Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And yet many musicians still have day jobs to pay the rent. I agree that music has had it better, but it's still the exceptions that make it their primary living (when you look at all who play and sing for any sort of recompense) and the real exceptions that make a fortune.
If a musician decides to be a working musician to support their composition or recording work I'd argue that it's relatively easy (outside NZ, but often even within) to survive using your craft. You may not always be able to play the music you've created as a songwriter but a living is doable and thousands of musicians do it nightly even in NZ.
And I'm not talking just playing covers.
I'd also argue that in NZ the reason why so many need a day job, not to put too fine a point on it, is being slightly too precious about their art, if you will, and plain laziness. NZ bands are notorious for playing irregularly and then complaining that there is no money in it.
-
But statistically speaking, it's rarely a primary source of revenue for the practitioner, so it would be pretty silly to expect it to be. Most every actor, artist, writer I know has a another source of revenue that enables them to support their artistic endeavours. There are exceptions but, in the main, the arts has been a historically low paying existence, and often is classed as a hobby rather than real work (classed by non-artists, of course).
Not true for music though. It's been relatively easy for a musician, internationally speaking if not NZ, to drag a reasonable living out of their art, and, although much of that is from live work, traditionally performers signed to a big record company have also found themselves on a wage (as an advance against future income from the label). It's a part of the risk the label has often taken when investing in an artist.
-
oh..Singapore's 85mbs Broadband is not perfect I see....
-
When disks got over 1MB, I quit relying on mine altogether. Having a memory is so 20th century.
I remember well my friend Paul Jeffreys at Oceania Audio telling me circa 86 that he would likely never fill the 1Mb hard drive he'd just acquired.
I was in awe.
-
When disks got over 1MB, I quit relying on mine altogether. Having a memory is so 20th century.
I remember well my friend Paul Jeffreys at Oceania Audio telling me circa 86 that he would likely never fill the 1Mb hard drive he'd just acquired.
I was in awe.
-
When disks got over 1MB, I quit relying on mine altogether. Having a memory is so 20th century.
I remember well my friend Paul Jeffreys at Oceania Audio telling me circa 86 that he would likely never fill the 1Mb hard drive he'd just acquired.
I was in awe.
-
That's a dubious argument Simon. There are many factors which have led to the change in price of products over years. The statement "CDs are cheaper than vinyl because they're currently cheaper than Vinyl was in the 1980s after inflation" is waiting to have all the holes picked apart
to a degree but the fact remains that the product stored on the items in question costs far less for anyone to legitimately access in a physical format in real terms, especially in the world's biggest market where the price of said product is substantially less than it was, in real terms, 25+ years back.
I remember the big fuss when LPs went to US$12.98 (it was a Tom Petty album BTW) about 1981. And a new album in NY doesn't cost much more, often less, now.
Record companies in NZ have to a degree, too, passed in the reduction in cost of manufacture by holding the prices, although you could argue that, and I'd likely agree, because of the substantive drop in manufacturing, perhaps not enough.
There are other factors too, such as a percentage rise in average royalties over the past 25 years.
Well, I'll defer to you on that one. I imagine my memory is failing me regarding the figures, rather than them losing money on every copy.
My memory fails me every day, ask my wife....
In Singapore today..now, music is severely overpriced here..as is beer sadly.
-
BTW, in 1986/7 LPs were (at the Music Studio, where I shopped at the time) $7.99 or $11.99 for doubles.
Then they would've been losing money on every copy sold I imagine. The wholesale price was higher than that (on which we were paid royalties).
The retail on a single LP in 1980 was $11.50 which jumped about 50c every six months. By 1985 it was $15.99 and it jumped a $1.50 in one bump early in 1986 which caused a huge fuss at the time.
-
And I noted that the price of a CD In NYC last month was pretty much what I paid for a vinyl slab in the same city 25 years back so it's an even greater differential in the customer's favour in that market.
-
Too expensive to buy each week because they represented a higher percentage of disposable income than the previous vinyl alternatives. Customers saw/see the high price as "gouging" by the industry.
and on that they are wrong Mark. A physical CD sells for less than it's vinyl equivalent. When the LP was phased out of the mainstream in the mid to late 1980s it retailed for about $18. A CD was $32. The list price of a CD now is about $34 and a chart CD can be found well under $30 which is much less than the 1986 / 7 $18 adjusted for $2009.
Of course the thing costs substantially less to produce too.