Juxtapose this thread against CanadianMule's "Spotify" thread.

The fact that so much (nearly all?) music finds its way to a sharing thread of some sort, there is no wonder that so many acts don't bother recording new material. Traditionally, studio time costs hundreds - even thousands of dollars per hour. It's hard to recover these costs when the first sold copy begins getting cloned and passed around.

Conversely, in the digital era computer-based or non-analog systems (Fostex, Tascam etal) systems afford artists the ability to record at home, though most argue that the quality just isn't the same.

As with movies, producing the product is only one part of the cost equation. To sell anything, the artist needs PROMOTION. Getting the word out often costs more than production.

Most (or many) acts that have been around since the 70's (who are now IN their 70s) have released new material in recent years. Usually it's only the long-time fanbase that are aware of these new releases - which are often on a "home-made" label. No big record company to support with promotion. No recognition from Rolling Stone or other publications.

I know I sound like a whiney old f@rt (if the shoe fits ...), but the big labels support the much younger acts. "Backing bands" are often one guy with a computer and sampler. Keeps the production budget low while maximizing profits.

EDIT: add "per hour"

EDIT:

[Edited on 4/8/2017 by Rusty]

Butch Trucks is someone near and dear here who was vocal about how the cost of recording a new album pretty much negated the benefits.

I was delighted to read how well the last Deep Purple album "Now What" had done. It got no radio play; their new stuff hasn't reached the radio for a few albums now, and in concert, they play the new stuff sparingly. However, maybe their frequent touring helped the sales of the disc. They are road warriors. I'm glad they have another new album out; it is a good one, and it deserves to be successful.

Steve Hackett is someone who has been very consistent in releasing new music, and his new disc hit # 28 in England, which is good for him. It's an excellent disc. It comes with a "making of the album" DVD that is fascinating; with computer technology, he recorded many of the guitar tracks in his living room!

The cost of making an album does not need to be what it once was. Back in 'the day", the bands were advanced cash for the album so many didn't even think money. They sat around trying to write in the studio while blasting mounds of cocaine up their noses.

For some it is ego and they want to sell millions like they once did and in truth - no one does anymore.

Others know that the well is dry and don't want to admit it.

The industry has changed. Things like Spotify are the reality and some embrace it. Deep Purple keeps making albums and there newest is right there on Spotify. Not being copied and illegally traded which is what was happening before these avenues came along. So no need to go download it illegally. No reason to clone that first copy anymore.

As Jim mentioned, artists like Steve Hackett are able to make amazing albums and do it cheap and at home for the most part. Greatly reducing costs.

If a dinosaur wants to try and do it 70s style then they are screwed.

Cost didn't stop the ABB. Butch couldn't write a song so he needs Gregg. Gregg dried up a LONG time ago. Reality.

Just Bought the new Deep purple album and I like what I hear so far..Kudos to them.. The Allman Bros could have/should done much more recording in the 2000's having Derek and Oteil in the band.,

The cost of making an album does not need to be what it once was. Back in 'the day", the bands were advanced cash for the album so many didn't even think money. They sat around trying to write in the studio while blasting mounds of cocaine up their noses.

Right. I have no idea what the actual dollar amounts are, but with digital equipment the cost of recording an album is far less than it used to be. On the other hand labels aren't going to fork over a big advance and streaming services pay the bands far less than physical album sales and radio did, so the returns aren't what they used to be either. If the band is going to get a bunch of media exposure from a new album and that draws a bunch of fans to shows, or if enough of them will shell out for extras like vinyl copies and t-shirts, then it might make sense to record. Then you get into the question of whether the artists are as motivated to write today as they were decades ago and whether their fans are interested in new material, because I'm sure it's a little discouraging to see people rush toward the bathrooms and concession stands as soon as you play something that's not a classic hit. If you have a core of fans who travel with the band, there's probably at least some appetite for new stuff. If you're playing state fairs, probably not.

Cost didn't stop the ABB. Butch couldn't write a song so he needs Gregg. Gregg dried up a LONG time ago. Reality.

Right, they could've recorded in Derek and Susan's home studio and eliminated that whole issue. Whether it's worth their time and energy as opposed to money, who knows - Butch didn't seem to think so. Gregg seemed to disagree, but it's not like he's writing and recording much on his own. He's done very little writing in the last 40 years, and the songs he has written have often been with a lot of help from others. No criticism; it's just obviously not his priority either.

This may be a controversial view but isn't this perhaps a case of evolution and survival of the fittest?

For the last 50 years or so, a huge number of people have tried - and largely failed - to make a living from the music business.

We as consumers have been spoilt for choice and have been discerning on how we spent our disposable income (although some of us spent more than was healthy, maybe!).

For all the new releases each week, how many ever broke even, let alone went on to be big successes? Be honest - how much of this music was original and fresh and how much was a retread of something which had gone before, or what was popular at the time?

If less music is being recorded and released but is of a better quality, and if fewer people fail to make a full-time living for want of having something original to say, is that such a bad thing?

If less music is being recorded and released but is of a better quality, and if fewer people fail to make a full-time living for want of having something original to say, is that such a bad thing?

It's probably easier than ever to make a living making music. I'm sure it's harder to make tons of money, which was never easy, but in terms of supporting yourself enough to making a living, it's easier: recording is cheaper, distribution is cheaper, and whatever type of music you make, it's easier to find people who like similar stuff. So there are more people doing that. I wish the economics were better for artists because I think the streaming services and labels are screwing them, but it's a great time to be a music fan.

Services like Spotify do pay less than the sale of physical albums to the artist. But those sales have dropped to next to nothing. So they could have a bigger % of zero but it is still zero.

At one point, Roger Glover from Deep Purple said that the royalties from Smoke On The Water alone could pay his bills. Then it dried up to where he rarely gets a cheque.

You have to do something to make money. A small % of millions of hits equals more than zero. Not as much the enemy as some seem to think.

Services like Spotify do pay less than the sale of physical albums to the artist. But those sales have dropped to next to nothing. So they could have a bigger % of zero but it is still zero.

At one point, Roger Glover from Deep Purple said that the royalties from Smoke On The Water alone could pay his bills. Then it dried up to where he rarely gets a cheque.

You have to do something to make money. A small % of millions of hits equals more than zero. Not as much the enemy as some seem to think.

I have always wondered about royalties and how much they get. I am sure a lot of things factor into it and it is different than what it was years ago too I would guess.

Services like Spotify do pay less than the sale of physical albums to the artist. But those sales have dropped to next to nothing. So they could have a bigger % of zero but it is still zero.

At one point, Roger Glover from Deep Purple said that the royalties from Smoke On The Water alone could pay his bills. Then it dried up to where he rarely gets a cheque.

You have to do something to make money. A small % of millions of hits equals more than zero. Not as much the enemy as some seem to think.

I have always wondered about royalties and how much they get. I am sure a lot of things factor into it and it is different than what it was years ago too I would guess.

There are different kinds of royalties for live performance, recordings and transcriptions. Each pays a different rate, and they don't all go directly to the artist because there are also labels and managers and things in the picture. I've never been able to keep it straight at all.

For purposes of this thread/discussion, Daltrey fits firmly into the dinosaur category ...

Roger Daltrey: There's no music industry anymore, why would we make an album?

Roger Daltrey says The Who are unlikely to ever release another album because the internet has "stolen" the music industry.

The frontman admits he and guitarist Pete Townshend have discussed the possibility of making a follow-up to 2006's Endless Wire, but as it stands he can't see it happening.

The Who unveiled standalone single Be Lucky in 2014 and at the time, Daltrey hinted that a full album would follow.

But he tells Rolling Stone: "We've talked about it, but it's not going to be easy. There's no record industry anymore. Why would I make a record?

"I would have to pay to make a record. There's no royalties so I can't see that ever happening. There's no record business. How do you get the money to make the records? I don't know.

"I'm certainly not going to pay money to give my music away free. I can't afford to do that. I've got other things I could waste the money on."

Asked why the record industry is in the state that it's in, Daltrey adds: "Well, it's been stolen. The way the internet has come about has been the biggest robbery in history, like musicians should work for nothing.

"You get paid for streaming, my ass. There's no control. Musicians are getting robbed every day. And now it's creeping into film and television, everything now.

"You notice, the internet is a slowly but surely destructive thing in all ways. I don't think it's improved people's lives. It's just made them do more work and feel like they're wanted a bit more, but it's all bollocks.

"They feel like they're wanted because they got 50,000 Facebook likes or whatever, and it's all bollocks. Look up for a while. Live in the real world."

http://teamrock.com/news/2016-06-01/roger-daltrey-there-s-no-music-industry-anymore-why-would-we-make-an-album

Daltry is a perfect example of a guy that wants the old days but forgets that Pete made all the money because he wrote the songs. Over and over, he has wanted Pete to do things because he was broke and that dates back to before the internet. His lifestyle exceeds his income and he hasn't changed it as the royalty cheques got smaller and smaller.

This is a great thread and I can't help but wonder if I'm the only person who still buys CD's

I still buy C.D.'s, pay bills by check and don't have direct deposit.....but i do have a cell phone.

I see the point of Daltrey, but as a fan, I get excited about the release of new music from artists I enjoy. I would certainly think self-satisfaction in there art would be enough for a band like the who. I remember Butch saying one time if the ABB had the music they would put it on a live album..That is a great idea... Bands get boring that don't release new music.

I still buy CD's, but I understand there aren't many of us out there. I do rip my CD's onto my hard drive as backup, but there is nothing like having the physical product and having good liner notes and even lyrics to go along with the music. I'm still very much a kid when it comes to examining the full release vs just the music.

I really like the new Deep Purple CD, if you get it make sure to pick up the version with the DVD. There is a good 90 minute documentary about the making of the album that is worth checking out. It did make me feel bad that Morse has done so much damage to his hand over the years that it pains him to play.

I love when older artists still are working to put new music out there. It shows that the creative spirit is still alive. Of course it is diminishing returns financially, but I'm glad some are still out there working and putting new music out.

I still buy CD's, do have direct deposit and use on-line bill payer, haven't written a paper check in years.

Having said that, one semi-recent CD comes to mind, the new Keith Richard's one, Crosseyed Heart - not one of his best in my opinion. Matter of fact I'd rate it last out of his solo studio releases.

This is a great thread and I can't help but wonder if I'm the only person who still buys CD's

I buy used CDs at thrift stores sometimes. Stuff that just looks interesting or that I meant to check out years ago and never got around to. They usually cost $1 or $2, so it's a good way to take a flier on something. I rip them to a hard drive, put them on my iPod and either return the CD or freecycle it.

Should have mentioned, yes I often buy used CD's, generally off Amazon.

But I did pre-order the new North Mississippi Allstars disc, forget when it is coming out.

I still buy Cd's. I do have an I-Pod though.
Neil Young still seems to put out some new music every now and then. I haven't bought any of his newer stuff though.
I will be buying the new Deep Purple CD.