From the NY Times: Touring Can't Save Musicians in the Age of Spotify

[Dendy Jarrett]

Will the music business EVER find a solid footing again?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/magazine/touring-cant-save-musicians-in-the-age-of-spotify.html?_r=2

 

 

D

[Phil O'Keefe]

From the article:

 

"And yet from a business standpoint, it’s hard to find a model more unsustainable than one that relies on a single human body. This is why we have vice presidents, relief pitchers and sixth men. When applied to music’s seemingly limitless streaming future, the only scarce resource left is the artists themselves. You would think the industry would protect such an important piece of its business model, but in fact, the opposite is true."

 

Why should they? There's no shortage of new acts waiting for their "big break" from the industry, so when someone dies, they just replace them with someone else and the machine keeps grinding on. Same as it ever was. The labels even get a bonus in the form of the increased sales that invariably follow whenever a successful artist passes away.

 

The main point I got from the article is that artists are trying to tour like mad to make up for the lost recording revenue stream, and touring is hard on you / it's hard to be a musician. To that I feel like responding with "well DUH!" I'm not seeing any groundbreaking points in that article, or any proposed solutions.

 

[nat whilk II]

It may not be news to musicians, but I'm not sure the public is so convinced that times are particularly hard for musicians - at least the part of the public I come into contact with.

 

For non-musician music fans, things are pretty great. There's this massive supply of new and old music available 24/7, always some buzz in the media about music and musicians, tons of tours, venues, festivals, clubs, new faces, things always percolating freshly in the media. Things look pretty sweet! (for consumers.) I think there's a tendency to write off the griping about "the industry" as sour grapes, curmudgeonism, bring back the old days, all that sort of thing. Who wants to hear about "how bad things are" when things are so great? How can things be so bad when there's always so many new bands and performers putting out interesting stuff?

 

Portlandia has some brilliant funny-but-sad episodes about millennial blindness to the plight of the struggling musician in the stream-for-basically-free age. Find the episode with Aimee Mann on Netflix - pretty much nails it.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

[Notes_Norton]

A musician's life is not an easy one, and for most of us it requires financial compromises.

 

I've been performing live since the 1960s. I haven't missed a gig - ever. I've even played with a fever of 104. I was in a band where the bass player checked himself out of the hospital to make the gig, and checked back in when it was over.

 

I've had a couple of days when I couldn't sing well, the audience understands. They appreciate that you show up even if you are under the weather and do your best job,

 

I was in a bad that almost 'made it big' once, but our manager and his lawyers couldn't agree with the record company on money. At the price they offered per record, they figured our first release would have to sell a million copies for us to break even with the recording, promotion, and distribution costs. But I did get to play with or warm up for the big stars of the day and was treated by them as an equal.

 

I also have training in electronics. Do I regret going into music instead of becoming an Electronic Engineer? Not for a minute.

 

I am of retirement age, and have no plans to ever do that. What would I do if I retired? Fish? Golf? --- I'd rather play music to an appreciative audience. It's not what I do, it's what I AM.

 

Out of the millions of us that just make our living playing music, there comes a Taylor Swift or Bruno Mars. Most of us never get a record deal, most of us never get stardom, but most of us would rather gig than do anything else.

 

Standing on stage with the mic in my face, sax or wind synth in my mouth, guitar in my hands or any other instrument I play and perform to an audience that is listening, dancing, and applauding is the most fun I can have with my clothes on.

 

I know musicians are exploited because we love it so much. I know we deserve more than we get paid. But I know most of us have not choice. And most of us do not regret making a modest living as a musician.

 

There is risk involved. But it's a small business, and there is risk for most small businesses. It's better than punching a time clock.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Anderton]

Notes understands that making music is what's important for musicians. Some happen to make music that lots of people like, and they're compensated well for it...some directors make movies lots of people like, some car companies make cars that lots of people like...and they make money from it.

 

I made music before I made a living at it, and I would make music if I made no money from it at all...I'm not making it for other people, it's not a product or a commodity. I make it because I love making music. I'm totally fine with the fact that some people think it's some of the best music they've ever heard, and some people would rather listen to a lawnmower. I don't have any interest in doing a calculation on what I could do musically that could "hit it big" because 1) it's not possible, 2) I'm not blonde, young, female, and have really good breasts, nor am I some buff dude who will make the ladies tingle all over, 3) I already have a great gig. Why start all over and reach for the "brass ring"?

 

The reality is I reached for the brass ring when I was a teenager, and had enough "fame and fortune" that I realized it was not what I wanted to do with my life. There were a lot of very positive aspects, but ultimately, the negatives outweighed the positives. I think Taylor Swift is cool and I sincerely hope the positives outweigh the negatives for her, but if one day she just decided to hell with it, I would understand completely.

 

And I would understand completely if 30 years after she was long forgotten by the general public, she posted somewhere that "Standing on stage with the mic in my face, sax or wind synth in my mouth, guitar in my hands or any other instrument I play and perform to an audience that is listening, dancing, and applauding is the most fun I can have with my clothes on."

 

The other day I gave a preview copy of "Neo-" (it's almost done, really it is, really) to a friend because he had a long car trip ahead of him and wanted to hear some new music. I didn't think much of it...run off a copy. Done.

 

After he came back, he said that he had to pull over at one point because one song reached him so much emotionally he started crying.

 

That is why I make music. How much money did I make from him? Nothing. What did I get from him? Priceless.

 

 

[nat whilk II]

It seems to me that there's a shift in topic when the issue of compensating musicians is quickly transmuted into the the issue of artistic integrity.

 

In other words, I don't think musicians should just be satisfied with their artistic integrity as if they are musical monks who have taken a vow of poverty in order to pursue higher things. Artistic integrity does indeed feed the soul but'cha cain't eat integrity for breakfast, nor use it to buy stuff at Costco. The workhorse is worth at least the price of his/her feed if not more. Are musicians less than that?

 

Sure, money corrupts and all that, but most things worth doing for other people are worth being paid for so you can keep doing them and get by.

 

Who in the world else points to the personal satisfaction afforded by their career and says, "so....you need not pay me good people, I shall continue to pursue my art free from the taint of filthy lucre"??? Just suggest that to your plumber.

 

There are zillions of people simply being taken advantage of due to the power big companies exercise over little people - this happens in lots of aspects of economic life. IT'S NOT A GOOD THING AND WE SHOULD RAGE, AND NOT JUST BE CONTENT WITH OUR PERSONAL INTEGRITY AS IF THAT SOMEHOW MAKES IT ALL OK.

 

end of rant

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

 

 

[1001gear]

They just want a bunch of dummies that'll get into the download cue like all good dummies. That is to say, with the convenience comes dependency - just what the investors ordered. On that premise it's pretty simple for the moguls to turn away from live music. I can't say I mind though. It's just the old way to corral dummies. Also deaf people have a hard time congregating and conspiring effectively and other conspiracies.

[MikeRivers]

Poor Justin Bieber. He decided to give up his after-show "meet and greet" because it's wearing him out. Not surprising since, according to reports, upwards of 1500 concertgoers wait in line for a couple of hours to say hello to him - and this is a perk reserved for those who buy a premium show premium show package costing upwards of a grand per head (that's two grand if you're going to wait in line with your sub-teen daughter).

 

Poor guy. I believe he's leaving quite a pile of money on the table. Hope he can still manage to feed his family.

[Notes_Norton]

Making a living playing music means making compromises, not matter how famous your obscure you are.

 

We play a lot of music we love, and some music we wouldn't have learned if the audience didn't request them. Although I must add that I certainly don't mind putting on a different musical hat, getting out of my favorite music zone, and doing a good job at a different kind of expression.

 

I've been around famous musicians and hear them say, "I can't stand doing that song like the record I did years ago. Doesn't the audience understand that I need to grow?" And the other side of the coin. In an interview with Tony Bennett, "I love singing 'San Fransisco'. It's what put me on the map, the fans love it, the fans expect it, and I'm more than happy to please them." I like the Tony Bennett attitude better. Grow with new songs and give the people the old stuff they love. It's a compromise, but a win/win one.

 

If you get real famous, the paparazzi, selfie seekers, autograph hounds, and others will want a piece of you. You can reject that if you want. Me? I think they own a piece of you and you should be happy to let them have it (within reasonable limits). After all, they are the reason you have that Ferrari, 2,000 pairs of shoes or whatever your extravagance might be. No matter how famous you are, you are just another musician, just another singer, and you had a good break. Good for you, I'm happy for you, but don't get a big head about it. Most of the famous musicians I met were just regular musicians and treated other non-famous musicians as their peers. I won't mention the few exeptions.

 

For centuries before the latter part of the 20th century, musicians made music by playing live. Touring, or house gig, or anything in-between. And even in the early 78RPM days of the record industry, records and radios were not profitable for musicians, but just a way to promote their live performances.

 

So what are we talking about? 50 years of record profits vs. millions of years of humans making music? Recording profits were a splash in the pan. A nice one, but for now it's gone at least for most of us.

 

Even in the heyday of records and radio play, the majority of musicians never made it. The majority of those who did were "one hit wonders" or "one CD wonders" who never paid their debt off to the record company with their royalties. The majority of us make our living playing live in front of an audience.

 

Of course there are the stars who make mega-money. Taylor Swift, Beatles, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Al Jolson and so on. Some are famous because they are very good at what they do, they struck a chord with their audiences, and they either happened to be in the right place at the right time or had an 'in' with the business. Others with marginal talent make it because they had good connections and/or promotion.

 

The famous people are just like the rest of us musicians. Some are good, some are not, some are nice people, some are not.

 

I was talking with Tom Scott back in the 1980s. He was staying at the hotel we were gigging at and was doing the Steve and Eydie show. A nice, regular guy, and sometime in our conversation he said something like this (paraphrased but as close as I remember). Somewhere there is a sax player playing in a place like a Holiday Inn in Valparaiso Indiana who could put me in his back pocket. But I knew the right people, showed up on time, showed up straight, and could do the job." No big head there.

 

We were playing at a bar in Cedar Rapids MI when Eric Burdon and his drummer came in (the Animals were at the top of the charts then and they were doing a US tour). Eric sat in with us, when our lounge closed we all went to a late night bar and sat in until that one closed, and then went to a bottle club and sat in until dawn." We didn't get paid for any of that, but had a great time. Most of the people in the audience didn't even know who Eric was (we didn't tell them and they didn't recognize him), We did it because we were brother musicians having a good time doing what we love to do most.

 

Musicians love to play music. It's not what we do, it's what we ARE.

 

My advice is that if you don't have fun playing music live - if it isn't the most fun you can have with your clothes on, don't be a career musician. On the other hand, if it is the most fun you can have with your clothes on, if you are good enough you can have a very happy life being a musician, in spite of the lack of benefits you would have working at a day gig for some big corporation.

 

I think the days of making a fortune on recordings is gone, and I don't know if it will ever come back. And I know the opportunities for non-famous musician gigs have diminished since I was a kid. I think that's sad. If there was any way to get people out from in front of their wide screen TVs and back to public places where there is live music and where they belong, I'd share that with you.

 

I was lucky enough to be born in my generation. I've played music live as a living since 1964 with the exception of 2 short-lived day jobs that taught me that I'm not a normal member of society, and can't be happy working a nine to five doing non-music things. I hope enough of those in the younger generations can have the same blissful life that I'm having.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

Portlandia has some brilliant funny-but-sad episodes about millennial blindness to the plight of the struggling musician in the stream-for-basically-free age. Find the episode with Aimee Mann on Netflix - pretty much nails it.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

Thanks for the tip Nat - I'm a big fan of Aimee's work, so I'll try to track that down.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Musicians love to play music. It's not what we do, it's what we ARE.

 

 

So true it's sig-worthy.

[Ernest Buckley]

In 2006-7 I decided to stop pursuing a career as a "performing songwriter". I think when the magazine went under, so did I.

 

I became so disgusted with the entire music industry that I pretty much spent 2008-2014 listening to classical music and some EDM which I found some of it to be quite good. My wife and kids listen to radio in the car while I practice infinite patience with the music and my family switching stations every couple of seconds. I blame a lot of it on the Internet. Our ability to have everything right now or close to it has pretty much made us very impatient and intolerant. Its sad. I`m not that old but I feel that an entire two generations has passed since my generation was musically relevant. Theres a lot of great music being made but you have to find it and as a musician myself, I make sure the artist get paid... at least my money...

 

The Internet created the age of free and quality has taken a back seat and I don`t think it`ll ever regain its footing.

 

Its not all bad though... I no longer feel I need to sound "current" because there is no current which allows me to do whatever I want with my music so in a way, my own music has become "progressive".

 

"Current" lasts 2 weeks on the radio and then its another face and name. Its so predictable, its heartbreaking. You don`t hear an artist develop anymore... and an artist who actually does have a successful debut is dropped after their second record because it didn`t have repeat success.

 

Unless you`re a musician/composer/songwriter, you don`t understand the theft and the dismal situation.

 

Oh well... my record is coming out later this year. Anyone who wants a copy, I`ll probably give it to them for free... why would they pay for it? Its only music...

[blue2blue]

I posted this in a different thread a few days ago but it seems pertinent here. One hears a lot of doom'n'gloom regarding new business models -- but they appear to be working well for those with the right approach.

 

Over four in five Merlin members surveyed say they're optimistic about the future. Indie labels and distributors from dozens of countries say their digital revenues are growing and streaming services are driving the improvements. A survey of Merlin members revealed 65 percent of members reported overall business growth last year, up from 62 percent the year before. The percent of respondents reporting a decrease in overall revenue improved to 16 percent from 18 percent in 2013.

 

[...]

 

 

The survey, Merlin's third, was conducted in May and June [2015] and reached members spanning 26 countries. The glimpse inside the books of record labels and distributors with 10 percent global digital market share comes two days after Merlin inked a deal for Apple Music.

 

.

Another notable is the finding that growth from subscription and streaming services appears to be compensating for the decline in download revenue for many members. This helps explain why 81.7 percent of respondents reported being either very or somewhat optimistic about the future of their businesses.

 

Nearly three in four Merlin members said their digital revenues increased last year. Roughly 17 percent reported an increase over 50 percent. Streaming revenue increased for almost all -- 98.3 percent -- members and doubled for 17.9 percent of them.

 

 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...scriptions-and

[Anderton]

It seems to me that there's a shift in topic when the issue of compensating musicians is quickly transmuted into the the issue of artistic integrity.

 

In other words, I don't think musicians should just be satisfied with their artistic integrity as if they are musical monks who have taken a vow of poverty in order to pursue higher things. Artistic integrity does indeed feed the soul but'cha cain't eat integrity for breakfast, nor use it to buy stuff at Costco. The workhorse is worth at least the price of his/her feed if not more. Are musicians less than that?

 

The reality is that commercial success depends on making a product people want to buy. No company designs even a cereal box without research and a focus group. The person who designs the cereal box may be the next Picasso, but that's not relevant to making a living by creating products that people want to buy (unless that person's muse just happens to sync up with the public's taste).

 

Next consider a musician who is acclaimed by his peers as making great music. That means nothing unless his peers are sufficient in number to buy the product. There are lots of movies that the critics loved but bombed at the box office.

 

You can't eat integrity for breakfast but you can't eat anything for breakfast if you don't offer a product or service for which people are willing to pay. So really there are (at least) two issues here. One is whether the musician makes it a priority to create a product that's commercially viable. That's an individual decision and I can respect musicians who follow their muse and don't care if they ever sell anything, and I can respect the people like the Brill Building writers because it's damn hard to purposely set out to write a hit and do so.

 

The other is whether musicians are being compensated fairly if they DO create music which enjoys commercial success. Of course, the answer is that they most definitely should be.

 

People can wring their hands that Rihanna's new album was the lowest-selling album ever (including both physical media and streams) to hit number 1 but Adele sold 8 million copies in 2015. Clearly, Adele is making a product that people really want to buy; for whatever reason, Rihanna is not.

 

[Notes_Norton]

You can play music for yourself, you can play music for other musicians, or you can play music for the general public. If you are good enough, you will get the audience you deserve.

 

Back in the 1980s while gigging on a cruise ship I med a guy named Irving Bloom. Irving was in his 80s then (he is no longer with us) and was a long time president of a NY local of the AFofM.

 

He started playing piano for silent movies. "Made $14 a week, more than my father was making". He played in the piano bar on the ship and always had a full bar and a full tip jar. He said that he always played for the general public, and the public never let him down.

 

We remained friends for years. He was a hell of a nice guy and a great musician too.