Post: #1

I'm curious if anyone has written any music and uploaded to itunes?

After spending a year and half of hell writing my first book, I started to realize the MUSIC is SOOO much more profitable than writing. Although I am doing pretty good ($200 first 45 days), writing a book is a TON of work.

Writing a book takes forever, and then it is hard to even get your good friends to review it. Asking someone to read a book takes effort on their part, asking someone to listen to your song does not.

Think about all the classic albums that have probably been made within one or two weeks? Nirvana's Nevermind and Guns and Roses Appetite for Destruction come to mind. You just go inside a studio, and BAM, a week or two later you come out with some music. And if you play live it's even better because you make revenue's from the show's, AND at the same time it helps your albums sales. "Live" records from concerts are the easiest money makers in music history.

Of course I am oversimplifying everything, but has anyone on here recorded music for Itunes? I am working on a new work out book, but after that I want to consider getting back into music.

Thanks,
captain P

Post: #2

Ohh man. Sure great albums have been written in a week. The thing you don't realize is that these guys have been playing and writing for years and years. Anyone can play a song. Look at all the cover bands out there. But it's very very difficult to put your heart and soul into writing a song. When you get some bad feedback on it you tend to take it personal. It's a gut wrenching profession that you can only do for the love of the art. Not the money.

Post: #3

Is this a joke? You make it sound like anyone can pick up a guitar, stand in front of a mic and be topping the charts and touring a month later, rolling in the dough.

You seem to be unaware of the importance of a little thing called talent.

Even the most untalented famous musicians/singers (Britney Spears, Justin Bieber, etc...) bring something to the table through their youthful good looks, dancing skills, and personas that appeal to the public.

If you think you've got legitimate musical talent, then by all means you should pursue it. But looking at music as a way to get rich is pretty laughable.

Post: #4

Back in the day I think you could compare the odds of getting a book deal vs. getting a record deal, but in the new age of self publishing of both books and music I think (non-fiction) books win hands down. The average person (e.g. you) has a decent shot at making some money with info products. The average person has an abysmal chance of making much money with music.

Of course, that hasn't stopped me from pursuing music.

Post: #5

I should try and put it the songs I made with magix studio on iTunes

It's legit and then I can retire.

Post: #6

I'm not saying its easy, its probably one in a million, I just think music is an easier sell. There are TONS of one hit wonders in music, especially some cheesy hip hop songs.

I'm curious about the commissions and guidelines for itunes submissions?

Its a lot better for chicks too!

Post: #7

(03-05-2013 08:33 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Even the most untalented famous musicians/singers (Britney Spears, Justin Bieber, etc...) bring something to the table through their youthful good looks, dancing skills, and personas that appeal to the public.

Even the most untalented musicians/singers need a very talented group of managers/publicists/songwriters/musicians to make it that big.

Post: #8

I never did like the Biebs but at least he can sing.

Post: #9

I'm somewhat in a position to know that the music industry is dead. Pretty much nobody turns a profit any more: And that is established acts. New acts have no chance whatsoever.

Think of it - how many 'big' musical acts have there been in the last ten years? What percentage of those were made via reality tv. and other gigs? How many of THOSE are actually turning a profit?

As far as making a Roosh style living and not bona fide bags 'o money, music isn't a global thing. You have a more concentrated fan base which won't travel. For instance, I'm friends with a guy in a BIG band from Europe. They play the festival circuit and have audiences in the thousands. They want to start building an American fanbase? Probably won't even secure gigs in dingy pubs for 500 people.

A lot of my friends are proper musicians - having been to conservatoires and practicing for 2 decades already. They don't make a working wage from their music yet, and supplement the income. There is the myth that you can pick up the guitar and 'you don't need lessons and shit to make truly good music' - maybe in the 1950's. Now, you need to be able to play the exact same line in the exact same way multiple times in a recording studio. You need to know all the movers and shakers, and you'll only get that through years of networking and doing the shit jobs.

And even then, nobody is making money from it. Adam Lambert got dropped from his record label the other week - there's a guy with loads of talent and an INSANE amount of money/fans thrown at his act. The industry is a) Saturated, b)Everyone is used to getting everything for free, c)everyone and their mother/dad/grandmother at this point thinks they can do it d) It's full of people who have decades of experience and daddy's upper middle class money to throw at the hobby.

Oh and e) The costs of getting into it at a professional level are huge. Roosh can get a 500 dollar laptop and write anywhere. Good luck with 500 dollars trying to make a recording that people will listen to.

Post: #10

as for so called music industry...

Post: #11

From one Captain to another..


The guys that can do great albums in relatively short time are extraordinarily talented.

I think Jay Z did The Blueprint in one week. He was at the height of his creative powers and had well over a decade of industry experience behind his belt. It was no easy feat.

I think if someone studies the craft of writing for years, writes everyday, constantly assess his or her skill, works under a good editor, etc, he or she can become a good writer.

I think the same can be said for being a musician.

The problem is being a good writer or a good musician (in the technical sense) does not mean you can earn enough to make money off the craft, and more importantly, make enough money to sustain a middle class income for a long period of time.

I think one statistic said 1 out of every 1000 writers makes enough to earn a minimum wage.

As a few posters have already pointed out, everyone and their grandmother thinks they can write/sing/act, etc. Thus, one is stuck with a bunch of wannabees that drive down wages or make it so that the supply is so large there are limitless positions that don't pay anything at all.

I think the writers, musicians, artists, etc we know about via celebrity status, legacy, popular works, etc were not only talented and hardworking, but also fucking lucky.

Big Sean just so happened to call into a radio show that was bumping sounds in Detroit where Kanye West was chilling and in the mood to listen to unsigned artists.

Also, it helps if you are well connected.

Notorious B.I.G. met Mister Cee who knew Puffy Daddy who just so happened to be starting his own record label.

Bottom line, talent alone isn't enough.

I think making a living of one's art comes at the expense of understanding what an audience wants and catering towards their needs.

Roosh has a niche. He sells travel writing to a large group of men who are interested in travelling and sex.

Bieber has a niche. He makes songs that can be easily remembered, is young, and fits the "teen heart throb" gimmick to a T. He will probably go the route of lil-bow wow but he is killing it now.

Taylor Swift has every white cowgirl on her huts.

These guys have an audience and the talent/work ethic to sell a product.

So getting back to your original point, is music a better business than writing?

I would argue it depends on what your goals are. If you are chasing the fame carrot than you are better off pursuing music since most writers who are famous are certainly not living the rock star life. Maybe Neil Gaiman or Tucker Max can claim it but not many.

I think Neil Strauss was already a well established writer (Rolling Stone, NY Times) and he still had issues getting laid.

Rock musicians obviously have plenty of poon to pound.

If you are chasing a career where you can live off being creative versus the alternative of work place drudgery I would focus on writing.

You can do public relations literature, become an editor, do journalism, or shoot for selling ebooks in self-help (always a strong genre).

Keep in mind that many writers are great at writing but not so great at promoting/marketing which is essential to a writers success, especially if one is starting out.


Also, if you are trying to reach the cover of Rolling Stone prepare to sell your soul. You will be signing whatever creative autonomy you would want to the record label or publisher. I know for one I couldn't take my novel being carved up to look like Twilight in order to sell lots of books.

But I've always been a martyr.

So in conclusion, both paths are pretty difficult. It certainly is not for those who want an easy life. But I reckon the folks who are really meant to succeed on that path can't see themselves living any other way.

Post: #12

Yeah Captain Ahab, that was one thing I was always curious about. Neil Strauss had huge issues getting laid even as a Rolling Stones/NYT journalist. That guy could literally walk into any bar and start name dropping the most hilariously influential musicians and celebrities that I just don't understand how he didn't befriend at least a few of them and ask them to help him out in the game department, or leverage his status at all with any of the girls. Some of those guys he interviewed must have been red pill to the max. I almost think that it's possible that Strauss exaggerated his "inability to get laid" claims to write a good story for "The Game" but I can't imagine many guys who'd do that in a bestseller.

Post: #13

(03-06-2013 04:32 AM)Hades Wrote:  Yeah Captain Ahab, that was one thing I was always curious about. Neil Strauss had huge issues getting laid even as a Rolling Stones/NYT journalist. That guy could literally walk into any bar and start name dropping the most hilariously influential musicians and celebrities that I just don't understand how he didn't befriend at least a few of them and ask them to help him out in the game department, or leverage his status at all with any of the girls. Some of those guys he interviewed must have been red pill to the max. I almost think that it's possible that Strauss exaggerated his "inability to get laid" claims to write a good story for "The Game" but I can't imagine many guys who'd do that in a bestseller.

A lot of good writers are not good womanizers. Too cerebral/creative.

Hell, half the reason why they are good writers is because they couldn't get laid.

Post: #14

(03-06-2013 04:32 AM)Hades Wrote:  Some of those guys he interviewed must have been red pill to the max. I almost think that it's possible that Strauss exaggerated his "inability to get laid" claims to write a good story for "The Game" but I can't imagine many guys who'd do that in a bestseller.

If he socializes with celebrities while he's not one he might have a lack of status illusion from constantly being the lowest status guy in a party full of really high status people. He might even develop exaggarated ideas on how much he's "supposed" to be getting laid: if you're around rock stars all the time when you're getting laid like a regular average guy you'll probably feel like you're not getting laid at all...

Still, I'd bet on most of it being exaggerated for the story.

Post: #15

(03-05-2013 08:09 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  You just go inside a studio, and BAM, a week or two later you come out with some music. And if you play live it's even better because you make revenue's from the show's, AND at the same time it helps your albums sales. "Live" records from concerts are the easiest money makers in music history.

Of course I am oversimplifying everything

Bolded for emphasis.

Wouldn't recommend this for anyone unless you have a serious passion for music or at least 4+ years playing an instrument.

Gonna bust out a few reasons why not right here:

• High cost of instruments and upkeep (guitars, strings, modifications, pickups, etc, etc)
• The difficulty of finding good band-mates: not just talented musicians, but people who won't make you hate them after 8 hours together in some dingy basement getting frustrated with writer's block
• Not all musicians have a talent for writing, and those who do have a talent for writing might actually not even have much of a talent for their instrument. I've seen both: amazing guitarists who couldn't write for shit, and mediocre guitarists who had an amazing sense for melody and structure
• Highly competitive, as well as extremely challenging to work your way up. You don't want to spend years playing in the same old lame restaurants where you started off, do you? And besides that, you need to know the right people. You need to get a manager or promoter of some kind who can get you gigs, which means that you need to have material good enough for them to see some kind of potential in you. Which means not just iphone recordings of your band, but proper, professional studio recordings
• Next point: recording in a studio is a bitch. Studios charge anywhere from 50 bucks an hour to 200 or more, depending on the studio, the recording equipment, or the type of recording (live, or track by track). And, seeing as you no doubt don't have an unlimited budget, you need to be prepared to finish with an imperfect product- there's a reason why bands can spend weeks or months in recording studios perfecting their sounds. If you're on a budget, watching your money drain by the hour when you know the take you just did was far from perfect can be damn frustrating. After having done all the recording and paid for the studio time, next comes the mixing and mastering. Again, the quality of your final product really depends on the amount of time you can afford on perfecting the EQ, balance, effects, even minor autotune. All of which costs time and money.
• And of course, if you have a decent finished product (an EP most likely, or maybe an album), who are you gonna sell it to? This means massive promotion, whether through facebook, twitter, touring (if your band is even at that level), and even then, at 1 dollar a track on itunes, you'd need a significant amount of sales to break even.
  

Long story short, unless you're ready to give it your all, which means preparing to live in a van, off peanut butter sandwiches, and constantly on the road (all of which a friend of mine who is currently trying to make it is doing), it's not worth it.

If you just wanna do it for the fun, the best option would be as a solo acoustic guitar act. If you just wanna bust out a couple acoustic covers of your favorite songs at the coffee house during your free time on the weekend, and you've got a decent voice, by all means go for it. But don't do it for any reason other than the fun. If you're in it for the money, odds are you're gonna be disappointed.

Post: #16

Songwriting is extremely lucrative, but requires talent and a 'foot in the door'. There's a guy called Max Martin, he wrote most of the Britney/Nsync/Backstreet stuff, and these days works with Bieber etc. You've probably never heard of him, but he's insanley rich as you'd expect.

Post: #17

(03-06-2013 06:25 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Songwriting is extremely lucrative, but requires talent and a 'foot in the door'. There's a guy called Max Martin, he wrote most of the Britney/Nsync/Backstreet stuff, and these days works with Bieber etc. You've probably never heard of him, but he's insanley rich as you'd expect.

That guy is also an aspie or a polymath. There's a good reason why there's only one of him.

Post: #18

Some of these DJ's like Tiesto must be making some serious bucks, but once again, one in a million...

Post: #19

(03-06-2013 07:19 AM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  Some of these DJ's like Tiesto must be making some serious bucks, but once again, one in a million...

Tiesto is well into his 40's, spent years doing the shit jobs before he got big, and even then, he's one in a million, like you say.

He also has an amazing amount of money spent on advertising and marketing for him. He's also from an era where people paid for music; and, like when people talk about rock stars like Bon Jovi or Kiss - it's an era that isn't going to come around again on the scale it has done. There simply isn't the economy for it.

Also, outliers excluded, there are a lot better ways to spend your time and money. For the effort it takes to be Tiesto, you could be one of the guys that developed the dance venues that made guys like Tiesto popular.

In terms of a venture, the people making money from music at the moment are the guys behind iTunes, Youtube etc.

Quote:Songwriting is extremely lucrative, but requires talent and a 'foot in the door'. There's a guy called Max Martin, he wrote most of the Britney/Nsync/Backstreet stuff, and these days works with Bieber etc. You've probably never heard of him, but he's insanley rich as you'd expect.

'Lucrative' and 'foot in the door' are terms I'd use to describe some sort of corporate position in a reasonable up-and-coming firm. The reality of songwriting is that you've got more chance of winning the lottery three weeks in a row than making it. It's insanely competitive, you need to know as many people as you can, and even then there is no guarantee you'll make any money whatsoever doing it. Then, even if you have a top tune you have to give away the rights for pennies on what it makes, the execs might throw it out anyway and even if none of this happens there isn't any guarantee you'll make any of the money back.

In terms of the writing comparison, imagine if Roosh couldn't write a book until an executive told him what it was going to be about, and then, once he got the memo (and it changed several times) he had to write the manuscript multiple times before everyone was happy with it. Then, he had to pray that some other exec. higher up the chain doesn't dislike it and throw it away anyway. It's given to a public speaker (the band) who might be shit and flop totally. Assuming all this doesn't happen and it sells a million copies, his grand earnings might be something less than $50k for the whole thing. And thats after years of work to get to that point.

Post: #20

(03-06-2013 08:50 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 07:19 AM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  Some of these DJ's like Tiesto must be making some serious bucks, but once again, one in a million...

...

Tiesto is well into his 40's, spent years doing the shit jobs before he got big, and even then, he's one in a million, like you say.

...

Music is better than writing in one respect. Someone like Tiesto can be making big bucks even if he doesn't sell one legal album or track. Ever been to any of the big clubs or techno parties in Europe? They're popular, expensive, and obviously the organisers can pay their headline acts a decent fee. Selling music isn't the only game in town. The record companies don't like that, because they'd rather have the old days back when they were making money passively just by burning and distributing CD's, but who is interested in sympathising with a bunch of histrionic rich LA dudes anyway? The music industry model nowadays seems to be to generate interest online on free sights like youtube, HOPE that at least some people will buy your tracks on itunes, but aim to make most of your money on actual live gigs.

But a writer must sell what he writes. Sure movie rights are another avenue, but that is really just an extension of what he has written. For the rare charismatic writer the speaking circuit might be an option, ut would need a personality not usually associated with good writers.

Post: #21

(03-05-2013 08:09 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  I'm curious if anyone has written any music and uploaded to itunes?

After spending a year and half of hell writing my first book, I started to realize the MUSIC is SOOO much more profitable than writing. Although I am doing pretty good ($200 first 45 days), writing a book is a TON of work.

Writing a book takes forever, and then it is hard to even get your good friends to review it. Asking someone to read a book takes effort on their part, asking someone to listen to your song does not.

Think about all the classic albums that have probably been made within one or two weeks? Nirvana's Nevermind and Guns and Roses Appetite for Destruction come to mind. You just go inside a studio, and BAM, a week or two later you come out with some music. And if you play live it's even better because you make revenue's from the show's, AND at the same time it helps your albums sales. "Live" records from concerts are the easiest money makers in music history.

Of course I am oversimplifying everything, but has anyone on here recorded music for Itunes? I am working on a new work out book, but after that I want to consider getting back into music.

Thanks,
captain P

I've made quite a bit of music and I've worked closely with a lot of indie bands. They make enough off their music to keep making more music/upkeep of travel vehicle/new instruments and instrument maintenance, but that's all.

The music industry is incredibly cut throat and it's incredibly hard for even a great indie band with a good fanbase to make money off of what they are doing. All of these gentlemen have to work as well in order to make ends meet, they literally do this music shit for the enjoyment.

Post: #22

(03-06-2013 10:14 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 08:50 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 07:19 AM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  Some of these DJ's like Tiesto must be making some serious bucks, but once again, one in a million...

...

Tiesto is well into his 40's, spent years doing the shit jobs before he got big, and even then, he's one in a million, like you say.

...

Music is better than writing in one respect. Someone like Tiesto can be making big bucks even if he doesn't sell one legal album or track. Ever been to any of the big clubs or techno parties in Europe? They're popular, expensive, and obviously the organisers can pay their headline acts a decent fee. Selling music isn't the only game in town. The record companies don't like that, because they'd rather have the old days back when they were making money passively just by burning and distributing CD's, but who is interested in sympathising with a bunch of histrionic rich LA dudes anyway? The music industry model nowadays seems to be to generate interest online on free sights like youtube, HOPE that at least some people will buy your tracks on itunes, but aim to make most of your money on actual live gigs.

But a writer must sell what he writes. Sure movie rights are another avenue, but that is really just an extension of what he has written. For the rare charismatic writer the speaking circuit might be an option, ut would need a personality not usually associated with good writers.

That'd all be fine and dandy if the current model worked... it doesn't.
Free sites like youtube, (and napster before it) mean that music is a commodity that people aren't paying for. So the actual medium of music is worth intrinisically less than it used to be. Its value as a product has gone from a $15 a CD model to the $0.06 per 1000 views model. Only youtube and itunes win from that.

This'd all be ok if live music covered the costs - it's how a lot of indie musicians think they are going to make it. "Yeah, we'll sell merchandise at our gigs!" Except it doesn't really work like that either. Most people who have huge gate takings are already established stars - Bruce Springsteen can sell out an arena, but then he has sold a hundred million records. A new band won't get paid anything to show - I've got a friend who is a drummer who not only has an established rock band, but also does professional work for orchestras. He's been doing this since I've known him. He makes travel expenses, plus the odd $50 or so here and there. This is a guy with a music degree from a top university who plays multiple different styles of music from rock to jazz to classical. And he is one of the most 'successful' musicians I know because he can vaguely get by just by tutoring and his music.

People don't tend to go to gigs to socialise much, they go to clubs. Most clubs won't hire a DJ for good money because if it's Tiesto he costs too much and if it's a local pro you can get your mate/cousin/brother/your ipod to mix the tracks for less than $100 per night.

Most upcomers won't get paid for a night because there are too many bands that'll do it for 'exposure.' i.e no pay. Most people won't spend more than a few dollars for a ticket unless it's their favourite band, because due to the internet their niche is being filled by their playlist at home. If what you really love is Scandinavian Black Metal, whereas once you would have gone to the rocker club down the road for a Kiss cover act because it was the closest thing, now, you get whatever you want in as small a niche as suits you for nothing. The social side is something divorced from it entirely.

And even if you do success despite all this, live music is shit hours for little pay. (Gig is 9.30 - 11.30. You're there for sound checks from 2pm because you have to do it before the venue opens. You don't leave until hours later because you have to pack all your gear away and stick it in the van which you have to sleep in.)

etc.

The reason I rant about it so much is two-fold: First, it bugs the shit out of me that the music industry failed so fucking badly with adopting new technology. Secondly, I get genuinely upset when I think about smart friends who basically give everything up for 'the dream.'

I suppose lastly, it bugs me because the quality of sound you get on an album has gotten exponentially worse for the past thirty years despite the technology improving manifold.

Post: #23

Well, even the music that manages to float to the top of the pile is mostly pretty shit these days.

There are plenty of people who put the work in and think that by being the latest guitar hero they can make money through their music. It is not really about talent insomuch as does what you are doing really prick the ears of critics and music enthusiasts - if you can get through to them.

Post: #24

My experience with real-life musicians matches up with Kitsune's pretty closely. Most make money through teaching or a non-music job and do gigs on the side for fun and a little extra cash. Pianists can make money accompanying church and community choirs as well as teaching. Singers and conductors may also find work in the church/community sphere. The church choir stuff can pay well in some cases (especially in the right neighborhoods/parishes) and is far more steady than a typical musician job, however they still tend to be only a few of the most inconvenient hours per week (eg Sunday mornings).

Personally I've made a grand total of $500.00 lifetime from performing and $0.00 from composing.

Post: #25

(03-05-2013 08:09 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  Think about all the classic albums that have probably been made within one or two weeks? Nirvana's Nevermind and Guns and Roses Appetite for Destruction come to mind. You just go inside a studio, and BAM, a week or two later you come out with some music. And if you play live it's even better because you make revenue's from the show's, AND at the same time it helps your albums sales. "Live" records from concerts are the easiest money makers in music history.

Captain,

Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like you are coming unglued.

(Trust me, it happens to me too every now and then).

First, "Suits Don't work in Manhattan".

Now, "I am going to write the next Nirvana's Nevermind in two weeks".

Why not be the first man to walk on Mars too while you are at it?

Or win the Superbowl, Kentucky Derby and NBA Championship in one fell swoop? (so to speak)

(03-06-2013 10:37 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  I suppose lastly, it bugs me because the quality of sound you get on an album has gotten exponentially worse for the past thirty years despite the technology improving manifold.

Is that really true?

Why?