I’ve thought of that comparison myself. I worked with a singer/songwriter who had a core group of fans who would come to every show, as many as 100-200 a year. Other people would claim she was overbooking, but she played a kind of music that her fans didn’t tire of. Therapy or going to church were the best comparisons I could think of.

And what’s important in comparing music to therapy is that it is cheaper. When we talk about music as entertainment and community, we have to keep in mind that there are many free and inexpensive alternatives to music. But compared to therapy, music is quite inexpensive.

My take on this is, music affects one of our senses–our hearing. And we are more stimulated when one or more of our sense are being used at the same time–for better or worse. I mean, you can walk into some clothing stores these days and a dj is spinning to “enhance” your experience (and try to get you to spend your money).

In today’s society, America’s specifically, we’re constantly stimulating our senses. Movies, music, theme park rides, food–whatever. It’s about the experience. I don’t know if the human experience could ignore all of our senses for a moment to listen to an entire song they love without it impacting any of the other senses. Because some songs want to make you want to dance, others go to a specific location to see it, etc.

A great musician I recently took a workshop with asked us, what do musicians do? Many people said entertain, create, change, influence, etc. But he said we are in the therapy industry. People listen to music to forget, escape, change their moods, and so forth in society. And I agree with him. As unentertaining as many artists are these days, they combine all these other things with music for an experience that stimulates other senses and provides some form of therapy to them. It doesn’t always work, but that’s why we have preferences and choices so we can filter out the experiences and therapy we want for ourselves.

Brian Franke
Singer/Songwriter
http://www.brianfranke.com
Twitter: @bfrankemusic

Here’s the challenge with a lot of live music. The smaller venues are geared toward fans who are over 21, but who aren’t constrained by families and jobs. Anyone who has to get up early the next morning and who has to find a babysitter tends not to go to many club shows.

And at the same time, the number of venues offering all ages shows, to tap into 13-20 year olds, is relatively small.

There are a group of fans who start going to live music again once their kids are old enough, but they want something upscale. They don’t want to go to bars where the waitstaff is rude, their feet stick to the floor, and there is vomit in the bathrooms.

There is an underserved audience for family-friendly concerts. Boulder has “Band on the Bricks” every Wednesday during the summer. It’s in the center of downtown. Many families live within walking distance and come over after dinner. The concerts are free and there are lots of restaurants, shops, etc. to wander in and out of in addition to the music. Some of the more popular acts (all local) draw 1000 to 2000 fans.

Actually I think the live music sector (small bars and venues, community concerts, and shows held in schools, churches, and community centers) is the biggest opportunity out there.

Along those lines, I am advocating more participatory music that gets kids and families singing, dancing, and playing along. A lot of times audiences are far happier with a local cover band that plays classic Motown that everyone can dance to than an indie rock band that can’t get the crowd involved in the music.

Also, keep in mind that for many people, their live music experience is church. There are a lot of talented musicians who have gotten their start singing in church.

You cannot convince me that people do not buy music. They might not be compelled to buy and that is more the fault of a disconnected industry than it is the internet.

When going DIY as you and Kevin are putting it, I think fan engagement and upkeep are key, which many scenes tend to not do. It is usually all about the bands and active people engaged in the scene, but what about those that just love the music?

There is no way the fan base should not be growing. It may slow, but unless utter upheaval happens it should never cease. Bands need to be more diligent in staying connected with fans/music buyers.

You bring up some great points that have obviously triggered a very intelligent “debate” via the comments.

There’s a point that I think should be brought to the forefront in this conversation: The Quality of the Music

* Not the audio fidelity but the music & songwriting itself.

As a producer I get to work with a lot of up-and-coming artists/ groups and there are some themes that are (to say the least) reoccurring. The #1 example I keep thinking of as I read this post is that so many artists are simply trying to mimic or recreate the current popular sound as opposed to creating their own style. It seems that “stepping outside of the box” has earned the stigma of being dangerous and therefore the music fan gets one carbon copy after another and as a result music becomes stale.

I admit that by itself this is a greatly over-simplified point, that it’s different per genre, that the industry is going to deliver what the music fans want to buy, that artists have to make a living, that the quality of music is subjective, etc.. but I think there is something favorable to be said for artists that do what they love and catch our ear with something that is genuinely different in contrast to the artists that perpetually regurgitate what’s already been done thousands of times.

There are many stems that can grow from this point alone but one thing I will say is that some would argue that the music coming out today is a far cry from what our parent’s enjoyed.

Damon Cisneros

Denver has a lot of cooperation among indie rock musicians and Boulder/Lyons/Nederland has long had cross-pollination among jam/bluegrass/world music. People play on each other’s projects and form side projects all the time. It’s very creative, though relatively few are making enough money to quit their day jobs.

I think there are massive opportunities for collaboration and creativity, but the fan community hasn’t grown substantially bigger so you’re still tapping into the same pool of music spenders. That’s the challenge. People aren’t dropping other forms of entertainment and shifting money from those into music. If everyone dropped cable TV and then started going to live music venues several times a week that would change things a lot.

I really believe that if the current streams are not readily available for you to tap into, its time to create your own. It’s tough for any artist out there and not all will make it. However if you try and help out the others like you, all could benefit in some way.

I discovered a lot of great bands that where on split singles with bands I already loved.

I’ve felt there has been an unfortunate bias against that. There’s the assumption that if you have to do all of that to make a living in music, then you’re not that good. Which isn’t true, and I think more and more musicians who think this will be the glory days of the DIY musician will have a rude awakening.

While it is easier to reach fans nowadays, so many more bands are doing it that the available pie is getting sliced up thinner and thinner.

I’ve talked to musicians who were playing club gigs in the 1970s and they say they aren’t make any more per gig now (and sometimes even less) than they were then.