TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- the money myth


Posted by montana on Apr-07-2009 19:07:

the money myth

over the last 6 years i keep hearing this simple statement of certain producers are making music just for the sake of money. while it may be true with the blatant commercial side but when it comes to the nitty gritty, are producers or labels actually making all this ludicrous amount of money that is envisioned by the common market or should i just say the jaded mass?

this isn't just limited to the 'common releases', a lot of the whitelabel bootleg remixes that is released are often just sneered upon as simple cashgrabs. well if it's a simple cashgrab, how is it that in order for the 'grab' to even be profitable? it has to sell like 1500? which not alot of releases do nowadays from what i've heard.

am i just imagining things or is it some musicbusiness secrets that has gone over my head? or am i just asking questions that i already answered.

anyone that has any insight or knowledge, i would love to hear about it.


Posted by Trance-M on Apr-07-2009 19:29:

Maybe they actually like what they produce and all the money talk is just bullshit..... or an easy blame.....or not...


Posted by Adam420 on Apr-07-2009 19:29:

Well I was thinking about it, and I figured that the big labels like MOS, GU, GPM, Kompakt, Cocoon, Ultra, and all those are probably making money on the music they put out. For most though, money would be derived from touring and making personal appearances. I'd think.


Posted by bas on Apr-07-2009 19:32:

I would imagine when most people refer to someone making music for money, they really mean producing music soley for the purpose of getting big gigs. Big gigs like festivals, headlining clubs, tours etc...

For example:
Deadmau5 is a production machine. He was, for a time, releasing something every other week. Whether or not they sold a lot and made him a ton of cash is irrelevant, it put his name out there as a "live act" and got him a shit ton of gigs in the process.


Posted by elFreak on Apr-07-2009 19:40:

quote:
Originally posted by bas
I would imagine when most people refer to someone making music for money, they really mean producing music soley for the purpose of getting big gigs. Big gigs like festivals, headlining clubs, tours etc...

For example:
Deadmau5 is a production machine. He was, for a time, releasing something every other week. Whether or not they sold a lot and made him a ton of cash is irrelevant, it put his name out there as a "live act" and got him a shit ton of gigs in the process.


ding ding ding

djing > production (in edm) in terms of money.

If you want to be more than just a local dj, these days you better produce. Also before someone mentions Danny Howells, things are different now. It certainly helped that he was handpicked to open all of the Bedrock nights back in the day (he is still amazing, just saying )


Posted by Damerchi on Apr-07-2009 20:05:

If one were to apply a gini coefficient to trance dj/producers, it would be fairly high(close to one). this is a determinant of equal income distribution. the big 5 potentially make as much as other esteemed artists do in one gig alone than the latter would in all of their label/production/gigging combined for the year. and these latter artists im reffering to are established artists in the "top 250" as well.

it was a shock to me that through all that proliferation of deadmau5's tracks, the small amount at which beatport said he had sold(30 000 was it??). anyways at max $2.5 per track thats 75 000 gross revenue(not subtracting the beatport fee). Just imagine what its like for average producers...

Does anyone have links to anything that may shed light on sales of various record labels?


Posted by SYSTEM-J on Apr-07-2009 21:12:

quote:
Originally posted by elFreak
Also before someone mentions Danny Howells, things are different now. It certainly helped that he was handpicked to open all of the Bedrock nights back in the day (he is still amazing, just saying )


Danny Howells has been producing since 1995.


Posted by Blake_Jarrell on Apr-07-2009 21:26:

the big $ is in publishing, not in sales.


Posted by julien2 on Apr-07-2009 21:27:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Danny Howells has been producing since 1995.


That's a lot of time for producing something like, what, 5 EPs ? He is primarily a DJ.

[edit]: and a couple of remixes as well.


Posted by SYSTEM-J on Apr-07-2009 21:33:

quote:
Originally posted by julien2
That's a lot of time for producing something like, what, 5 EPs ? He is primarily a DJ.

[edit]: and a couple of remixes as well.


He is primarily a DJ, but he did about 15 remixes between 1995-2000 not to mention multiple original productions. That's no less than most DJs put out in the early stage of their career.


Posted by elFreak on Apr-07-2009 22:55:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Danny Howells has been producing since 1995.


he is not a prolific producer and has pretty much only done remixes (not "produced" by himself )

i love danny howells this is not a bash against him

the dj/producer game is way different than then now, tis very true.


Posted by d-miurge on Apr-08-2009 00:24:

It depends on the venues, on how often you play out, etc. But a good month of gigs = a normal year of production. That's the ratio.


But you know, most djs are only attention whores. They value attention more than what's artistic.


Posted by SYSTEM-J on Apr-08-2009 02:19:

quote:
Originally posted by elFreak
he is not a prolific producer and has pretty much only done remixes (not "produced" by himself )


Well, how much a DJ actually "produces" rarely matters in these things.

Eddie Halliwell has never produced a track and is a big circuit DJ. It's still possible, it's just much harder to become big without producing.


Posted by Chimney on Apr-08-2009 11:22:

No matter what kind of music will be spawned in the future there will always be an audience, even if it will be a small one, that will always listen to that type of music.
There is alot of money in the market due to balance. Trance, house, techno, DnB all have and will have big followers even if they are made for different reasons. I assume everyone has a different take on this however here is my personal view:

Trance is a gateway for many into EDM and big names like Ti�sto and Armin bring in the money, of course. There are also tons of small producers out there that are trying to gain some fame.

House is, in certain parts of Europe, the definitive club-music and it is needed for producers to make tracks, but it is also much simpler to rise in this world.

Techno on which I'm not very familiar with, seems to have a more mature audience that understand the necessity of producers and purchase the music...which can be debated about trance & house.

Music is just like any other source of entertainment however its availability is much simpler. If you have an idea for a song it's easier to process it and put it in motion than if you had an idea about a movie where tons of factors enter the picture.

Everyone began first time for the love of music.


Posted by nefardec on Apr-08-2009 16:31:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well, how much a DJ actually "produces" rarely matters in these things.

Eddie Halliwell has never produced a track and is a big circuit DJ. It's still possible, it's just much harder to become big without producing.


I think there is a cutoff year (or couple of years) before which this was possible and after which is pretty much unheard of without producing or owning a label. i'm not sure myself what the cutoff actually is, but it definitely coincides with the rise of the superstar dj.

i think in general a lot of the big names have either been in the game a long time or - if they haven't - are well known producers


Posted by ponsshin on Apr-08-2009 17:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell
the big $ is in publishing, not in sales.


Meaning if your track gets chosen in many comps, you'll get tons of cash? (sorry i don't know what publishing implies)


Posted by julien2 on Apr-08-2009 22:23:

Not only that, but also ads. Get your music into an ad and BLING !


Posted by SYSTEM-J on Apr-09-2009 00:45:

quote:
Originally posted by julien2
Not only that, but also ads. Get your music into an ad and BLING !


Yeah. There was an article about this in Mixmag recently. Electronic music is cropping up in so many adverts these days there's serious money being made in that area. I'm sure the "faux-naive folktronica" genre has exploded to meet the demands of cell phone commercials.


Posted by Sand Leaper on Apr-09-2009 00:59:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm sure the "faux-naive folktronica" genre has exploded to meet the demands of cell phone commercials.


Cadenza is milking it for all that it is worth these days, at least...


Posted by EddieZilker on Apr-09-2009 01:07:

Personally, I think it would be great if me producing music led to some sort of money making venture - even if it wasn't necessarily related to music production. I do tend to pay attention to aspects of its marketing, but money and notoriety are not the reason I produce music.


Posted by Zild on Apr-09-2009 01:26:

You need to make the music to get the gigs. You need to get gigs to make money.


Posted by winston on Apr-09-2009 02:14:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Damerchi
the small amount at which beatport said he had sold(30 000 was it??).


I'd be a bit skeptical when reading that...



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.