Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackie Blue]

It's a hard life if you don't have some kind of steady income.

I wish I had rich parents.

[Statik]

Don't most bands make more money off touring and merchandise sales anyway? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

"Most" bands barely make enough money from a show to make it to the next show.

A band like Radiohead probably makes more money off touring than albums, yes.  But "most" bands - 99% at minimum - don't do large tours in expensive venues that sell to capacity.

Um, isn't this in kind of a recursive loop?

If you agree that musicians (excluding superstars) dont make much money from album sales... and only break even (if they are lucky) off of touring... then how do they make money?  How do the members of shitty pop-punk bands and 80s hair metal bands and shit have nice houses with tons of stuff in it? 

Bands make money touring (some of the smaller supporting acts may not make very much, but its to get exposure to sell more records, to eventually be a headliner)  if making music was a completely losing proposition nowadays, we would see a lot less shitty bands coming out every day.  The venues don't make money off of ticket sales, that goes towards paying the bands (in a way).  Basically, if I understand what a friend of mine explained to me, the venue promoters agree to pay band A, B and C on tour Q, X Dollars to show up and play a show at a given club / venue.  Its now up to the club / venue to make that money back through ticket sales and everything else.  The band can then make additional money through merch sales at the show.

[Jackie Blue]

If you agree that musicians (excluding superstars) dont make much money from album sales...

I didn't say that.  Other people did.

Earlier I said one of my ex-bands made $10,000 off an album, without it even selling many copies, and it was pure profit as we recorded it ourselves.

[Statik]

If you agree that musicians (excluding superstars) dont make much money from album sales...

I didn't say that.  Other people did.

Earlier I said one of my ex-bands made $10,000 off an album, without it even selling many copies, and it was pure profit as we recorded it ourselves.

I know, but you said that was over 2 years, and dont get me wrong, thats not pocket change, but its not a huge amount of money (4 member band = 1250each per year). 

I found this by accident, seems quite topical for this thread:
http://www.punknews.org/article/25898

If you dont want to go / read, Ill give you the main point:

"The philosophy I’ve adopted is that if you’re supporting disc sales, you’re keeping the old model around longer…the one that forces dudes like me to tour 9 mos/year if they want to make ends meet with a career in music. If you wanna really support a band, "steal" their album….help bury the label….and buy a tshirt when you show up at their show and sing every word."

So there you go.

[Phaedra]

Re: the band shirt debate, I tend to think that culture has become so incestuous and repetitive that you can't really get away with wearing anything, or listening to anything, without someone out there thinking you're a 'tard for it. If you're going to be so self-conscious as to not wear band shirts because of what they 'say' about your tastes, wouldn't that follow for any other article of clothing you'd don? Particularly if it's at all fashionable. Heck, even thrift-store shoppers get branded as being hipsters now.

I say people should wear whatever they want to, and particularly a whole ton of band shirts because they're comfortable and practical and the bands get something back out of you spending money on them, instead of the cash only fuelling some massive fashion corporation. Or so I like to think anyways.

[GenericName]

Statik, I've been linked to that article about 5 times and I always forget, every single time.

I've begun to regard it like a rickroll.

[Jackie Blue]

I know, but you said that was over 2 years, and dont get me wrong, thats not pocket change, but its not a huge amount of money (4 member band = 1250each per year).

I think you're missing the point is that it was on an insanely tiny label, we didn't tour farther than 200 miles from our hometown, we had only been together a year, and we broke up right after the album came out so we didn't tour "in support" of it.

My point is that we made a decent chunk of change off something that was barely more than a glorified homemade local CD.

[bobdaman27]

I'm new here, but i think this is a good topic to start on, i personally buy most of my music from underground/secondhand record stores.
but thats just me, im cool with whatever

[Statik]

I know, but you said that was over 2 years, and dont get me wrong, thats not pocket change, but its not a huge amount of money (4 member band = 1250each per year).

I think you're missing the point is that it was on an insanely tiny label, we didn't tour farther than 200 miles from our hometown, we had only been together a year, and we broke up right after the album came out so we didn't tour "in support" of it.

My point is that we made a decent chunk of change off something that was barely more than a glorified homemade local CD.

Which I never discredited in any way... If the larger point is that you wouldn't be able to do that today (ie: because of filesharing and such) then I would probably agree with you.

But I am rather confused, the major point of yours I was countering was the "99% of bands dont make much, if any, money from touring."  If we are going to include every single local band ever, then I could see the number going that high, but if you consider say, only bands that have released nationally (in any way)  I would say that most of them are making their living touring.  And the younger the band is, the more work they do for less pay and the less time they get off.  Which is why you have new bands that tour for 10-12 months out of the year, and then you can look at a band like "moe." (I'm using them as an example because of the night I was working their show, we were talking with the manager about something which led to)  They tour for like 2 or 3 weeks straight, with like 1 day off.  Then they take the rest of the year off.  They have obviously made it to the point where they make enough from CD sales and limited touring where they are comfortable. 

To kind of consolidate:
Younger bands don't sell as many CDs, so they go on tour with someone who has (sold a lot of CDs) to get their name out, and make some money (but not much).  As they sell more CDs, they move from opener, to second opener, to headliner (all while making more money).

[a pack of wolves]

No, most bands still don't make money touring. You're basically only describing the experiences of bands on large independent or major record labels who are gunning for the big time and have management, PR, label etc backing on this, but this is not the case for most bands. Also, the bands who are on that route frequently don't make money from gigs since pay to play has become more and more prevalent, so getting that 'second opener' slot often means the band shelled out a ton of cash rather than made any.

And what's a 'local band' anyway? How do you define such a thing, and why is it always used as a term for a band that is generally positioned as being of less worth than a 'national' band (another meaningless term)?

[Hat]

To kind of consolidate:
Younger bands don't sell as many CDs, so they go on tour with someone who has (sold a lot of CDs) to get their name out, and make some money (but not much).  As they sell more CDs, they move from opener, to second opener, to headliner (all while making more money).

I like how this kind of makes it sound like one of the games in the Transport Tycoon series instead of a hard uncertain slog with no guarantee of reward.

[Hat]

Oh Westinghouse, when will you invent a joy to food converter for the modern post-punk band?

[a pack of wolves]

Except the joy of music!

Which sadly doesn't put food on the table.

It does if you use it to distract stall-holders while your street urchin accomplices pilfer their goods.

[Statik]

No, most bands still don't make money touring. You're basically only describing the experiences of bands on large independent or major record labels who are gunning for the big time and have management, PR, label etc backing on this, but this is not the case for most bands. Also, the bands who are on that route frequently don't make money from gigs since pay to play has become more and more prevalent, so getting that 'second opener' slot often means the band shelled out a ton of cash rather than made any.

And what's a 'local band' anyway? How do you define such a thing, and why is it always used as a term for a band that is generally positioned as being of less worth than a 'national' band (another meaningless term)?

Yes, I know its not the case for "most" bands, hence why I specified it down to national acts.  If someone felt you are good enough to get a record deal, then you are hopefully at the point where you are making a living making music.

Also, because a "local" band is of LITERAL less worth.  (Any number of local clubs can pay LESS money to get a local unsigned act over a big name national act.  Less inherant worth/value.)  And the term "local band" holds quite a bit of meaning IMO.  The local bands where you live are not the local bands where I live.  They are "local" to a region... get it?  Hardly meaningless terms.  Quite adequate terms actually.  

And a friend who is in a local band makes a decent bit of money playing shows only in the general area.  However, they also do a cover band on the side, and actually make more money doing that than playing their original music.  I'd be curious to know what national tours have had pay to play opener acts.  Because while pay to play for smaller acts makes sense for something like: Milwaukee Metalfest (which the smaller acts do pay to play), it wouldn't make sense in a touring format.

What no one seems to get is that, many of you seem to be describing this world where NO ONE MAKES MONEY OFF OF MUSIC EXCEPT LABELS.  Bands don't make money off of CDs, and unless you are superstar act, they either Pay to Play, barely make enough to make it to the next show, or lose money touring.  I KNOW this isnt true, from TALKING WITH BANDS IVE WORKED WITH.  If there was no money in music, we would see a lot less shitty acts* out there.  There is obviously money to be made, do artists and bands miss out on a lot of it that is made off of their talent?  Sure.  Maybe.  Did they read the contract they signed?  

*Edit: A lot less shitty DERIVATIVE acts...

[Jackie Blue]

If someone felt you are good enough to get a record deal, then you are hopefully at the point where you are making a living making music.

This is hilariously untrue, unless you're still only talking about the absolute 1% upper echeclon of bands, or by "making a living" you mean "living in a communal house with 12 other people and subsisting on bread you dumpstered from Panera and handrolled cigarettes".

[valley_parade]

Nothing wrong with stealing from Panera, that's good stuff.

[FUBAR]

Last CD I actually purchased from a store was De La Soul's Art Official Intelligence: Mosaic Thump and that was in 2000.

[a pack of wolves]

Yes, I know its not the case for "most" bands, hence why I specified it down to national acts.  If someone felt you are good enough to get a record deal, then you are hopefully at the point where you are making a living making music.

Also, because a "local" band is of LITERAL less worth.  (Any number of local clubs can pay LESS money to get a local unsigned act over a big name national act.  Less inherant worth/value.)  And the term "local band" holds quite a bit of meaning IMO.  The local bands where you live are not the local bands where I live.  They are "local" to a region... get it?  Hardly meaningless terms.  Quite adequate terms actually. 

And a friend who is in a local band makes a decent bit of money playing shows only in the general area.  However, they also do a cover band on the side, and actually make more money doing that than playing their original music.  I'd be curious to know what national tours have had pay to play opener acts.  Because while pay to play for smaller acts makes sense for something like: Milwaukee Metalfest (which the smaller acts do pay to play), it wouldn't make sense in a touring format.

What no one seems to get is that, many of you seem to be describing this world where NO ONE MAKES MONEY OFF OF MUSIC EXCEPT LABELS.  Bands don't make money off of CDs, and unless you are superstar act, they either Pay to Play, barely make enough to make it to the next show, or lose money touring.  I KNOW this isnt true, from TALKING WITH BANDS IVE WORKED WITH.  If there was no money in music, we would see a lot less shitty acts* out there.  There is obviously money to be made, do artists and bands miss out on a lot of it that is made off of their talent?  Sure.  Maybe.  Did they read the contract they signed? 

*Edit: A lot less shitty DERIVATIVE acts...

I'm from Leeds. The Kaiser Chiefs and Humanfly are both local to this area. Both have released records and toured internationally. However, the things you talk about are only applicable to the Kaiser Chiefs, not Humanfly. As I said, the terms have no meaning since almost all bands are local to somewhere (with the odd exception such as The Oath). There are bands who almost never play outside this locality who generally get a decent sum when they do a gig and many others who lose money touring. Technically, my band fulfill your criteria for a national act. We've got a release out and we've toured this nation, but we couldn't be much further away from the world of music you're talking about if we tried.

Examples of national tours with pay to play openers... hmm, you've got me there. A few spring to mind but I wouldn't want to say since I'm not 100% sure and pay to play is such an unpleasant practice that I wouldn't want to accuse somebody of it unless I knew for definite.

zerodrone's right about the record deal thing. Most of the musicians I know have had a release out on one label or another but I don't know any that make a living from their bands. If you asked many of them if they wanted to they'd decline, it's not why they do it.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that nobody makes a living out of music except for the labels, but it is a rare thing. The thing I'm disputing about your description of things is that it only works for a certain kind of band following a certain career path. Plenty of bands who I call successful would spit on the idea of even having a career path. There's a lot of diversity out there, and a lot of broke as fuck bands sleeping on people's floors and rattling around the world in battered old vans.

[Jackie Blue]

Nothing wrong with stealing from Panera, that's good stuff.

Indeed.  I was quite literally speaking from experience.   

[Statik]

If someone felt you are good enough to get a record deal, then you are hopefully at the point where you are making a living making music.

This is hilariously untrue, unless you're still only talking about the absolute 1% upper echeclon of bands, or by "making a living" you mean "living in a communal house with 12 other people and subsisting on bread you dumpstered from Panera and handrolled cigarettes".

To make this simple, Im just going to convert everything to 100s, so lets say that out of every 100 bands, one of those bands has a record deal good enough to make more than a subsistence living off of.  Of those 99 other bands, how many of them are actually worthwhile to listen to?  How many are just derivative shitty music based on the current trends afflicting the music industry any given year.  During the nu-metal years, I cannot count how many TERRIBLE local metal bands were around.  Or how about the number of bands that have amazing talent, yet never actually show it during their songs?  There is a reason why only 1 out of a hundred bands ever "make it"  and yeah, out of every 99 left over, there might be 1 or 2 others who SHOULD but for whatever reason dont.  It's honestly no different from any other art form, acting, painting, photography, ANYTHING.  The few who "make it" the few who should, but dont, and the rest who shouldnt, and dont.  (I could make an argument saying there are tons of bands who never should have gotten a deal, but I'll get to that. 

I remember reading an article, probably a month or two after the original Napster got ZOMG HOOGE and the recording industry collectively shit its pants and called everyone pirates and said they were ruining music forever.  The article was a critical look at the music industry and essentially saying that they (the industry) were being a bunch of spoiled brats, and why things like Napster (and other ways to accomplish the same thing) became so popular so quickly.  His theory was that the record industry no longer makes long term investments, so to speak.  For example, the band Nirvana gets picked up.  Becomes huge success essentially overnight.  What is the industries response?  Sign HUNDREDS of bands that sound like Nirvana.  So what that 90% of them suck, the companies wanna make money, and they want to make money NOW.  No one is signing the next Eric Clapton, the next Bruce Springsteen, no one is signing bands with potential, only bands with immediate multi-platinum potential.  Essentially saying that the music industry is shooting itself in the foot, the RIAA and such complain about lost revenues, but dont sign bands with ANY long term potential.  How many bands from the late 90s are still around?  How many bands from the grunge era?  80s bands?  There are always exceptions to this rule (Pearl Jam is a notable one), but for the most part it holds true. 

So there is a million cookie cutter bands out there... and theres a lot of creative, original, and interesting bands that wont get a good deal, if they get a deal at all, because they arent what the fickle american population is attracted to at that particular moment.

What Im getting at is, its art, art doesn't always make a lot of money, some people get lucky and do, some don't.  Some make shit and people act like its gold.  And some make gold and for whatever reason they get ignored.  Its life, it sucks.

I'm from Leeds. The Kaiser Chiefs and Humanfly are both local to this area. Both have released records and toured internationally. However, the things you talk about are only applicable to the Kaiser Chiefs, not Humanfly. As I said, the terms have no meaning since almost all bands are local to somewhere (with the odd exception such as The Oath). There are bands who almost never play outside this locality who generally get a decent sum when they do a gig and many others who lose money touring. Technically, my band fulfill your criteria for a national act. We've got a release out and we've toured this nation, but we couldn't be much further away from the world of music you're talking about if we tried.

Examples of national tours with pay to play openers... hmm, you've got me there. A few spring to mind but I wouldn't want to say since I'm not 100% sure and pay to play is such an unpleasant practice that I wouldn't want to accuse somebody of it unless I knew for definite.

zerodrone's right about the record deal thing. Most of the musicians I know have had a release out on one label or another but I don't know any that make a living from their bands. If you asked many of them if they wanted to they'd decline, it's not why they do it.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that nobody makes a living out of music except for the labels, but it is a rare thing. The thing I'm disputing about your description of things is that it only works for a certain kind of band following a certain career path. Plenty of bands who I call successful would spit on the idea of even having a career path. There's a lot of diversity out there, and a lot of broke as fuck bands sleeping on people's floors and rattling around the world in battered old vans.

I did over simplify my description of the difference between a "local" and "national" act.  And as I dont know the bands you referenced, by my thought as to what a local or national act is, both bands, by virtue of having a national release, and touring nationally (or internationally) would not (by my simplified defintion) be "local."  Yes, you may play far more local shows, hell, even GWAR plays more shows in the Baltimore - DC metro area.  I just saw Clutch do their annual new years show in baltimore.  I think most people would understand the difference if I said I was going out to a local show, compared to going to see band X or whatever.  It may not be a clear cut line in the dirt distinguishing the two, but I would still say the "labels" fit.
But by your definition, should I call Clutch a local act?  What about Dying Fetus?  They are both from the Baltimore / DC Metro area.  Yet theyve both been touring nationally and internationally for well over a decade.  They both have multiple national and international album releases.

I've loaded out plenty of smaller bands into vans, rental trucks, etc.  I know its common, and I know openers dont make a lot, if any money, Ive never said that wasnt the case, ever.

and I lost my train of thought...

A side note: What the hell did Panera bread USED to be called?  Before the name changed to Panera bread?  Does anyone remember?

[Jackie Blue]

So there is a million cookie cutter bands out there... and theres a lot of creative, original, and interesting bands that wont get a good deal, if they get a deal at all, because they arent what the fickle american population is attracted to at that particular moment.

OK, I don't know what in the Christ you're talking about now.  Just for clarity, are you aware that there are things called "independant record labels" and that having a "record deal" on an "independant record label" in no way implies that you'll be "making a living" off your music?

Because that's what you said.  You said "If you can get a record deal, you can make a living off music."

The fact that most bands on indie labels still have day jobs disproves that statement.

I'm not even arguing with you, here.  You're just actually wrong.

[Statik]

So there is a million cookie cutter bands out there... and theres a lot of creative, original, and interesting bands that wont get a good deal, if they get a deal at all, because they arent what the fickle american population is attracted to at that particular moment.

OK, I don't know what in the Christ you're talking about now.  Just for clarity, are you aware that there are things called "independant record labels" and that having a "record deal" on an "independant record label" in no way implies that you'll be "making a living" off your music?

Because that's what you said.  You said "If you can get a record deal, you can make a living off music."

The fact that most bands on indie labels still have day jobs disproves that statement.

I'm not even arguing with you, here.  You're just actually wrong.

Um, actually its NOT what I said (and you actually QUOTED THE LINE BEFORE), and yes I am aware of independant record labels, just as I am aware that a HUGE amount of the metal bands I listen to from Scandinavia and Finland and Iceland and Russia and wherever the fuck else still have day jobs.

You are telling me that, unless you are some superstar musician / band, you arent making money playing music, alternatively, cannot make a LIVING playing music.  I PERSONALLY  know people who are making a living playing music, playing ORIGINAL music, with NO record deal.  I've had friends who HAVE had a record deal and could barely afford food every night because they were busy blowing their money on pot and beer every day. 

I'm simply saying:  Making music is not a GUARANTEED losing proposition (Even today, with people downloading music) and touring is not a GUARANTEED losing proposition, even for "smaller" or "local" acts.

This is seemingly inches away from falling into the same stupid argument I would have with artist (painter / photographer / sculptor ) friends.  Where it got to this point where if you were actually SUCCESSFUL with your art, you were somehow less of an artist.  That if you could actually make a living doing something that you enjoyed doing, such as painting, that your work was somehow devalued by being put in a major gallery, or sold for profit. 

There are musicians with day jobs who dont make a living playing music.  There are ones who do.  And your record contract, national (or international) standing would HOPEFULLY affect that, but it isn't always the case.  Thats it.

[Jackie Blue]

You are telling me that, unless you are some superstar musician / band, you arent making money playing music, alternatively, cannot make a LIVING playing music.

Um, no, I never said that.  Lurk more.  Learn to keep in mind who has posted what instead of replying to me in response to things that other people have implied (which you've done at least twice now).

I know people who make a living from music, too.  Most of them lose money or break even on touring, though.  That's about the only thing I ever originally said, was a refutation of the often-quoted and very-wrong urban legend that bands "make money from touring".

[Statik]

You are telling me that, unless you are some superstar musician / band, you arent making money playing music, alternatively, cannot make a LIVING playing music.

Um, no, I never said that.  Lurk more.  Learn to keep in mind who has posted what instead of replying to me in response to things that other people have implied (which you've done at least twice now).

I know people who make a living from music, too.  Most of them lose money or break even on touring, though.  That's about the only thing I ever originally said, was a refutation of the often-quoted and very-wrong urban legend that bands "make money from touring".

So then how do they make money?  Local shows?  Independant record sales?

I'll try and keep in mind that Im not allowed to have an opinion or personal experience until I have a thousand posts.

[Jackie Blue]

So then how do they make money?  Local shows?  Independant record sales?

Yes.

I'll try and keep in mind that Im not allowed to have an opinion or personal experience until I have a thousand posts.

No, just keep in mind that you should not put words in my mouth.  I'm not one of the people in this thread who has said that musicians can't make a living off music.  In two separate posts you argued with me about things I never even said or implied, but that OTHER people did say or imply.

[Johnny C]

He has a point though.

I'm entitled to nine separate opinions on any given topic.

[Jackie Blue]

And, yet, all nine of them are always WRONG.

 

[Hat]

This is hilariously untrue, unless you're still only talking about the absolute 1% upper echeclon of bands, or by "making a living" you mean "living in a communal house with 12 other people and subsisting on bread you dumpstered from Panera and handrolled cigarettes".

I've been living off music for years! And I don't even play an instrument!

So punk

[Ryder]

The sad truth is that unless you're, like, the Decemberists or someone huge, you're money is made from shows. And to make money from shows, you need at least a *little* bit of fame, so you tour, and play crappy gigs for the sole purpose of getting out there into the public eye. If you know a successful band that started off making the same amount of money as they do now, I can promise you it's because it's full of "daddy bought me a Vespa" people buying their way into it. Either that or it's a boy band or something.

[Hat]

The sad truth is that unless you're, like, the Decemberists or someone huge, you're money is made from shows.

I don't understand how this is such widely accepted truth when so many bands not only fail to make money off a tour, but fail to make any money at all! Good bands, with songs I enjoy!

[Jackie Blue]

The sad truth is that unless you're, like, the Decemberists or someone huge, you're money is made from shows.

No.

If you're a big enough band to make money from shows, you are also making money from CD sales.

Like hat said, there are many very good bands, on labels, who break even AT BEST on tours.

Seriously, how many people in here are musicians?  Who have toured?  Do you have any fucking clue how little money you make playing shows and how much money you spend on touring?!

The tour my band just did made approximately $100.

[Ryder]

Because it takes crap to sell anything to most people. 

It's sorta like you need to find smart people through touring, and build yourself a fanbase. With enough people like you, who enjoy their music, there we have support for the artists so that that can make money. It's hard, yes! But it's just something you have to go through if you're an unrecognised genius. 

Coalition of Artists and Stake Holders, yo.

Edit: Well duh you make money from cd sales then. That money goes somewhere, right?

You tour when you're early in your career to spread the word, you HOPE to break even, when you get bigger, you make more and more money.

[Hat]

It's sorta like you need to find smart people through touring

For what purpose?

[Ryder]

So that you have someone to support the music.

[Hat]

And you define smart as anyone who appreciates and wants to support the music, right?

Oh ho ho ho I see the clever little scam you have running there.

[Ryder]

Smart as in someone who isn't the teenage girl living next door to you torrenting the newest Black Eyed Peas album.

Y'know, pretty much anyone who's actually in the music scene.

[Hat]

I just don't see how you are in any way arguing that artists make money through their shows. I wrote a massive diatribe about how for most bands the entire purpose of touring anywhere is solely promotion, and how a lot of the time they use merch sales as a way of simply breaking even, and that is a satisfactory result because they broke even and got their name out there, except then I realized thats what you were saying anyway, despite your original protest to the contrary.

So maybe you should take a step back, a few deep breaths and figure out just what it is that you're trying to say here.

[Ryder]

I'm not sure what you mean, actually...

Album sales aren't everything. If you get big enough to make a few grand touring to support yourself, that's the real goal. Not many people sit back and wait for the money to come rolling in from album sales. But really, if you're big enough, not that much of it goes to you. it's not like record companies take everything, but you can't rely on cds.

Y'know, I don't see why we're at ends about this. You make a valid point as well, but it's always different depending on who you are.

[a pack of wolves]

for most bands the entire purpose of touring anywhere is solely promotion

Is this really how non-DIY bands see things? That's a genuine question, my experience is largely limited to the DIY side of things, with a certain amount of observation and anecdotal evidence from people I've met who work in the industry in one way or another. I just find this way of looking at things bizarre. I make music in order to make music, I play gigs in order to play gigs, I tour in order to tour and the same goes for everyone else I've ever spoken to about it. There's no ulterior motive of building a fan base or selling t-shirts, and I'd find it a bit depressing to be watching a band for whom that was the case.

[Thrillho]

Last I checked, you play gigs because you love playing music (as I do), and you tour so that more people can hear you playing music you enjoy so that you can have a wider audience.

It's a twofer, not either.

[costacide]

I buy music semi-regularly.  I rarely "steal", and if I do it'll be one or two songs. 

Most of the time I just borrow shit from the library and rip it onto my computer.  You'd be surprised at the haul I've gotten from the library.  Gang Of Four, The Replacements, Le Tigre...good stuff.

And when I say I by music, I mean albums.  CD albums.  Not vinyl.  I have one piece of vinyl exactly, a Papermoons 7-inch I got for free. 

[valley_parade]

The only good stuff I've found at libraries around here is a Django Reinhardt collection.

GET ON IT, WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS.

[Thrillho]

I rarely "steal", and if I do it'll be one or two songs. (LESS THAN A SECOND PASSES) Most of the time I just borrow shit from the library and rip it onto my computer.

Please tell me you're being ironic.

[kizzie]

I buy music from as direct a source as is available, from the artist themselves in the case of a good number of the bands I listen to on a regular basis. 

One fellow I work with has his own thing going here in Charlotte, NC and told me flat out that he isn't going to make me pay for his stuff because I work with him.  I told him, flat out, that I will pay because I believe in supporting the artists you love most.

He still denied my money.

[Johnny C]

We musicians are stubborn bastards.

My bandmates all have separate projects and constantly offer to put each other on guest-lists, and everyone always refuses it. It's kind of funny.

[Hat]

Is this really how non-DIY bands see things? That's a genuine question, my experience is largely limited to the DIY side of things, with a certain amount of observation and anecdotal evidence from people I've met who work in the industry in one way or another. I just find this way of looking at things bizarre. I make music in order to make music, I play gigs in order to play gigs, I tour in order to tour and the same goes for everyone else I've ever spoken to about it. There's no ulterior motive of building a fan base or selling t-shirts, and I'd find it a bit depressing to be watching a band for whom that was the case.

I might have worded this poorly. I didn't mean that bands out there are just instrumental promoting robots, more so that when they play a town, they don't play a town to make money off the gig, they play the town so that word will get around about them, and a new audience is nice and refreshing to play to.

Although I've found that within the sphere of punk bands (which is the most common genre association with DIY, even though to a certain extent, most non-prolific bands have to be DIY, but lets just pretend I'm saying DIY here and you know what I'm talking about), the massive hard-on they have for touring is noticeably more erect, but most people I've talked to who have toured generally find the experience of playing to a new, fresh audience very invigorating, they just don't tour as  tirelessly as punk bands seem to do, typically.

Also it might be a lot to do with the fact that I found most "DIY" bands have a far larger emphasis on the scene and community moreso than the music specifically, but thats a whole other argument for a whole other day.

[jeph]

GET ON IT, WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS.

!

I didn't know you lived here! Unless you're one of my friends and I just didn't know you also posted on this board.

[Thrillho]

The crux of this post really seems to be that bands make no money from touring or CD sales - so download instead!

Isn't giving a band 0.5p per CD and 0.5p per ticket a wee bit better than giving them fuck all by downloading all the time?

[2HourHiatus]

I pretty much download music, listen to it, and if I like it I'll buy it. So I have a lot of catching up to do. I truly like to have the physical album in my hands and look at the art, read the liner notes. Rarely do I buy something I've never heard unless it's from an artist I know well.