What happens if no-one pays for music?

[Fred Keller]

Nobody's going to argue about the benefits and enjoyability of the amateur picker, the community music get-together, the busker and the jam... but shouldn't it be possible for someone to make a living playing music? Does it HAVE to recede into the past because technology allows floating ethics (i.e., I'll pay for the computer but not the music)? It'd be a sad day when I am no longer allowed to buy the new Compton/Thile/name-your-artist CD because THEY AREN'T MAKING THEM.

And it's not just a situation where you "go gig more." There aren't as many gigs, less people come to them, and venue owners are less likely to take chances. The only way a musician can make anything approaching a living wage is to have multiple revenue streams. That means people need to pay for recorded music.

If this makes me a luddite, an old fogey, a technophobe, and out of step with the New World Order then so be it. I can at least claim that I haven't altered my morality to suit the gadgetry-du-jour.

[terzinator]

but shouldn't it be possible for someone to make a living playing music? Does it HAVE to recede into the past because technology allows floating ethics (i.e., I'll pay for the computer but not the music)? It'd be a sad day when I am no longer allowed to buy the new Compton/Thile/name-your-artist CD because THEY AREN'T MAKING THEM.

This is a great point, Fred. But I don't think that recorded music will go away. I think the big producers and record companies might, though.

Like was mentioned earlier, it's easier to record stuff yourself these days. Pro Tools, great mics, limitless digital storage, etc... I still see people making recordings, but producing them themselves. The CD-distribution model will go away, that's pretty likely. And maybe sooner than we think. And that's a pretty expensive model. Self-produced and recorded albums will be cheaper to make. Maybe more recordings of live performances, too. And hopefully, the artist will still be able to make a living. Download from itunes or cdbaby or amazon or whatever. And your websites and facebook and your recordings can help promote the live music.

But, we do play rather old-fogey music, don't we? The technology will always evolve, and we gotta learn to embrace it. Or at least embrace our decision to dismiss it.

Like you have in your sig: "Mandolin teacher (in person and skype)"... Looks like you're finding new (high-tech) ways to reach more students!

Anyway, time to learn another fiddle tune. Beaumont Rag is giving me fits.

[Mike Snyder]

Busking usually pays for a cup of coffe and gas to get home, for me, if it's not too far. I'll never stop as long as my fingers will still fret the mandolin and banjo, because that's when I feel I'm really making music. The money in the case is secondary and hopefully I'll never have to rely on it to survive, but the kids dancing in front of me make me feel that someday one or two of them will take up a musical instrument and entertain themselves, their kids or grandkids or the neighbors and so become an integral part of the community, the part that provides home-made entertainment. The monthly payment to cable TV, the $110 plus concert tickets and the cruise to the Bahamas are expectations that WILL DIMINISH for many. Reading a book or playing an instrument will always be viable and affordable entertainment. The music I love was being made in the mountains of the Ozarks and Kentucky before anyone paid much more for it than a meal and a jug of 'shine. I'm doing the same thing my Grandfather Parker did in Mountain View Missouri between the Wars. I can make real music for real people and they're dancing right in front of me.

[mrmando]

I'm doing the same thing my Grandfather Parker did in Mountain View Missouri between the Wars.

Small world, Mike ... my wife is from Mountain View.

I get the sense that label contracts ain't what they used to be. SHEL has signed with a label and yet here they are, raising funds for their next recording on Kickstarter. Obviously the label didn't give them much of an advance, so they're getting the advance from their fans. Not a bad idea when you think about it. Several other artists I follow have gone that route as well. Maybe that's part of the new paradigm that everyone says we need.

[journeybear]

Im not sure how relevant this is but it seems related. This came in from a couple of facebook friends:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...gs-considered/

From the introductory paragraph: Emily White, an intern at NPR All Songs Considered and GM of what appears to be her college radio station, wrote a post on the NPR blog in which she acknowledged that while she had 11,000 songs in her music library, she’s only paid for 15 CDs in her life.

There does seem to be an attitude prevalent these days about music being free. I don’t think that’s what all them hippie bands had in mind when they started throwing free concerts and encouraging taping of shows, but it seems to have led to this, somehow. I have to admit, I have always thought it strange that when I put a CD into my computer, Windows Media Player automatically rips it. Yes, I know it’s set to do this, it’s just the terminology is so similar to "rip off." And then of course it is so easy to burn a CD and give to friends or whomever, instead of them buying their own copy. Again, terminology - musicians are getting "burned." But it is impossible to stop people from doing this.

[Fred Keller]

Journeybear: That's the response and the original article that, as I understand it, precipitated this thread and a host of debates around Webderland.

[catmandu2]

If this makes me a luddite, an old fogey, a technophobe, and out of step with the New World Order then so be it. I can at least claim that I haven't altered my morality to suit the gadgetry-du-jour.

I am absolutely with you there fred...if there is anything it is my bohemian fashion ethic that I take great pride in

[John Flynn]

My perspective is that it's getting harder and harder to find any music worth buying or stealing. And I don't think it's because profits are down. First, I don't think real artists get into it for a profit motive. Second, it seems to me the "popular" (cr@p) musicians out there are still making a bundle along with the "suits" who back them. I frankly have a hard time caring about either side of this issue.

[OldSausage]

My perspective is that it's getting harder and harder to find any music worth buying or stealing. And I don't think it's because profits are down. First, I don't think real artists get into it for a profit motive. Second, it seems to me the "popular" (cr@p) musicians out there are still making a bundle along with the "suits" who back them. I frankly have a hard time caring about either side of this issue.

Well, I guess this might partly explain why you're finding it harder to find music worth listening to, although considering the number of extraordinarily excellent artists that blankets, it seems a little premature. The article isn't really so much concerned with really popular artists who probably are doing okay, but rather working musicians who do it for love but still deserve to be able to earn a living.

[belbein]

I'm firmly with the artists on this, and I'm firmly opposed to the "kids," including mine, who don't see anything wrong with getting it free, i.e., stealing it. We can try educating, but I can tell you that I have tried educating the young people in my area of influence for 24 years and had absolutely no effect. There's something about that crowd that's odd: I don't know what it is, but maybe it's that since everything on the Internet is brought right to their desks or phones without them having to trouble themselves, they don't understant that someone has made that art and should be compensated. As I said, I've been trying to understand the thinking on this for decades, and just don't get it.

There's no doubt that the music biz has changed over my life time. And what's changed is that the industry is in the process of killing itself. Meanwhile a whole generation of performers have figured out that with the internet to help them market, they don't need the record labels. As a young Hip Hop performer/producer said to me one day in Starbucks, "When they give me an advance, they're actually loaning me my own money--and I'd rather borrow from myself." Artists aren't as a rule great at economics, but he was right on, and now the Internet lets him do the marketing the record labels might have. That's tremendous progress, in one sense: nobody in Austin/Nashville/New York/Atlanta is picking what's "hot." The Indies are starting to figure out "airplay" and "distribution," too, which is great. OK, it also makes it harder now that there's a huge cloud of Indies competing to get noticed. Sure, it'll get spread more thinly, but that's fairer than having one commercially-pre-digested crapola artist chosen by some who-died-and-made-you-king executive in one of the aforesaid metropolises pick winners and losers.

Now, if writers could just figure out a way to kill off the publishing industry ...

[SincereCorgi]

This is a great point, Fred. But I don't think that recorded music will go away. I think the big producers and record companies might, though.

Like was mentioned earlier, it's easier to record stuff yourself these days. Pro Tools, great mics, limitless digital storage, etc... I still see people making recordings, but producing them themselves...

I think statements like this ignore how much knowledge and money and manpower go into making certain kinds of recordings (and I say that as somebody who likes 'bedroom' music). You might be able to record something like 'The Kitchen Tapes' much better with a modern laptop, but you'll be saying goodbye to grand opera and Sinatra records with the big gorgeous string arrangements and gonzo studio indulgences like 'Tusk'. You can't really make those sorts of recordings without a lot of money and infrastructure... well, I guess maybe you could end up with the age of Kickstarter opera recordings, but I'm not exactly optimistic.

[journeybear]

Journeybear: That's the response and the original article that, as I understand it, precipitated this thread and a host of debates around Webderland.

Oh, OK. My computer choked and almost died on the link in the OP. Well, guess the article I referenced WAS relevant, after all.

[Ivan Kelsall]

IMHO,the record companies shot themselves in the foot a long while back by promoting 'boy bands' & 'girl bands' with an appeal limited to an age group where anything that lasts longer than 6 months is out of date already.Then they have to move onto the 'next big thing' & the farce begins all over again. Not too many years ago,there were bands/groups of all types with an appeal ''across the board'' who regularly released recording which folks of all ages would by. By limiting the type of bands on offer,they've severely reduced their customer base. Imagine if the only 'acoustic band' recordings available were by the 'new style' bands ie. The Punch Brothers / The Infamous Stringdusters etc.. For the 'trad.' Bluegrass lovers,there would be nothing to buy.
These days the bands who's recordings i used to buy mostly get their beer money from live gigs & the continuing sale (albeit re-packaged) of their old recordings. I'm thinking of bands such as the Eagles / ZZ-Top/Rolling Stones.
The other way in which i believe the record companies have taken a wrong turn,is by providing access to music downloads on-line instead of offering a recording in the usual way. Did they ever think that there wouldn't be illegal downloads ??. If something goes on the I'net,there will always be some geek who can get it for free & maybe sell it on at a low cost.The record companies get nothing.I think that they've painted themselves into a corner they now can't get out of. Short sightedness in the types of bands /music they offer & in the audience that they've chosen to target has left 'em high & dry. They're loosing money
hand over fist. One way to get some cash back,would be to re-appraise their marketing & look for music styles that have a far wider appeal.I honestly can't say that i feel any sympathy for the plight of the record companies,seeing as how it was self inflicted. I do however feel that millions of folk have been forgotten by these companies.They've provided very little in terms of music for the say 'over 30's'. I don't know for sure,but there must be bands who's music would have an appeal to us 'older folk' & who's recordings we'd buy,but until record companies get over the 'make a quick buck & move on' attitude,they'll continue to loose money. Providing I'net access to music doesn't help either,as they've found out. Just my opinion,
Ivan

[Fretbear]

The article isn't really so much concerned with really popular artists who probably are doing okay, but rather working musicians who do it for love but still deserve to be able to earn a living.

"Deserves gots nothing to do with it...."
William Munny "Unforgiven"

Being a musician does not come with some kind of privilege that allows it to necessarily make money for you. In many ways it is it's own reward.
I have had at least one guy say to me: "You are so lucky you are a musician..."
You know what? Luck didn't have much to do with it either, more like stubbornness and hard work.
Steve Earle said recently: "I have busked, and would do so again..." I believe he was talking less about an actual realistic way to make money as he was about how he will not be stopped from expressing musically by any confluence of circumstances, real or imagined.

[SincereCorgi]

"Deserves gots nothing to do with it...."
William Munny "Unforgiven"

Being a musician does not come with some kind of privilege that allows it to necessarily make money for you. In many ways it is it's own reward.

Yeah, but this is about people people whose recordings are being circulated and enjoyed... they're 'successful' by most traditional measures and were able to make a living ten or fifteen years ago. Their recordings are still being actively 'consumed', it's not like their recordings have been pushed out by all these dazzling hardworking amateurs with their laptops.

[Mandobart]

In my personal case, I still am a music consumer. Back in the 70's and 80's I bought hundreds of LP's. The music I bought wasn't based on what I heard on the radio; I learned about new artists by word of mouth and underground publications. Most of the money I spent was going back to the record companies. Now, thanks to great podcasts, forae (like this one) and Pandora Radio, I continue to discover the best music you'll never hear on commercial radio. I buy the music (as a download) from the artist's website whenever I can. So I'm still buying music, just now from the artist direct and not thru a record company. I don't want the clutter of more LP's and CD's, so the download is perfect for me.

I think the dilution of the market from a handful of big record companies to thousands of individual artists and indie labels has resulted in skewing the statistics to look like the music industry is sinking, when what is really happening may be the dollars are getting harder to track. Not minimizing piracy; I'm sure it hurts big labels and self-produced artists alike. To me the "new" reality of (legal) internet play, marketing and distribution is a good thing as it allows the artists I enjoy the most to reach more people since they will likely never get broadcast airplay or a major recording deal. I don't feel sorry for the commercially acceptable radio stars or their labels that may be making less money now.

[Beanzy]

Where possible my money goes to the artists directly too, but I was mistakenly buying from iTunes before until a musician I really like told me how little they get and how the discounts are killing off even that little income from those sites. I love to buy CDs at gigs and more especially at festivals where all the artists have their stuff for sale together. I'm waiting until the end of September just so I cna buy direct at one local festival. It's a bit like an old record shop. However they don't often take cards so that limits my spending, which could just be another advantage.

[250sc]

Someone mentioned that artists didn't get into music for the money but they will leave it if they're not compensated. They have dreams of having a family, home, car, etc. From what I've heard about Mr. Monroe, he wanted the money.

and IMHO, busking is humiliating. Like begging on the street.

I supported myself for about 17 years playing music but saw the righting on the wall about 20 years ago and reinvented myself. More musicians will drop out as thing get worse.

[mandocrucian]

[OldSausage]

"Deserves gots nothing to do with it...."
William Munny "Unforgiven"

Being a musician does not come with some kind of privilege that allows it to necessarily make money for you. In many ways it is it's own reward.
I have had at least one guy say to me: "You are so lucky you are a musician..."
You know what? Luck didn't have much to do with it either, more like stubbornness and hard work.
Steve Earle said recently: "I have busked, and would do so again..." I believe he was talking less about an actual realistic way to make money as he was about how he will not be stopped from expressing musically by any confluence of circumstances, real or imagined.

That's as may be, but folks with a family to support and no money coming in will be stopped, like it or not.

[Bertram Henze]

Maybe it gets us back to olden times, when Live Music was the thing.

That's the logical consequence; you're safe from being robbed only by not producing anything portable, i.e. no recording.

Scenario: all musicians who used to make a living from selling their recordings will give up recording altogether. They'll not even do concerts in the classical sense, because they can be videoed doing it. Playing music will become a closed event where you get admission only if you bring either your own instrument and proof that you can play it, or if you are completely naked to prove that you bring no recording device (the dream of any stage-fright-stricken musician come true at last). Composers will still get paid, but only once per song (e.g. for mobile ringtones, movie scores etc.)
This way, only amateur musicians can afford to be famous, because they'll be the only ones left on youtube, and they'll form kind of an open source community, where acknowledgement is the only currency exchanged. They will be much hated by the professionals.

[Steve L]

One thing I've never seen discussed is, for lack of a better word, the "gentrification" of music. When I first started doing this in the 70s, the number of people who actually wanted to be working musicians seemed pretty small and everyone took for granted it was low paying and risky. The Berklee College of Music was one small building in Boston's Back Bay. Most nightclubs and restuarants paid live bands and there were functions like anniversary parties, bowling banquets, retirement parties, etc all through the week. The idea that you would hire someone to play recorded music was unimaginable.

At least in my experience, people who were gigging musicians were blue collar people. As time went on and more people from different socio-economic backgrounds wanted to become professional musicians, they and their families wanted to see it at it as a profession. These people started getting very high levels of musical education that costs a LOT of money. They may come out with an expectation that they're "entitled" to a good living wage playing music. They're not, and no one ever has been. More and more people have been coming into a business where, for the work-a-day player, there is less and less opportunity. You go to some clubs now and they don't pay you anything. You sometimes have to cobble together a "show" where 3 or 4 bands that can maybe draw a dozen people each split the door. There's just a lot more supply than demand when it comes to musicians and I think in some ways, the market is self-correcting. No one may like the result, at least in the short term, but there's never been a constant. We've gone from church posts, to Royal patronage, to dance halls, to vaudeville, to corner bars, big rock concerts, internet phenoms, MTV, big music festivals, etc. The internet/digital world offers a wide range of new opportunities and new models will emerge as they always do, but there will be a reckoning.

Speaking of festivals, the iconic Woodstock only became a free festival when the unexpected numbers of people began tearing down the fences to get in and there was nothing to be done about it. If you ever see the movie Festival Express, similar things happen on that tour. The "music should be free" crowd is nothing new and it's not an educational issue. It's a dark side of human nature issue. I agree with those who think they'll never get the genie back in the bottle. Eventually, someone will invent a new bottle and the fun will start all over again.

[Bertram Henze]

...and IMHO, busking is humiliating. Like begging on the street.

That's the classical Irish view: busking is begging. But I think a busker looks pathetic only if he is a bad musician and you have to give him money for charity instead of respect. Busking will stop being like begging with the quality of the music rising, with superstars taking to the streets, surrounded by thousands of dead-silent people and wondering how to feed them with just five loaves and fishes...

[250sc]

That's the classical Irish view: busking is begging. But I think a busker looks pathetic only if he is a bad musician and you have to give him money for charity instead of respect. Busking will stop being like begging with the quality of the music rising, with superstars taking to the streets, surrounded by thousands of dead-silent people and wondering how to feed them with just five loaves and fishes...

This will never happen but I bet the weather is always nice in your imaginary world too.

I know that Juashua Bell played on the streets (actually subway) as a social experiment. All in all he was ignored. Fortunately, he didn't need to support himself with the pennys he recieved.

A great player busking will starve just like the bad player. No fishes, no loaves. Just degradation.

[farmerjones]

i'm from the "it's always been hard" school. Music to the masses is just a sound-bed to sell beer & condoms. You could always record free AM & FM radio. The genie out of the bottle problem, as i see it, we gave away the quality for free. Now the only thing better than nanosecond sampling is Live Performing Musicians. Hey, i know some of them! In fact, i are one. So it's time to head back to the hollar! It's really only been a 50 years ride, this money music. Grab your ax and pick. Let the little thieves starve.