Desire is always irrational.

Also, just keeping it real... Sometimes... it is how much money you have and who you know. Let's say you have a band that's reliable and tight, an album you think is artistically rich, a bank account with 50k in it to launch your music career and you happen to be friends with the sitting president of Billboard, just as an example. What happens next?

Here's a tangentially-related article to my next point...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/th ... le1335015/

I saw with my own eyes people who were fairly green in the world of music (i.e. had never put out any music before, had only just started to play/record music themselves at all) within about a year... get press in every major music magazine, perform on TV, book a festival circuit... I met these people myself. There was definitely an element of climbing the ranks of "schmoozing" the right people in the indie crowd, and throwing money into pressing records, putting on live events, etc. all to get where they eventually did. They were able to tour the country because they had the money/time to do so. Simple as that. You can't tour more than a week or two a year if you need to maintain a full-time job to make ends meet. Or maybe you can and I'm missing something.

The risk to quit a job and pursue something like this is incredible for the average, non-wealthy person.

If a lot of major artists had just put some files up online and called it a day, none of their "success" would have happened for them. They had ties to several music-centric outlets and also funneled money into their career. How much money? I have no idea. Same goes for a band like "The Strokes," and countless other examples. Are they artistically bankrupt? Up to you to decide. Did they funnel a large sum of money into their own career? Yes.

If The Ramones didn't have Seymour Stein backing them financially, they'd just be another rock band that puts out an album or two then disappears within one or two years. You can't sustain anything too major without being funded, especially not in this day and age.

My point is a lot of these online services sell you on a dream of exposure and success, but the reality is they control the strings. If your music get's too poppin' on their streaming service and they don't agree with your politics, they'll rip your stuff right off and cut off that revenue stream. They might do it for no reason at all, other than perhaps because they feel like it. Which leaves you exactly back at square one. Which is probably a good reason to keep your music in multiple locations. Or... sell CDs out of your trunk after shows. Whatever works right?

I'm not really wired to think like this, but there are people who are "socialites" and into this whole art of "social climbing" or whatever, which I find pretty spineless, personally. But still, it's definitely one way (of many) to get your music "out there," and perhaps to larger audience than you could've otherwise come across. It could also be a monumental waste of your time.

I'd love a breakdown of the major musicians in the USA right now who are actually earning more than 40k a year with streaming/download royalties, merch, and touring fees... AFTER tax and AFTER they pay for their own expenses. They've gotta all be on major labels aside from a handful of acts who became popular before the Internet, perhaps.

There's also the "old-school" methodology of performing your stuff constantly. You're just building connections with as many outlets as possible (radio stations, venues, booking agents, artists, etc.) so that you can leverage yourself into a position to gain more exposure for your music. I do think you can break all of this down to a science, really.

Just because an artist or musician who happens to make really good stuff happens to also have a fairly large amount of exposure, doesn't mean they attained it in some morally-perverse way, but just putting an album on Bandcamp and crossing your fingers you'll be the next whomever you'd like to be 'aint exactly going to do much of anything. Even performing incessantly and having your stuff online won't guarantee much of anything. I'm only saying this because I've actually done it and I know the figure. A band I was in played (over 30) shows constantly within a year, and the total amount of money earned in downloads/physical sales is embarrassingly low. Less than $500 total was made (split between 5 of us), and how much was spent? 20 bucks a week is 1,040 per person. I spent about 10x what I earned on gas and food alone, almost certainly.

I've also noticed the trend of the sort of retrospective documentary that glorifies the past for a new audience, and stirs up interest in bands/music that wasn't that popular at the time they came out. I've even seen these types of documentaries launch shortly after an album launch, where members discuss the album and why it's popular in real time, almost. It's something that creates a buzz around your band/music and convinces people they are hearing something that's worth their time in a sense. I've never done anything like this but I'd be willing to bet it would work.

I'd say the OP is just covering the bases that should almost be automatic at this point, if you're really trying to get potential fans your stuff. Another option is to only press cassettes or vinyl and never have the stuff digitized at all, and never perform live or do any interviews. You can literally do whatever you want.

Something to note on the topic of waste/environmental impact with vinyl production - however tempting, don't press a 10".
As I understand it, record presses have 7" and 12" pressing surfaces, and they actually cut the excess ~two inches when pressing 10" records.

If you're pressing 10" records, you may be a cooch!

Excellent post, indiegrab_360. In my eyes, the Strokes were kind of the turning point when bands could generate hype simply by having money and connections and basically coming out of nowhere (their demo was reviewed in a major NYC newspaper). Even the hyped stuff of the '90s, those bands had previous albums or other established bands first. Clap Your Hands.. and Vampire Weekend did the same thing, and now it's basically a requirement (but no guarantee) to play on that stage.

Not only do most of us not have parents giving us a huge check and saying "follow your dreams", some of us do really impressive things with our jobs or volunteered time and I'd be embarrassed to say the best thing I did all year was to play the side side side stage of Smokey Blokes BBQ at SXSW or whatever. I guess if you're 22 and insulated from failure maybe go for it for a while..

At this point I guess you would probably get more clicks talking about "Getting your music “out there” in 2021?" than actually giving your music away for free.

penningtron wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:50 am Excellent post, indiegrab_360. In my eyes, the Strokes were kind of the turning point when bands could generate hype simply by having money and connections and basically coming out of nowhere (their demo was reviewed in a major NYC newspaper). Even the hyped stuff of the '90s, those bands had previous albums or other established bands first. Clap Your Hands.. and Vampire Weekend did the same thing, and now it's basically a requirement (but no guarantee) to play on that stage.

Not only do most of us not have parents giving us a huge check and saying "follow your dreams", some of us do really impressive things with our jobs or volunteered time and I'd be embarrassed to say the best thing I did all year was to play the side side side stage of Smokey Blokes BBQ at SXSW or whatever. I guess if you're 22 and insulated from failure maybe go for it for a while..

Animal Collective are all prep school boys

We're in a new gilded age when it comes to making a living off of your music; there's no arguing with that. Most of the people who frequent this forum will never turn a profit from their recorded material. It's fine! I don't think Ryan has any illusions in that direction.

As far as getting music "out there," IfIHadAHiFi figured out how to do a 100 copy vinyl run for our 2019 release. Ended up costing as much as a 300-copy run, but with 200 fewer copies in my basement! At this point a vinyl copy exists due to our own vanity and the knowledge that there's about a dozen or two people out there that would like one too, so that's worth it, I guess. Otherwise, Spotify and Bandcamp and a huge fart noise. It may surprise some that saw me post incessantly around the old forum when we had a new release to pimp, but I'm firmly in the "this is my money pit hobby and if other people run across it and dig it, cool" period of my life.

Then again, I do have a t-shirt order from Australia I need to fill, so knowing that our past obnoxiousness got us some fans in other parts of the world is a really cool feeling.

Just interested in getting a certain project out in front of a receptive audience. We currently have a demo on Bandcamp and a couple of youtube vids but the amount of interest is like basically Zero. And Ive been around enough to know it will remain that way unless we do something about it.

We have been working on this for over a year and it sounds great, we are getting it mastered soon, but actually doing vinyl is a head scratcher, because as a new band, I know its a difficult sell. So is it worth the cost and extra process just to feel serious about it? just mail a couple dozen out to friends and let the lions share just sit into my garage until it becomes rat food?

Without vinyl, would a digital release just seem half-ass or not legit? Does it make that much difference?

I'd say if you think you'll be at it for a while and will be playing some shows you might hustle some vinyl, not as a moneymaker but a passion project.

The trick is pressing a small enough number and pushing it.

Shows and digital shenanigans gain awareness and vinyl helps people remember you.

My band usually sells 30-40 records the first few months after something comes out. Then it's between 10-30 a year depending on how many shows we're doing. We probably sold no records one year because of covid.

With those very modest numbers it can take 4-5 years to sell our first 100 copies. At that point 200 copies is the most we'd ever want. I have to think hard before album three about how many years we have left in us because it restarts the clock.

But many of those sales are a truly engaged listen and some of them mean that in a few years that lp will get back on the turntable when the mood strikes someone. When acquaintances bring that up at a show it feels a little less like we're just throwing digital files into a void.

What about a split? I feel like they are nowhere near as popular as they used to be in the 90s.

Do a 12", each band gets side side (basically each band does an EP).

300 press. Split the cost. Each band gets 150 records to move, which is easier for a new band that is not established.

People that buy the record for the other band gets to hear your side and maybe you get a new fan.