'cos we use a good/expensive studio partly for the gear partly for the "ears" and experience of the guy who runs it.
Exactly the same here. I and many of my colleagues tried the homerecording route, and you can get OK results, but when you bring your thing to a studio and compare to something produced there, it can be a very sobering experience. Agree about the technician too, one which tells you the "right stuff" is invaluable.
We travel light ;) And the distances tend to be shorter in Europe. I toured only once in the US, it was a lot of driving.
Good luck to you too!
>Surely all a musician has to sell is themself?
That was half sarcastic... I am only glad that live playing is important again, and if that is "the original" JEDIDAH speaks about, then I agree. Only reason to do anything businness-wise is to get gigs as far as I'm concerned, old system new system never mind. The amount of bullshit seems less this way, I am in general happy with all these changes. And yes, if Kyle was a "performance artist", it would be more similar, but still not the same. More like theater, which has its own plethora of problems, but different ones and these don't necesserily stem from technology.
Another point I disagree is:
"Also the production of content is cheap compared to the cost of performance."
It really depends on the music. A good studio still costs quite a lot, and there is good reasons for that. What does a small group need for a concert? Except of course flight tickets, if the members live thousands of kilometers apart :P
Or do you mean duplication by "production", as of pressing CD's, releasing digital etc.?
Your analogy seems a bit far fetched. There is a huge difference between original paintings and reproductions. In music, there is no difference between the copy and the original. So you are "luckier" than musicians, you have something to sell other than yourself, as a commenter above remarked.