I'm not a musician myself, but I have written lyrics for published songs. I am on the fringes of the business.

And, however much this may be a personal view, I'm inclined to be wary of the opinions of somebody who works for one of the organisations which collects fees on behalf of artists. I know people who have given a live performance, entirely of their own work, words and music, and the venue has still had to pay a fee to one of the collection agencies.

Yes, there are problems in how to be sure who is owed what for a performance but, just as with the DRM technology, it seems that the small people get squeezed out.

This all feels like an argument for the big guys, when the 1000 fan argument looks a lot more plausible from the other end of the scale. It bypasses the big record labels, and their predatory contracts. It bypasses all the collection systems which tend to lose the small guys in sampling errors.

And it takes advantage of all the 20th Century technology which lets somebody make and sell stuff without huge indivdual investment.

You want tour tshirts? Put them on CafePress.

A book? Lulu.com

CDs? Lots of people make them, and short-run pressed CDs are not so dreadfully expensive..

And places such as YouTube are the new publicity medium.

No, a thousand fans may not be enough. Don't give up the day job. There are operating costs. But you're not having to support the legendary extravagances of the big music labels.

And, frankly, if you have the sort of passion for music that points you in this direction, you're not going to give up just because you need a day job to put food on the table. Where's the room for passion in economic theory?

"You like the band, you send a suscription to their offshore account."

In the World of Freetards (WoF) that's more like "You like the band, you download their music for free".

I know a lot of fantastic musicians in my local music scene. Some of them are in the best bands I've ever heard.

How do they get the 1000 fans, without marketing, management, advertising etc? It's all well and good puttin gout singles/iTunes releases (indeed, some of them do) and it's even better if it's the best record of the year. But unless you get radio play, no-one knows it exists. And you only get that with an army of pluggers, with people who have contacts. Which means even if record companies stop being the conduit for releases, they'll still exist as entities with money to spend on promotion.

Without it, a musician is just one of a million with undiscoverable myspace pages.

I have enough trouble following my own local scene, it's impossible to discover the best band I've never heard in Leeds, Glasgow, Reykjavik or Moscow! Someone has to get the word out and tell me about them, and those people will never, ever do it for nothing.

Write out 100 times: "could have opted for"

Mines the black cap with the square top and tassel, thanks.

Who pays the studio fees? Who buys the instruments? They are expensive you know.

This scheme may work for a simple guitar band (and I doubt even that) but anything more complex it is highly unlikely to work, the money just isn't there: It's the kickstarting of careers that record labels do that just isn't possilbe in a system like this. How do you get 1000 fans if you can't afford studio fees or instruments?

Oh and if anyone bothers to reply to this, don't site the Arctic Monkeys (etc.) because they got their record deal via youtube and you heard of them after they got a recording contract.

I'm a novelist (unpublished) and I make a living by working a nine-to-five job. This is true for the vast majority of novelists... even the ones who write lots of books before getting a proper writing career. A great many of the really good books you've read will have been written by part time or amature authors. Hopefully, I will become a published author... but look at the sums, if I write a book every three years as a hobby over a remaining working lifespan of thirty years, that's ten books. How many novelists do you know who have written ten really good books you couldn't live without?

My feeling is that the music industry has become like a Communist command economy where the politicians have conspired to protect out-dated, inefficient organisations on the basis that they create jobs and increases national productivity. Compare the big selling artists of the seventies with the big selling artists of this decade and tell me there is even a quater of the creativity today as there was back then, and this despite the huge increases in income seen in the industry over the last three decades. Protectionism kills creativity - and that is what we are seeing now in the music industry.

Look at it this way; as the back catalogue of music grows, the amount of money made from old music as a proportion of the income of the record industry grows. Thus, the importance of new music decreases whilst the importance of controlling old music grows. Because governments like tax revenue and jobs, they pass laws to help the companies protect the income derived from old music. This sets up a feedback mechanism whereby the investment in exploiting old music is more rewarding than the investment in new music. By perpetuating old music through sampling, through producing a continuous stream of 'best of' albums, and through regenerating old musical styles the industries keep up sales without needing to innovate, and the low innovation level of modern music simply pushes up the value of old music. As the typical music listener becomes used to the sounds from years past, they start to actively seek out the new music that sounds like the old music and this stifles novelty.

The only way to break this cycle is to kill off the right of companies to make money from old music. There are many industries that manage to survive simply by the direct pay-off from investing in new ideas, and there is no reason why music should be any different. New musical movements come through grass-roots creative movements, not from record label employees, and forcing comanies to discover new musical movements rather than perpatuate old ones would create a huge explosion in innovation. That would then remove the moral justification for P2P file sharing, would increase access to old music (whilst simultaneously devaluing it), and would give control of the industry to the talented musicians rather than the professional musicians. Would you rather have the choice between the albums of a hundred sound-alike artists or ten genuinely creative artists? Perhaps that's the choice we have to make.

Can a thousand fans sustain a band? If the band is smart, you bet. It doesn't matter the complexity of the recording or the amount of personnel in the band; that's a red herring. The only thing which matters is how wisely you spend your money and at this point, the largest expense any band faces at the moment is the cost of gasoline which is easily off-set by poster, sticker and album sales at the show which are very high margin.

Once again, any other point made by anyone is simply a red herring, trying to distract away from the fact that they either missed or out-right ignored the "1,000 fans" statement. The point here isn't that you can be a famous, rich rockstar off a thousand people; it's that you can survive solely off making music with a thousand fans. Studio fees have bottomed out; every good musician should have all the gear he needs before he tours (or make due). If you need some quick cash you record an EP and sell it as a "limited release" on the road.

Radio play and marketing are often the two most cited benefits of having a label and distribution. Yet all the bands on Swami Records (run by John Reis of Rocket from the Crypt), Touch and Go, Sympathy for the Record Industry and numerous other small labels have managed to survive without big label money and distribution. Some of these bands are more famous over in Europe than they ever could be in the States, and I guarantee they received no promotion or radio play. Dan Sartain even had an interview on German television; here he can hardly get gigs at real venues!

So, again, I think people need to pull their heads out of their asses and stop creating such ridiculous straw-mans: This guy isn't saying that getting those 1,000 fans would be easy, or that you'll be living like a Prince once you do. He's simply saying probably one of the most reasonable statements ever said about independent bands: find your niche, find your fanbase, treat them well and you won't ever have to work again. You might have to work harder than a big label band, release more music, come up with more creative t-shirts and knick-knacks and push them at your shows, but it is do-able. If you do those things, though, I guarantee you won't only have a thousand fans following you as word of mouth is still the greatest promotional tool any band has at their disposal.

Reverend Horton Heat are a prime example of this. They never stop touring, they know what pleases their fanbase and they never stop giving it to 'em.

Is his math probably a little off? Yeah, really, it is. Who gives a band a hundred bucks a year? But like most assertions, he's exaggerating to make a point. If your band is good enough to have a thousand "true" fans then you bet that there'll probably be a few thousand more that are just your fair-weather fans. "Oh, so and so is in town? Haven't seen them in a couple of years. I should get a t-shirt and a poster. They have a new album out and it's cheaper than at cd shops? Awesome! I'll pick one up." What do most musicians, nay, artists who are willing to put this much effort into their passion of choice consider "making a living?" I'd bet you every instrument I own that "enough money to pay rent, support the bands I like and eat better food than Ramen" will probably be your response.

Guess what? You can do that now working a part time (30 hours or so) job at minimum wage if you live with roommates and shirk a lot of the supposed "luxuries" that, really, most artists couldn't care less about anyway so it's quite amusing (and wrong) to say that a hard-working band with a thousand fans couldn't do it. Then again, this is a tech website, so I can't imagine there are a lot of knowledgeable musicians here...

I have a lot of respect for the commentators on this site but I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis of his comments, Will. You are completely right to point out that most internet tools can be used only for promotion, although I will say that many bands have had success with linking eMusic and iTunes (and even using the snocap tools) on their myspace or facebook profiles. I think you sort of missed the point and, as I've said before, are applying rules that really only have any right being applied to major label signed bands. Independent bands are free of many of the restrictions larger bands are; they don't have as large a percentage of ticket fees taken away by the venue or ticketing agency; minus overhead, merch is almost pure profit; managers cost less; etc.

Aside from this nitpicking I agree with a large majority of your points. Are most bands cut out for it? Not really. Are most bands smart enough to manage their money intelligently? Not really, but the Butthole Surfers proved in the 80s, without any hits under their belt, that you can buy a house, live in it and convert it into a record studio to keep band costs down if you choose. The Presidents of the United States of America had their hit and invested the cash into the same; a house with a modern studio in it, and as such keep their overhead very, very low. So, it is doable. But, I think your perceptions are exactly what they are: that of an economist coming from an agency which probably has little interaction with bands which Kevin Kelly's theories are aimed at.

If someone is more willing to work in a factory than tough it out in the industry trenches then I'd say they were never in it for the long haul anyway. Punk as a whole proves that Kevin Kelly's theory can work, easy.

You wouldn't have much of an article if you simply said "Well, he's one of those freetards (which he is), but he does have a point, even if it takes a lot more work than he thinks," now would you?

If you're a brilliant musician, a talented composer and a skilled engineer and the dogs dangly-bits at production, then you won't have any problems at all. Getting 1000 fans would be laughable, unless that's the weekly groupie count?

But there are precious few who are all of those things or even just a subset.

There are plenty of jobs within the music industry for talent that doesn't want a fan base already.

It's the rest of those who want "a career" in music, but simply don't have the skills to go alone, that struggle. They need the music industry.

This is no different to deciding to make your own feature films and TV programmes...if you think the "talent" in them is the face on the box, then you're missing the bigger picture.

99% of these bands only sound even halfway decent because they have been signed and aren't doing it themselves anymore. You only have to listen with a good ear to most home grown bands demo cds to hear that. The digital age just means you get an quality copy, it still sucks when amateurs do it. It takes a lot more than owning a pc and using "digital" this and that to produce real quality output.

This is why, skilled engineers, producers, composers and musicians all get work in the music industry on other people's releases and why, any sane band or artist will happily sign....getting $100,000 a year or less is something they could do in another job, they want fame and fortune.

You may as well write an article saying a business man could earn a living with only 1000 people using his business a year and he'd make $100k a year....do you think Branson and Sugar would have though "Yeah!" when they were both earning less, flogging out of the backs of vans and so on? Of course not. Of course the failed businessmen, like the failed musicians and bands will lament at how unfair it was, and how they didn't make any money and how it's someone else's fault blah blah blah.

If these bands really think the music industry is big, bad and unnecessary then they've a business opportunity there that'll make them far more, working for those other bands...but independents and similar already exist.

"How do they get the 1000 fans, without marketing, management, advertising etc?"

"Without it, a musician is just one of a million with undiscoverable myspace pages."

I don't know about anywhere else in the world but in the UK we used to have this thing called "The Transit Van".

Maybe the idea of actually getting up off your arse and slogging it round the country doing gigs is a bit too much for today's budding musicians/performers. Do they all expect instant success with mega sales and stadium concerts straight off the bat?

How about, from this day forth, all bands realise that they also need a member with the tools to sell them. When I was younger, my mates all formed a band, but as is so often the case, ego crashed the party. They were fantastic musicians and had an excellent background musically, but there was no direction, no-one was managing the band.

Maybe the day will come, where the band manager is a member of the band, and as important as the lead singer/guitarist. Some people specialise in making music, and some specialise in making money. New bands just need to marry the 2 from the outset. If a group of friends can get together and form a band, then surely they are going to know a friend who can manage them?

It was your comment, Michael, that brought that home. Why are bands feeling they 'need' the music industry? It's not some dark art you know.

Good bands will always go somewhere, bands like Oasis started playing pubs etc, the crowds stayed and gained in size, Oasis started playing bigger gigs and then a music industry employee spotted them and voila. What would have happened if the music industry employee had never spotted them? Would Oasis suddenly have become crap and started attracting less fans? Of course not.

It's that point, the one where the music industry employee(extortionist pimp) walks up to the band and says 'I'll make you famous' that needs redefining.

Back to the old ways, see a great band, with a strong fanbase and great music. Invest a little for a reasonable return. Get a business start-up loan, put a couple of ads on the goggle-box/radio, sponsor yourselves to go on Jonathan Ross.

I'm surprised all the VC's who threw money at the internet, haven't had a stab at it yet. Take the music industry on at it's own game.

Better still, bands that have already made it big time, and who naturally have an ear for music, sponsor other up and coming artists, for a reasonable slice.

It's all guesswork on my behalf, I confess. But really, how much to run a national promotional campaign? Radio, few telly ads etc. Can't be THAT much, surely, have you seen the crap that gets advertised all day long on the TV?

If you got the lions share of the return from a successful promotion, you could invest more in a larger promotion. That's exactly what the music industry does, except they keep the lions share for the risk they took in bringing you to market and to cover their losses on unsuccessful promotions.

If you went to the bank manager and said, 'We get 500 paying customers, three nights a week but need some money to expand our business', wouldn't he/she lend you the money to promote yourselves? (fill me in here, if that's unlikely, and why)

If you take the risk yourselves, YOU get the lions share. But if you know you're good enough, and you're filling halls all over the country, where's the risk?