value another mans dreams so the question was all about insight.

djyoavb

11-11-2003, 04:45 PM

Bold Soul

11-11-2003, 04:56 PM

What's interesting to me is how the MUSIC industry has never been up on how the MOVIE industry has kept pace with trends in commerce.

When pre-recorded VHS tapes hit the scene, they were expensive, simply because, for the first time, one could "own' a movie and watch it on demand.

Then the rental market hit. "First sale doctrine" is a term that describes how rental retailers didn't have to pay royalties on rentals because the tape was a "purchase".

So the industry simply made the cost of a pre-recorded VHS tape upwards of $85.00. Yep, that's right. Back when you rented "Crush Groove", the mom and pop video store purchased that copy you took home for somewhere between FIFTY TO EIGHTY-FIVE BUCKS!

Now THAT'S getting your money on and still not selling out.

Now there's a revenue sharing thing the majors like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have - a distributor provides them X number of copies out of their own pocket and, in return, Blockbuster slices them a percentage of cheese every month or quarter or so.

THAT'S SOME FAIRNESS RIGHT THERE, IMO.

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!

Music seems ass backwards sometimes. I can see all sorts of outside "NON-SELLOUT" streams of revenue for someone with some hot shit.

D J 1 3 8

11-11-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!
In Jamaica, in reggae music, it's a producer's game. They create a riddim, have 30 DJs voice on it, then throw it all out there and see if any of it sticks. They pay the artist a few hundred bucks for their time (a few thousand if you're a big star). The producer then owns all the publishing rights. If the record is a hit, and the artist wants to put it on his own album, he has to license it BACK from the producer. NOt saying that this is fair, just pointing out another weird model.

[ November 11, 2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: DJ 138 ]

Mocambo

11-11-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
What's interesting to me is how the MUSIC industry has never been up on how the MOVIE industry has kept pace with trends in commerce.

When pre-recorded VHS tapes hit the scene, they were expensive, simply because, for the first time, one could "own' a movie and watch it on demand.

Then the rental market hit. "First sale doctrine" is a term that describes how rental retailers didn't have to pay royalties on rentals because the tape was a "purchase".

So the industry simply made the cost of a pre-recorded VHS tape upwards of $85.00. Yep, that's right. Back when you rented "Crush Groove", the mom and pop video store purchased that copy you took home for somewhere between FIFTY TO EIGHTY-FIVE BUCKS!

Now THAT'S getting your money on and still not selling out.

Now there's a revenue sharing thing the majors like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have - a distributor provides them X number of copies out of their own pocket and, in return, Blockbuster slices them a percentage of cheese every month or quarter or so.

THAT'S SOME FAIRNESS RIGHT THERE, IMO.

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!

Music seems ass backwards sometimes. I can see all sorts of outside "NON-SELLOUT" streams of revenue for someone with some hot shit. Alot of movie rental info I always wondered about. Thanks.

Bold Soul

11-11-2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Silhouette:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
What's interesting to me is how the MUSIC industry has never been up on how the MOVIE industry has kept pace with trends in commerce.

When pre-recorded VHS tapes hit the scene, they were expensive, simply because, for the first time, one could "own' a movie and watch it on demand.

Then the rental market hit. "First sale doctrine" is a term that describes how rental retailers didn't have to pay royalties on rentals because the tape was a "purchase".

So the industry simply made the cost of a pre-recorded VHS tape upwards of $85.00. Yep, that's right. Back when you rented "Crush Groove", the mom and pop video store purchased that copy you took home for somewhere between FIFTY TO EIGHTY-FIVE BUCKS!

Now THAT'S getting your money on and still not selling out.

Now there's a revenue sharing thing the majors like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have - a distributor provides them X number of copies out of their own pocket and, in return, Blockbuster slices them a percentage of cheese every month or quarter or so.

THAT'S SOME FAIRNESS RIGHT THERE, IMO.

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!

Music seems ass backwards sometimes. I can see all sorts of outside "NON-SELLOUT" streams of revenue for someone with some hot shit. Alot of movie rental info I always wondered about. Thanks. [/QUOTE]Yep! As long as one can produce a good film (and there are standards of quality), there isn't as much risk in the game as many people assume. The easiest thing to do is to make money off a good movie with commerical appeal.

Thing is, PRODUCING a film is what can kill you. There are few people that can get one from the page to the stage...in one piece, mind you.

Huey P. Freeman

11-11-2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
What's interesting to me is how the MUSIC industry has never been up on how the MOVIE industry has kept pace with trends in commerce.

When pre-recorded VHS tapes hit the scene, they were expensive, simply because, for the first time, one could "own' a movie and watch it on demand.

Then the rental market hit. "First sale doctrine" is a term that describes how rental retailers didn't have to pay royalties on rentals because the tape was a "purchase".

So the industry simply made the cost of a pre-recorded VHS tape upwards of $85.00. Yep, that's right. Back when you rented "Crush Groove", the mom and pop video store purchased that copy you took home for somewhere between FIFTY TO EIGHTY-FIVE BUCKS!

Now THAT'S getting your money on and still not selling out.

Now there's a revenue sharing thing the majors like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have - a distributor provides them X number of copies out of their own pocket and, in return, Blockbuster slices them a percentage of cheese every month or quarter or so.

THAT'S SOME FAIRNESS RIGHT THERE, IMO.

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!

Music seems ass backwards sometimes. I can see all sorts of outside "NON-SELLOUT" streams of revenue for someone with some hot shit. Wouldn't that type of revenue stream entail sweeping changes in the music industry? Be pretty difficult but very profitable.

[ November 11, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Eargasm ]

djmarbll

11-11-2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
What's interesting to me is how the MUSIC industry has never been up on how the MOVIE industry has kept pace with trends in commerce.

When pre-recorded VHS tapes hit the scene, they were expensive, simply because, for the first time, one could "own' a movie and watch it on demand.

Then the rental market hit. "First sale doctrine" is a term that describes how rental retailers didn't have to pay royalties on rentals because the tape was a "purchase".

So the industry simply made the cost of a pre-recorded VHS tape upwards of $85.00. Yep, that's right. Back when you rented "Crush Groove", the mom and pop video store purchased that copy you took home for somewhere between FIFTY TO EIGHTY-FIVE BUCKS!

Now THAT'S getting your money on and still not selling out.

Now there's a revenue sharing thing the majors like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have - a distributor provides them X number of copies out of their own pocket and, in return, Blockbuster slices them a percentage of cheese every month or quarter or so.

THAT'S SOME FAIRNESS RIGHT THERE, IMO.

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!

Music seems ass backwards sometimes. I can see all sorts of outside "NON-SELLOUT" streams of revenue for someone with some hot shit. I remember in the 80's when prerecorded VHS tapes were $50 and up. I didn't know the video industry worked like that either. Thanks Mr. Gardner.

As far as producers wanting commercial success, I think that's a no-brainer. What differs is how we go about doing it. I produce primarily hip-hop and R&B because the money's much better than in house. But no matter how successful I get from hip-hop or R&B, I'll still be an underground househead for life because that's what got me into producing initially. In fact, I still plan on promoting underground house and soul music, and based on how successful I may become, that may bring more ears to the table.

Bold Soul

11-11-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Eargasm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
What's interesting to me is how the MUSIC industry has never been up on how the MOVIE industry has kept pace with trends in commerce.

When pre-recorded VHS tapes hit the scene, they were expensive, simply because, for the first time, one could "own' a movie and watch it on demand.

Then the rental market hit. "First sale doctrine" is a term that describes how rental retailers didn't have to pay royalties on rentals because the tape was a "purchase".

So the industry simply made the cost of a pre-recorded VHS tape upwards of $85.00. Yep, that's right. Back when you rented "Crush Groove", the mom and pop video store purchased that copy you took home for somewhere between FIFTY TO EIGHTY-FIVE BUCKS!

Now THAT'S getting your money on and still not selling out.

Now there's a revenue sharing thing the majors like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have - a distributor provides them X number of copies out of their own pocket and, in return, Blockbuster slices them a percentage of cheese every month or quarter or so.

THAT'S SOME FAIRNESS RIGHT THERE, IMO.

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!

Music seems ass backwards sometimes. I can see all sorts of outside "NON-SELLOUT" streams of revenue for someone with some hot shit. Wouldn't that type of revenue stream entail sweeping changes in the music industry? Be pretty difficult but very profitable. [/QUOTE]Say you've got the joint of ALL JOINTS! Really - you dropped one on David Mancuso, he blessed it, you got some home-grown radio love and, after a while, every DJ wants one.

The crowds love it! If you're a DJ, you have to get one. It's some ol' anthem shit!

If you're the producer and you've published the work, you can charge what you want!

House has declined because the power is in the hands of the DJ. If House became the domain of the PRODUCER, you'd see some real riches!

DeesKo

11-11-2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!
In the strictest sense, you are correct, the producer sees no income from the DJ's who are making money playing their records. At the same time, there are PLENTY of fringe benefits behind producing THE hit of the year that pay big benefits.

Getting gigs, getting cash from 3rd party licensing, getting remix deals, etc all are benefits reaped thanks to the DJ's making my joint the banger for the year.

There are an endless number of doors that open for a producer who makes a couple of bangers.

This goes even further when you're the publisher of your own music.

Just my 2 cents.

Peace

Huey P. Freeman

11-11-2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:

A DJ can purchase a 12" for $10.00 and make thousands playing it to crowds. The producer who made the tune can't get NO PARTS OF ANY CASH FROM THAT???!!! Whaaaaaa? Man, some of these cuts are HOT HOT! Some DJ sets wouldn't be complete without certain CLUB ANTHEMS. That's power to the producer, but the producer sees NO PARTS. NONE!
In the strictest sense, you are correct, the producer sees no income from the DJ's who are making money playing their records. At the same time, there are PLENTY of fringe benefits behind producing THE hit of the year that pay big benefits.

Getting gigs, getting cash from 3rd party licensing, getting remix deals, etc all are benefits reaped thanks to the DJ's making my joint the banger for the year.

There are an endless number of doors that open for a producer who makes a couple of bangers.

This goes even further when you're the publisher of your own music.

Just my 2 cents.

Peace [/QUOTE]But if you have thousands of Djs around the world playing your cut and sharing(even a small portion) of what they make each time they play it that could turn into serious cash. Which could be reinvested into producing higher quality tracks. Imagine having a huge production budget and never having to come out of your pocket to finance. Or paying back a label for the advance they gave you to produce a project. Very interesting possibilities, I think.

DeesKo

11-11-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Eargasm:
[QB] But if you have thousands of Djs around the world playing your cut and sharing(even a small portion) of what they make each time they play it that could turn into serious cash. In a round-about way, you do get money from that (provided you are the publisher) because clubs pay into ASCAP much in the same way radio stations do. I don't know the details because its not like I've produced & published a hit that would have even registered on the chart in ASCAP, but a HIT would register and get a royalty payout if I'm not mistaken.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Peace

Bold Soul

11-11-2003, 05:46 PM

Man, ain't no "fringe benefits" unless there's some PAY. No one just wants to be paid in "fringe benefits".

And it's the DJ that makes it a "banger" - and this logic is killing everything. The cut should be a "banger" BEFORE the DJ plays it. That it's a banger should compel DJs to PURCHASE IT. DJs should pay royalties on DJ gigs to producers who create the BANGERS.

Especially in HOUSE, because it isn't a consumer packaged product. Tracks exist on a ONE TO MANY relationship. It only takes one 12" for THOUSANDS of people to consume it. At that ratio, no wonder HOUSE is BROKE!

Gotta circumvent the DJ if we want to improve the genre.

Bold Soul

11-11-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by DeesKo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Eargasm:
[QB] But if you have thousands of Djs around the world playing your cut and sharing(even a small portion) of what they make each time they play it that could turn into serious cash. In a round-about way, you do get money from that (provided you are the publisher) because clubs pay into ASCAP much in the same way radio stations do. I don't know the details because its not like I've produced & published a hit that would have even registered on the chart in ASCAP, but a HIT would register and get a royalty payout if I'm not mistaken.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Peace [/QUOTE]Yea, but the ASCAP/BMI thing isn't a total truism. Sure, in principle, publishers are supposed to be paid, but ASCAP isn't able to totally monitor all activity for each composition.

Some of those ASCAP decals on the windows of clubs were left on the window since two owners ago.

The same product for EXHIBITORS should not be the same product for CONSUMERS. It's called TIERED LICENSING. The software industry does it. The movie industry does it.

If I take a copy of Oracle and build an enterprise solution for IBM, it ain't gonna be the same price as if I were building a database for a corner bakery.

Maybe I could take the same DVD you bought for $14.00 and project it in a 150 seat theater, but I have to rent a print of the film for THOUSANDS.

That someone can pay $.99 for a track and use it to bang a party earning THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS is just stupid business.

[ November 11, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Danny Gardner ]

DeesKo

11-11-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
Man, ain't no "fringe benefits" unless there's some PAY. No one just wants to be paid in "fringe benefits".

NAH, those fringe benefits can/do pay cash money. It just depends on how much hustle you got within you.

Especially in HOUSE, because it isn't a consumer packaged product. That's our own fault. It should and could be a consumer packaged product and in SOME cases it is.

we need to circumvent the DJ

Nah, if you're talking about making this a marketable commodity, we need to utilize quality DJ's skills because the whole crux of being a quality DJ is in knowing how to get and keep people on the floor, just imagine the "floor" on a grander scale.

Peace

[ November 11, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: DeesKo ]

Doug

11-11-2003, 08:26 PM

I have tasted major success. I liked the money that came with major success. I didn't like the compromises that had to be made to obtain it. I would be happiest if I could be a major success doing exactly what I want to do without compromise.

DOTSmusic

11-11-2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by St Magus the Reviled:
The rest of ya can flap yer gums but it aint relevant

Are you willing to state that you are NOT trying to have commercial success and all that that implies?

i'm real curious cause a lot of non - producers ( ooh that has layers) on this board suggest otherwise i just got here so i haven't read any of the replies yet, but here is my answer.

HELL NO.
who the fvck in there right mind would put all their time and energy into their music specifically to see it fail?
like geez, lemme work on this piece for 2 months and hopefully no one will buy it YEA!.

i would love to get hella paid spinning and making music and i hope to someday achieve that goal. but for right now, just like many people, i have to continue working a day job.
this isn't stopping me from continuing to do what i love to do the most, which is create music. i ain't gonna stop now just because i'm not yet able to pay the bills from making music and spinning records alone.

for me it's either this or nothing and you can bet your sweet ass that i ain't going out like a fvcking nobody.
there is no doubt in my mind at all that i will achieve commercial success and all that implies with this.

graemlins/beerchug.gif

[ November 11, 2003, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: aLie ]

jpsf

11-11-2003, 09:01 PM

i think that being a pro musician is a tough life even when you think you've made it (where are they now?). i'm probably better off making money doing other things. the longevity of a pro musician (with few exceptions of people like the rolling stones) does not make it an attractive career move.

however, like many, i feel possessed...or perhaps obsessed...by music. i spend too much time and money already on the studio, piano lessons, and records. but, like most, it's a love that makes life interesting (for better or worse).

so i can honestly say that i am not trying for commercial success. i am trying to be a devout student of music and my goal is to make it a more gratifying experience.

however, i would remix or work on just about anyone's project for the right price.