Josh Smith - a great honest post

digitalscream

dindude said:

digitalscream said:

shaunm said:

Reading it again he is making a point that it is not specifically about money but it is asking the question does anyone have any ideas on how he can get to play more venues. 

It is somewhat harsh but is the correct answer make more records that people want to buy? He is totally disalusioned with the industry side of things (as is Matt Schofield reading his comments) but isn't that the most important part of you are to earn a living from it? 

Yep - but, more than that, breaking into "being a musician" these days involves 80% management and 20% playing, if that. Rob Chapman's band don't have any trouble packing out venues all across Europe...why? It's not because they're amazing (although they're all very good musicians), but rather because they all put a huge amount of effort into social media and YouTube. You'll probably find that the vast majority of their time is spent making and editing videos, not writing or playing music.

That's the trade-off for being in control of your own destiny (as opposed to the days of yore, when a label took care of all that stuff and you just had to show up and play or record when told to). It's an 18hr/day job, minimum.

I kinda agree, buy there still needs to be some substance behind the online presence. If we take Mary Spender as an example, its almost shameless how she has buit up her online image. For example the making of a whole video about how she asked John Mayer a female perspective question at NAMM, big friggen deal. And behind it is no more than an average open-mic night talent. This is you tube presence first, music second, which is fine if youre a reviewer only, but if you want a rounded musically career you need to have some talent behind you.

There has to be something to grab people's attention. She's clearly aiming at being a musician first, but that's absolutely the hardest way to do it. Most people forget that Rob's been at this for about 12 years now, and it was only when he started pushing personality and patter first (regardless of what you think of it) that things started happening.

Ultimately, though, there's a lot more headroom in a YouTube career as a musician than there is as a musician on its own.

Dave_Mc

shaunm said:

UnclePsychosis said:

Streaming services make money for the labels but not for any of the musicians (except for the global megastars). 

If you want to support a band or artists you have to buy their cds, merchandise and gig tickets. Streaming income is so small it might as well not exist. 

The problem for artists now is that streaming sites offer a bloody great deal to the consumer. There is also pretty much an entire generation who have got used to the idea that you either download stuff for free or you get unlimited streams for £10 a month. It's going to be very hard to convince those people to start paying £10 a cd. 

Very true, it won't change now. Let's face it we were getting ripped off in HMV and the like for years. I remember paying £18 in the late 90's for the Band of Gypsys album. 

There is a happy medium though. £5/8 for an album isn't a lot of money. If I like the artist then I should support them.

Bingo, agreed 100%. I remember paying money for CDs in HMV and the like at about the same time that I'd cringe at now for being too expensive, let alone with almost 20 years of inflation. According to the bank of England calculator (which only goes up to 2016, so it'd actually be a little more than this), £20 (and I did pay that, and even a bit more, for a few albums) in 1998 is £32.30 today. £32 for a CD?

£5, though, would be fine. In fact I just bought a couple of CDs where I paid that (slightly more actually).

guitarfishbay

CDs will be dead within a decade, or close to.

Kids don't have anything to play them on, a large amount of computers and laptops don't even have CD drives, my mates courtesy car doesn't even have a CD player in it and that'll probably end up being a thing going forward.

CDs aren't a solution to musician earnings for the future, digital could play a part but it's not looking likely that recordings will have much value going forward, beyond allowing hardcore fans to pay a higher price via choice. The low price high volume sales approach won't work if most of the audience ends up streaming instead

shaunm

Dave_Mc said:

shaunm said:

UnclePsychosis said:

Streaming services make money for the labels but not for any of the musicians (except for the global megastars). 

If you want to support a band or artists you have to buy their cds, merchandise and gig tickets. Streaming income is so small it might as well not exist. 

The problem for artists now is that streaming sites offer a bloody great deal to the consumer. There is also pretty much an entire generation who have got used to the idea that you either download stuff for free or you get unlimited streams for £10 a month. It's going to be very hard to convince those people to start paying £10 a cd. 

Very true, it won't change now. Let's face it we were getting ripped off in HMV and the like for years. I remember paying £18 in the late 90's for the Band of Gypsys album. 

There is a happy medium though. £5/8 for an album isn't a lot of money. If I like the artist then I should support them.

Bingo, agreed 100%. I remember paying money for CDs in HMV and the like at about the same time that I'd cringe at now for being too expensive, let alone with almost 20 years of inflation. According to the bank of England calculator (which only goes up to 2016, so it'd actually be a little more than this), £20 (and I did pay that, and even a bit more, for a few albums) in 1998 is £32.30 today. £32 for a CD?

£5, though, would be fine. In fact I just bought a couple of CDs where I paid that (slightly more actually).

Want to buy another? Ha

Lebarque

underdog said:

I'd advise him to form a band with a view to writing and releasing some good songs that people want to sing along to. It's the way musicians have always made money. 

Good guitarists will only appeal to a percentage of guitar players, everyone loves a good song, builders, single parents, solicitors, kids etc, just want something we like signing along with.

^ This. Good guitar technique is niche. Good songs = £££. The best guitarists IMO play only what the song needs.

Norwegian_Blue

dindude said:

I kinda agree, buy there still needs to be some substance behind the online presence. If we take Mary Spender as an example, its almost shameless how she has buit up her online image. For example the making of a whole video about how she asked John Mayer a female perspective question at NAMM, big friggen deal. And behind it is no more than an average open-mic night talent. This is you tube presence first, music second, which is fine if youre a reviewer only, but if you want a rounded musically career you need to have some talent behind you.

Glad I'm not the only one who has been wondering about this... 

richardhomer

Lebarque said:
Good guitar technique is niche. Good songs = £££. The best guitarists IMO play only what the song needs.

Been listing to a new streamer over the last few days at home and keep coming back to a duet Mark Knopfler did with Ruth Moody on his last album. He plays hardly anything on it - but his tone and note choice are sublime. That's the kind of playing which gets appreciated well outside of the guitar playing community. Yet - at least on a superficial level - pretty much anyone could play it.

John_P

It might not be meant they way but it does feel a bit entitled - there has always been creative people that struggle to get recognition and reward.  The cover ones find a way around it - play as the sideman to a big artist so you get an income and do the stuff you want in between or write some great songs and get clued up on the business side of things to build an audience.    
Problen is we are in an industry full of people wanting to play and happy to do so for little reward - it's a common statement that the pay is for lugging gear and the awkward hours and the playing is for free - I have two gigs this week - festival playing whitesnake and van halen will be a lot of fun - I'll get about £80 and free camping lol.    Saturday is at a wedding playing Brown eyed girl, uptown funk etc and I'll get nearer £200 - the money doesn't follow the music I like most - crikey if it was my songs and blues I'd probably be paying them - make your choice and get on with it I'd say.  

racefaceec90

RandallFlagg said:

Who is Josh Smith? never heard of him

me neither 

Jez6345789

I had a listen to him a while back as he was getting mentioned on forums etc and had a bit of a buzz as being a good player and that he might, but as for interesting or exciting or playing memorable songs nah.

in the modern world he is just another player.

he has virtually no spark,flash or presence for me.

JoBo got there by hard work and good management and marketing and also by keeping his foot in the rock market.

look at other good US players like derek truck warren haynes etc they carved their careers through years in the Allmans and solo outings in the downtime. Unless you have the spark or USP the world is full of good guitarists.

needs to write some good tunes and get good management and be prepared to change.

mburekenge

As others have said, never heard of this guy, despite loving blues and being a guitar nerd.  

'Building a studio' means a lot of different things to different people... im willing to bet there isnt a vintage Neve console sat in there. A 'studio' Can just be laptop and monitors. 

Chalky

Josh Smith has the usual naive view that simply being good at something means you can earn money from it.  Simply not true.

Youtube is overloaded with plenty of people who are very good at things but who can't make much money from it.

Josh also sounds like he thinks he Should make money from his playing and that he Deserves to, and that life is being Unfair.  If he thinks like that then he's a twat.

mudslide73

Upon reflection I think he's letting people (who've asked) know why he can't tour Europe. Maybe it's also to let fans who previously thought he was ok financially know that he isn't (just putting it out there). I think there are better ways of communicating this but that's what I think he's saying. 

Sassafras

He needs to ditch his wife and children. They're just bringing him down.

victorludorum

Sassafras said:

He needs to ditch his wife and children. They're just bringing him down.

And kill his dog.

underdog

@Sassafras and @victorludorum then he'd have some material for decent songs.

bobliefeld

Step 1 - join / form a band.

richh

I don't know enough about him or his situation to make any real judgement, but it must be frustrating to put your heart & soul into something and be struggling to that extent.

It does seem to raise some interesting questions, and I wonder what current young guitarists going through elite training courses are expecting as a working career, or how they are being guided as regards future careers and financial expectations?

There will always be work there, as a sideman, in a function band or maybe on a cruise ship - but is this what these guys are dreaming of or expecting?  I'm not sure that a new Steve Vai or JoBo is viable now, even with marketing behind them.

Sassafras

Mac Donald's always need burger flippers.

digitalscream

richh said:

I'm not sure that a new Steve Vai or JoBo is viable now, even with marketing behind them.

Of course not. The amount of money that people are willing to spend on music has a ceiling, and that was pretty much reached in the late 90s. The function of the labels, in those times, was to act as gatekeepers and prevent the market being flooded with acts. That allowed a few acts to become the focus, and thus rich and famous.

Now that they've gone the way of the dodo and everyone can record near-album-quality music at home, all that's happened is we've got exponentially more acts vying for less money in the market than there was back then. Not only that, but the signal:noise ratio has decreased exponentially because allowing people to publish music with no gatekeepers means there's no quality control.

Virtuosos have absolutely no place in a market like that.