Want a TLDR version? The gist is that unlike the traditional musician business model (get discovered, get a large amount of money up front, produce shippable versions of your product), they actually - ya know - work for a living. DMB incrementally grows their fan base by constantly reaching their customers directly, and selling them shows instead of records. And while the "record" business is dying, music isn't going anywhere. Satisfy a core customer need, work your ass off, and you have a viable business. You don't need to go raising tons of money to have a huge reach.
Yes, yes, yes. Music groups are small businesses and bootstrapping is now a model that makes sense for many of them. But although there are many parallels between musicians and startups (labels are the VCs of music etc.), there are some significant differences. For example, one of the tenets of bootstrapping is the pivot. If you're not profitable, take what you've learned and change your direction. For musicians this is far more difficult I believe. Like many popular artists, DMB's success stems from their unique 'sound'. This sound is a special mixture of each members personality and is very hard to change up while still remaining genuine. Founders certainly have a similar effect on their startups product, but I believe its far easier to hire a new designer than to stop playing the music you feel in your heart.
tl;dr - Music is business but its also an art. There needs to be a new bootstrapping methodology tailored towards music.
The author seems to make the weird assumption that DMB is somehow not as "big" as Bon Jovi and so they must be doing something clever to be making as much money.
That's simply the delusions of an out-of-touch 50 year old. DMB was the most consistently popular musician of my generation. How to make money in the music industry? Make music that hundreds of millions of people want to listen to.
Also, DMB got famous from the "old" music industry when you could still make some money by selling CDs. I'm tired of the "now that the label has made me famous, who needs labels" and "now that I've had N platinum albums, who needs to sell albums" stories; I'd like to hear about a new artist who succeeded without help from the industry.
I hate to pull a [Citation Needed] especially when I won't provide my own, but I find it really hard to believe that DMB was the most consistently popular musician of any generation. He's never been Elvis big, Beatles big, or even Jay Z or Bon Jovi big. (Bon Jovi only being referenced in the original article because they took the number one slot, not because the author was a huge fan.)
He's very popular, has a pretty good niche, don't get me wrong. (Must... Resist... urge... to... crack... on... lacrosse... players...) But I think plenty of people would be surprised that he was in that top ten list, not just old timers.
DMB has never been very succesful outside of North America. My grandma would know who Bon Jovi is, but wouldn't have a clue about DMB, as wouldn't my parents.
Not scientific, but some music doesn't translate across the pond.
1. Their music is excellent and consistent. Dave Matthews is one of the best songwriters of this generation.
2. They constantly make concerts exciting by playing completely different versions of their songs live, with emphasis on improvisation. People go to DMB concerts two nights in row because they never know what they're going to get. They won't get a repeat show- they'll get something completely different, often times. I don't know many other bands who have fans that would go to a concert two nights in a row.
3. They also seem to genuinely love touring / performing. They give up a lot to be on the road that often, and I don't think its money or fame they're chasing.
The article (like many of its style) draws strong comparisons to the grateful dead. They serve as a cautionary tale as well - the road, especially when defined as year in year out tours, can take a heavy toll. They lost three keyboardists to drug and alcohol abuse (two directly and one had to leave), their last one had serious drug problems and their bassist struggled with hep C and needed a kidney transplant.
Garcia was of course the most famous casualty - he died in rehab due to the complications of long term abuse. He struggled with addiction for ~20 years and according to some reports often longed to quit the road entirely in part because of its effects on his health. In the end the band simply made too much money - and provided for too many peoples livelihood through their touring regime - and when met with resistance to stop he simply felt he needed to soldier on for other's benefit.
It's not all drugs and alcohol either - many musicians find the road punishing sooner or later for reasons ranging from diet and exercise to alienation and homesickness. I'm sure a few consultants out there can sympathize.
None of this is to say that a comfortable living can't be made on the road or that a live music oriented can't counter some of the negative effects piracy has on artists. But clearly there are some people out there (who are being held up as the ultimate examples) that might not choose to do it that way again.
I'm a huge DMB fan and have seen them many, many times. I can say with certainty that the quality of DMB shows gets worse every year, as clearly the band is just plain worn out. I was very happy to hear they are taking 2011 off. Touring every year (and they often do up to three tours a year: summer, winter and a non-US tour) just can't be good for them.
DMB makes money by having an utter sociopath for a manager, a fellow named Coran Capshaw. Coran would sell his own mother in the slave markets if she could fetch a few bucks.
I don't know if other bands are doing this, but Phish did live pay-per-view of their New Year's Eve mini tour for $15-$20 per show. That seems like a very interesting model.
I love going to see concerts, but can easily imagine paying $x to see some well videoed live shows in HD.
But the reason they are so popular and have a large die-hard fan base is that they've done it this way since the beginning. The band recently announced that 2011 will be the first year in their history that no major tour is scheduled. Sure, they started out at smaller venues (primarily playing at colleges around the country), but they have always been devoted to touring and making every live show different.
Why is the premise of the title and article that DMB makes money and other bands don't? Plenty of other groups are raking it in.
While record sales might be down, I bet the amount of musicians able to make a living wage today, solely from music, is much greater than it was in 1990. This is due to the same technology and disruptiveness that has shaved 10% off the earnings of the megastars.
The story should be about how smaller bands are now able to be much more successful, not that a mega-band can still pull $70 million while others have been reduced to (gasp) $50 million.
You know, Hacker News is one of the last places that should be criticising the 'old fashioned' way of making money from music (e.g. contract with recording studio, make an album, recording studio keeps lion share of the profits).
Why?
Because the 'old fashioned' model of financing a band to produce a record is directly analogous to the VC model of financing a startup to produce a product.
Consider: in both cases the investor is taking a large risk, and needs to make multiple investments because the chance of each one going bust is large, and correspondingly they are looking for a 20x return (or more) from a 'hit', because they need to make big dollars from the few that achieve success to pay for all the ones that fail.
Except that, of course, the evil corps that make up the RIAA did much more for the artists than VCs ever do for software startups, including (but not limited to) big marketing pushes of their product.
NB: yes, I'm aware of Courtney Love's rant about how evil the music industry is: see
I just think it is a bit rich to have people who suckle on the teat of VC money to tell the music industry that they need to change and get with the times.
I wonder how much that point of view is motivated by the "music should be free" way of thinking - or as we like to call it "something for nothing and your money back".
Record labels don't invest in artists, they loan them money while taking a very substantial percentage and ownership. If you take funding and fail, you don't have to pay it back. Make an album and fail, and they own you.
Actually, Hacker News should be the first place to criticize (or at least examine) investments are made in music and tech.
The way VCs and angel investors fund startups is changing and it is interesting to see the ways that an industry with some parallels is also changing.
Just like I can now start a band in my basement and gain a following with Protools + Facebook, I can now bootstrap a company in my basement with Rails + Heroku. (or your tech / provider of choice)
Related from a technology standpoint: CASH Music (http://cashmusic.org/) is a non profit dedicated to providing technology to enable a more direct musician to patron relationship. Lots of artists are going this route, which is really much more in line with how artists typically made a living up until the 20th century (i.e. patronage).
Could someone forward me the part of the article where it explains how an up and coming band can use a time machine to go back to an era where they can use the Recording Industry Promotion Machine to become a national act, such that they'll be able to build a large enough fan base to support a tour oriented business plan? Slate seems to be dropping that part in my browser.
> "And while the "record" business is dying, music isn't going anywhere. Satisfy a core customer need, work your ass of, and you have a viable
business."
Well, for some of us, music is what's RECORDED, not live shoes.
I can accept: "well, too bad, traditional recording profits are dwindling, just man it".
But, "it's no problem, just give live shows" is a stupid answer. At best, it's a non general enough one.
All those articles and blog posts hammering on the "make money by playing live shows" theme, feel to my European tastes as written by Texan rednecks, whose idea of music is Willie Nelson or something... (and DMB is not that far off).
It's 2011: there are tons of groups, music genres etc where it doesn't make sense to have traditional concerts. And there artistis that don't like to give them, anyways. Not all musicians want to be onstage, especially in electronica, ambient, etc genres. Heck, even the Beatles got bored and stopped playing live mid-career. Oh, and "selling t-shirts and merchandise"? Some people want to be in the MUSIC business, not that of Matel and Threadless.
All those articles and blog posts hammering on the "make money by playing live shows" theme, feel to my European tastes as written by Texan rednecks, whose idea of music is Willie Nelson or something... (and DMB is not that far off).
Oh please. Live shows aren't an American thing. AC/DC, Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, The Who, Queen, U2, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Rammstein, Elton John, and Scorpions are or were very successful live performing bands, and none of them are from North America.[1]
The divide is probably electronic vs. rock, because the prevailing attitude in rock is that a real band plays live.[2] Okay, there aren't many continental European bands on my list (Rammstein and Scorpions are German) but that's probably because continental Europe isn't that into rock. (But who knows? There's no shortage of continental metal bands and festivals.)
[1] It seems cheating to count Canadian bands as "not American", otherwise I'd include Rush in the list.
[2] Note that the Beatles were a pop band, not a rock band. There was no money in touring in the 1960's, so of course they quit after they didn't need to generate publicity.
'But, "it's no problem, just give live shows" is a stupid answer. At best, it's a non general enough one.'
Hear, hear. This is a problem I've, of late, being trying to sort out, and would love to hear success stories about musicians or musical outfits that have a viable business without having to tour.
OTOH, I have no problem with selling related product; in fact, I found the idea compelling, especially non-traditional delivery means.
But not so much T-shirts and the standard rock memorabilia. "Art" objects, physical things that are interesting in their own right, whether it be some aspect of CD/DVD/USB/SD packaging or something more out there.
I agree. Years go by in between occasions when I go to a concert, yet I listen to (and pay for) recorded music regularly. I might go to more concerts if there were more concerts that interested me around where I live, but even so, for me, music isn't something that I go to hear a one-time performance of; it is integrated into my life. I listen to music while working, reading, driving, whatever, and I'm not likely to have a live band playing a concert next to my desk or in the back seat of my car.
[+] [-] joshklein|15 years ago|reply
Hmm, what other thing does this sound like?
[+] [-] fleitz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ABrandt|15 years ago|reply
Yes, yes, yes. Music groups are small businesses and bootstrapping is now a model that makes sense for many of them. But although there are many parallels between musicians and startups (labels are the VCs of music etc.), there are some significant differences. For example, one of the tenets of bootstrapping is the pivot. If you're not profitable, take what you've learned and change your direction. For musicians this is far more difficult I believe. Like many popular artists, DMB's success stems from their unique 'sound'. This sound is a special mixture of each members personality and is very hard to change up while still remaining genuine. Founders certainly have a similar effect on their startups product, but I believe its far easier to hire a new designer than to stop playing the music you feel in your heart.
tl;dr - Music is business but its also an art. There needs to be a new bootstrapping methodology tailored towards music.
[+] [-] qq66|15 years ago|reply
That's simply the delusions of an out-of-touch 50 year old. DMB was the most consistently popular musician of my generation. How to make money in the music industry? Make music that hundreds of millions of people want to listen to.
[+] [-] wmf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgo|15 years ago|reply
He's very popular, has a pretty good niche, don't get me wrong. (Must... Resist... urge... to... crack... on... lacrosse... players...) But I think plenty of people would be surprised that he was in that top ten list, not just old timers.
[+] [-] rospaya|15 years ago|reply
Not scientific, but some music doesn't translate across the pond.
[+] [-] healthyhippo|15 years ago|reply
1. Their music is excellent and consistent. Dave Matthews is one of the best songwriters of this generation.
2. They constantly make concerts exciting by playing completely different versions of their songs live, with emphasis on improvisation. People go to DMB concerts two nights in row because they never know what they're going to get. They won't get a repeat show- they'll get something completely different, often times. I don't know many other bands who have fans that would go to a concert two nights in a row.
3. They also seem to genuinely love touring / performing. They give up a lot to be on the road that often, and I don't think its money or fame they're chasing.
[+] [-] xcjamie|15 years ago|reply
Its too bad they're not touring this summer, I've seen them the past 3 years and their shows never fail to impress
[+] [-] trotsky|15 years ago|reply
Garcia was of course the most famous casualty - he died in rehab due to the complications of long term abuse. He struggled with addiction for ~20 years and according to some reports often longed to quit the road entirely in part because of its effects on his health. In the end the band simply made too much money - and provided for too many peoples livelihood through their touring regime - and when met with resistance to stop he simply felt he needed to soldier on for other's benefit.
It's not all drugs and alcohol either - many musicians find the road punishing sooner or later for reasons ranging from diet and exercise to alienation and homesickness. I'm sure a few consultants out there can sympathize.
None of this is to say that a comfortable living can't be made on the road or that a live music oriented can't counter some of the negative effects piracy has on artists. But clearly there are some people out there (who are being held up as the ultimate examples) that might not choose to do it that way again.
[+] [-] city41|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runcible_spork|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crunchykeith|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RK|15 years ago|reply
I love going to see concerts, but can easily imagine paying $x to see some well videoed live shows in HD.
[+] [-] taylorlb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rick888|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bgentry|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MikeCapone|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newmediaclay|15 years ago|reply
While record sales might be down, I bet the amount of musicians able to make a living wage today, solely from music, is much greater than it was in 1990. This is due to the same technology and disruptiveness that has shaved 10% off the earnings of the megastars.
The story should be about how smaller bands are now able to be much more successful, not that a mega-band can still pull $70 million while others have been reduced to (gasp) $50 million.
[+] [-] Stormbringer|15 years ago|reply
Why?
Because the 'old fashioned' model of financing a band to produce a record is directly analogous to the VC model of financing a startup to produce a product.
Consider: in both cases the investor is taking a large risk, and needs to make multiple investments because the chance of each one going bust is large, and correspondingly they are looking for a 20x return (or more) from a 'hit', because they need to make big dollars from the few that achieve success to pay for all the ones that fail.
Except that, of course, the evil corps that make up the RIAA did much more for the artists than VCs ever do for software startups, including (but not limited to) big marketing pushes of their product.
NB: yes, I'm aware of Courtney Love's rant about how evil the music industry is: see
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love
for an insider point of view.
I just think it is a bit rich to have people who suckle on the teat of VC money to tell the music industry that they need to change and get with the times.
I wonder how much that point of view is motivated by the "music should be free" way of thinking - or as we like to call it "something for nothing and your money back".
[+] [-] daeken|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnutt|15 years ago|reply
The way VCs and angel investors fund startups is changing and it is interesting to see the ways that an industry with some parallels is also changing.
Just like I can now start a band in my basement and gain a following with Protools + Facebook, I can now bootstrap a company in my basement with Rails + Heroku. (or your tech / provider of choice)
[+] [-] defeated|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanstorm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foljs|15 years ago|reply
Well, for some of us, music is what's RECORDED, not live shoes.
I can accept: "well, too bad, traditional recording profits are dwindling, just man it".
But, "it's no problem, just give live shows" is a stupid answer. At best, it's a non general enough one.
All those articles and blog posts hammering on the "make money by playing live shows" theme, feel to my European tastes as written by Texan rednecks, whose idea of music is Willie Nelson or something... (and DMB is not that far off).
It's 2011: there are tons of groups, music genres etc where it doesn't make sense to have traditional concerts. And there artistis that don't like to give them, anyways. Not all musicians want to be onstage, especially in electronica, ambient, etc genres. Heck, even the Beatles got bored and stopped playing live mid-career. Oh, and "selling t-shirts and merchandise"? Some people want to be in the MUSIC business, not that of Matel and Threadless.
[+] [-] philwelch|15 years ago|reply
Oh please. Live shows aren't an American thing. AC/DC, Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, The Who, Queen, U2, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Rammstein, Elton John, and Scorpions are or were very successful live performing bands, and none of them are from North America.[1]
The divide is probably electronic vs. rock, because the prevailing attitude in rock is that a real band plays live.[2] Okay, there aren't many continental European bands on my list (Rammstein and Scorpions are German) but that's probably because continental Europe isn't that into rock. (But who knows? There's no shortage of continental metal bands and festivals.)
[1] It seems cheating to count Canadian bands as "not American", otherwise I'd include Rush in the list.
[2] Note that the Beatles were a pop band, not a rock band. There was no money in touring in the 1960's, so of course they quit after they didn't need to generate publicity.
[+] [-] jamesbritt|15 years ago|reply
Hear, hear. This is a problem I've, of late, being trying to sort out, and would love to hear success stories about musicians or musical outfits that have a viable business without having to tour.
OTOH, I have no problem with selling related product; in fact, I found the idea compelling, especially non-traditional delivery means.
But not so much T-shirts and the standard rock memorabilia. "Art" objects, physical things that are interesting in their own right, whether it be some aspect of CD/DVD/USB/SD packaging or something more out there.
[+] [-] tjr|15 years ago|reply