Greed and the record industry

[Lazaro Vega]

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20131002doesntcare

[BillF]

Food for thought there, Lazaro. Although I use Spotify, I recognize that it's frighteningly impersonal. Everything is served up without discrimination. Someone like me can only make good use of it after doing a great deal of research to find out what's there and how to get at it, which of course is not expected of a Spotify user.

[BillF]

More on Spotify:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/07/spotify-thom-yorke-dying-corpse

[porcy62]

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

[BillF]

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

Do you have Spotify in Italy, Porcy?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

It is not part of the natural order of things that musicians and singers should have a music industry that is interested in boosting their earnings (or even paying them); it's something that happens to a relatively small number of them, and only sometimes.

Why is this news? Why is it a cause of ranting?

MG

[BillF]

It is not part of the natural order of things that musicians and singers should have a music industry that is interested in boosting their earnings (or even paying them); it's something that happens to a relatively small number of them, and only sometimes.

Why is this news? Why is it a cause of ranting?

MG

I note that the ranting on this issue as well as that of European copyright seems to be coming from the wealthiest musicians. Risk of losing a million or two? What sickens me is that the jazz musicians of consummate artistry whom I turn out to see are paid £100 - £300 per gig, while I read that a lesser light in the pop/rock world can expect £75,000.

[medjuck]

The article was just plain silly. Yes owners cam make more money selling a company than keeping it. That's true in all industries, But if they have no income they're not going to get very much for the company.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The article was just plain silly. Yes owners cam make more money selling a company than keeping it. That's true in all industries, But if they have no income they're not going to get very much for the company.

Yeah, but read this bit - in which the writer covers his arse - quite carefully.

" can make money without ever selling -- or even streaming – all the music they 'stock'."

The key getout word is ALL. So, if they don't sell one copy ever of either album by Kande Sy, she's still got material out there and the company is providing a service for those as wants to listen to a talented young Soninke singer, very popular in Mali, where they don't generally download or spotify. So, if it's only me in the western world, that's it, ain't it? It don't cost 'em much.

He's not saying these firms aren't selling plenty of whatever's number one anywhere in the western world. Or even number 250.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

It is not part of the natural order of things that musicians and singers should have a music industry that is interested in boosting their earnings (or even paying them); it's something that happens to a relatively small number of them, and only sometimes.

Why is this news? Why is it a cause of ranting?

MG

I note that the ranting on this issue as well as that of European copyright seems to be coming from the wealthiest musicians. Risk of losing a million or two? What sickens me is that the jazz musicians of consummate artistry whom I turn out to see are paid £100 - £300 per gig, while I read that a lesser light in the pop/rock world can expect £75,000.

Dunno why it should sicken you, Bill. That IS part of the natural order of things. This ain't the thirties and they're not Cab Calloway.

MG

[BillF]

It is not part of the natural order of things that musicians and singers should have a music industry that is interested in boosting their earnings (or even paying them); it's something that happens to a relatively small number of them, and only sometimes.

Why is this news? Why is it a cause of ranting?

MG

I note that the ranting on this issue as well as that of European copyright seems to be coming from the wealthiest musicians. Risk of losing a million or two? What sickens me is that the jazz musicians of consummate artistry whom I turn out to see are paid £100 - £300 per gig, while I read that a lesser light in the pop/rock world can expect £75,000.

Dunno why it should sicken you, Bill. That IS part of the natural order of things. This ain't the thirties and they're not Cab Calloway.

MG

It's regrettable that this is the natural order of things.

[paul secor]

It is not part of the natural order of things that musicians and singers should have a music industry that is interested in boosting their earnings (or even paying them); it's something that happens to a relatively small number of them, and only sometimes.

Why is this news? Why is it a cause of ranting?

MG

I note that the ranting on this issue as well as that of European copyright seems to be coming from the wealthiest musicians. Risk of losing a million or two? What sickens me is that the jazz musicians of consummate artistry whom I turn out to see are paid £100 - £300 per gig, while I read that a lesser light in the pop/rock world can expect £75,000.

Dunno why it should sicken you, Bill. That IS part of the natural order of things. This ain't the thirties and they're not Cab Calloway.

MG

It's regrettable that this is the natural order of things.

I guess that it's easy to accept "the natural order of things" if you're not a musician trying to make a living.

[ejp626]

It is not part of the natural order of things that musicians and singers should have a music industry that is interested in boosting their earnings (or even paying them); it's something that happens to a relatively small number of them, and only sometimes.

Why is this news? Why is it a cause of ranting?

MG

I note that the ranting on this issue as well as that of European copyright seems to be coming from the wealthiest musicians. Risk of losing a million or two? What sickens me is that the jazz musicians of consummate artistry whom I turn out to see are paid £100 - £300 per gig, while I read that a lesser light in the pop/rock world can expect £75,000.

Dunno why it should sicken you, Bill. That IS part of the natural order of things. This ain't the thirties and they're not Cab Calloway.

MG

It's regrettable that this is the natural order of things.

I guess that it's easy to accept "the natural order of things" if you're not a musician trying to make a living.

I'm not really sure what the alternatives are. It's already questionable that governments, particularly in Europe, support opera and classical concerts when this is clearly an elite interest. Should they really do the same for gigging jazz musicians? And what would be a reasonable cut-off point?

Of course it sounds harsh because it is something we care about, but should the governments of the 1910s and 1920s have kept blacksmiths in business (after horse-drawn conveyances fell by the wayside) or the proverbial buggy-whip manufacturers? Almost nobody cares about jazz anymore, certainly not enough to support these musicians in any reasonable fashion. What would be nice is if the U.S. had a decent safety net, but it really never did, and it certainly doesn't now.

[JSngry]

Ok, I've read this article several times now, and although I feel the rage-pain, this guy is essentially a whiner.

Here's why:

Certainly, no one is disputing the fact that artists have always been commoditized to a degree; that is, their music was a 'product' to be peddled, sold or used by others to make money. From recording studios, to labels, to distributors, to press to radio, to retail — the artist was the necessary means to a variety of parties' monetary ends. However, in today's industry there is a profound lack of transparency of how and why the artist is being used to make money

.

No, I'd say that there's more transparency now than ever. Infinitely more. Most of the young players I know are illusion-free about the business today.

Couple that with this:

...many of the board members and management of these new companies are not from the world of the music industry; they are from the world of technology, banks, software, hedge funds, private equity or technology firms that have no background in the music industry.

Their goal is to get as high a financial return as quickly as possible by taking the company public or getting bought – both of which can be done without selling the 'product' they carry. There is no reason or incentive to build an artist's career or sell the music.

Well, DUH. Business people are running businesses and doing what business people do - finding ways to make a profit.

And finally:

Companies generating revenue from music, while no longer needing to sell it to make money, combined with management of many of these companies being from outside the music industry is a lethal mix for artists. One they may just not survive.

By the time the owners of these new companies 'exit' reaping billions of dollars, a sea of decimated artists may be left in their wake wondering what the hell happened.

And the inheritors and owners of this new industry might just find themselves wishing someone actually cared about the artist as without them, there is no long term growth or industry to 'monetize' for anyone.

What this all adds up to for me is this - Business is doing what business does. Get over it. Stop worrying about "artists" being "destroyed" by a system that clearly is not predicated on the need for them to do so. The smart money is on positioning for the future, when, hopefully, the real artists, the ones who have something to say that has no predication whatsoever on "moving product", don't even bother with the traditional business models and find a way to get heard by those who want to hear them that they can control, or at least influence. I probably won't live long enough to see that really happen, but jeez, this guy is all like THE DINOSAURS ARE DYING, WE'RE ALL GONNA STARVE TO DEATH instead of hmmm...wonder what else we can eat, and where can we move to find it?

I remember when The Internet was going to mean an end to The Music Business As We Know It because artists could now control the means of distribution themselves. So, what happened? All This Power went...where, exactly? How? Why?

The business people were behind the curve, they kept trying to sell music, and then they realized they didn't have to, because that's not what most people want to buy these days. So they got ahead of the curve. Now it's the "artists" who are behind the curve.

There's too much music that doesn't distinguish itself, and therefore is dependent upon the kindness of strangers. Where are the people willing to just say Fuck You, Music Business and just make the stuff, document as needed, and then wait (yes, WAIT) for a Need That Cannot Be Met Any Other Way to develop?

Until then (and for everybody else), supply is exceeding demand. Prices are lower than ever and so is quality, but hey - the people who know what the people want are giving it to them, and they are making money (or so this guy says).

Tell me again - how did Charles Ives make a living?

[David Ayers]

MG and Jim both have good points. Jim's last point - that there is oversupply of of music and musicians - is the basic point. If all the people who had written a first-time novel came out demanding a living wage fro their work...well, I don't need to explain why that is a nonsense and could never happen. It is sweet that people feel so defensive of the earnings rights of the (often dead) musicians they admire, sweet too that they think jazz may be as worthy as the classical and opera genres which business likes to subsidy. But classical and opera are sell-out genres and much outside certain mainly U.S. institutions jazz - whose history is more or less over - is unlikely ever to [...insert opinion here...]. Breakfast time!

[paul secor]

Tell me again - how did Charles Ives make a living?

Bad example, Jim. Charles Ives' work running an insurance company while he composed in the evenings and on weekends led to a series of heart attacks at a relatively early age which robbed him of the energy to write music.

[JSngry]

So? He got his work done, it was damn good, and it survived to be heard.

See, this whole "I wanna be heard NOW" thing is what's feeding the current state of affairs. Supply is exceeding demand like, a gazzillion-fold. People are NOT gonna get paid in an environment like that/this. People just gonna get slaved while they try to "live the dream" or some such.

Everybody dies, and nobody knows when. So, what do you leave behind, when do you start making it, and who do you let have it?

[paul secor]

So? He got his work done, it was damn good, and it survived to be heard.

"Tell me again - how did Charles Ives make a living?"

"Making a living" destroyed his health and left much of his work undone. Your comment, "So?", is pretty uncaring, perhaps even ignorant, given those circumstances.

I'm sure you'll have some sophistic answer, but I'm not interested.

Edited October 8, 2013 by paul secor

[JSngry]

Well, on the one hand we have concern for "artists", which I assume means their "art", because otherwise, hey, we're just looking at somebody/anybody, and no way you can be sorry about everything for everybody. I'm good with that.

On the other hand, we have the concern for "making a living", which is not the same as "making a living from one's art". And that's where some problems arise.

It's abundantly clear that the "system" as it is currently constructed does not have as even a tangential interest in providing "artists" an opportunity to "make a living" from their art. Hell, it's barely set up to allow for the making of a living from one's craft.

It may or may not be "fair", but it definitely is what it is.

So instead of worrying about "why does the system do what it does instead of what I want it to do"?, perhaps the better question is "how am I going to get my shit down and done and not let these bloodsuckers drain me dry?". That's the question where there's multiple answers.

And ok, if not Charles Ives (I still say people die, and at least he died having gotten it down and done, so the win is still his), how about Roy Haynes? You think he made a living all these just years playing drums? No - for years he was a rep for a liquor distributorship, or some such. Or let's talk about all the guys who have had essential (if invisible) support assistance from their wives/girlfriends/etc. Or the folks who make livings as teachers, repair technicians, computer programmers, all sorts of other things. some of them give up and fade out, but some still keep it going and keep getting it down and done (yes, you, Allen Lowe, yes, you!). They survive instead of allowing themselves to get held prisoner by a system that is not in their best life interests.

Hell, in the old days, you wanted to make a living, you were either itinerant, or else you had a patron (and most recently, advertising/film music/etc. was the patron). Failing the inclination to be the former and the absence of the latter, what is one left to do?

You either quit altogether, or else you find a way top do what you can do when you do it, and then let life do its thing.

That's nobody's first choice, but it's quite often one's best option.

[GA Russell]

I think the biggest problem for jazz musicians today is that the jazz fans don't know about what new records are available.

I'm not aware of a website whose jazz fans are more knowledgeable than this one, and for the past couple of years we haven't talked much about new releases. It's not that we don't care, it's that we don't know. And if we don't know, who does?

Fifty years ago the jazz labels provided a service by promoting in Downbeat their latest offerings. Today, Mack Avenue and its peers don't seem to have the same influence.

[JSngry]

Upon further reflection...yes, the "So?" does sound harsh, insensitive, whatever.

But not meant that way, except that these are the choices that anybody with creative ambitions have always been faced with. This is not a new situation, although it might be as stark a reality as we've seen in our lifetimes, outside of living in some totalitarian regime and literally having to choose between your life and you art. Now that's hardcore.

Otherwise...decisions have to be made, and all decisions have consequences. Oliver Nelson is another guy who worked himself into an early grave, and he didn't do it for lack of opportunity. Quite the opposite. So yeah, maybe had he slowed down, he might have lived longer, and he'd have done a lot more, better work. But maybe not. It's a moot point now, as it is with Ives, and as it is with Bird, and for so many others. There's always infinite "what if"s, and "if only"s. Always.

Point being just this - "making a living" and "making a living from your art" are not the same thing, and the only real cost/benefit ratio is the one that you can figure when the life and the work are both done.

Me personally, I'll lament everybody not living in a perfect world (or even a good one) far less than I will me not figuring out how to survive in it without getting totally punked. And how i do that...if I was Charles Ives, I'd probably make/take his deal. Me most assuredly not being Charles Ives, probably not. At least not all of it.

But that's between Charles Ives & Charles Ives, and between me and me.

[Chuck Nessa]

Cream used to float to the top. Now there is less and it just disburses.

[king ubu]

I think the biggest problem for jazz musicians today is that the jazz fans don't know about what new records are available.

I'm not aware of a website whose jazz fans are more knowledgeable than this one, and for the past couple of years we haven't talked much about new releases. It's not that we don't care, it's that we don't know. And if we don't know, who does?

Fifty years ago the jazz labels provided a service by promoting in Downbeat their latest offerings. Today, Mack Avenue and its peers don't seem to have the same influence.

Not sure ... hardly a musician can live from releasing CDs anyway, so why should that be an issue? People wouldn't spend 25 times more if they had more ways to find out, it would still only be the tiny top selling bunch that would actually earn much that way.

Also, the information you're looking for is so hard to gather as there are hundreds and hundreds of labels ... and thousands of musicians who need a new disc every other year to get gigs and stuff (not that they earn money, often they actually pay for the disc - or get stacks of it as payment) but it's kind of a business card still, it seems (well, I can relate to that ... I preferrably buy physical product only, too ...)

[AllenLowe]

I tend to think that somebody who's got something to say will say it no matter - and I tend to agree with Jim, with Ives as an example; I never was aware that his heart attacks were related to his day gig; is there documentation of this? My day gig is torture, yes, but he made more money than I do, in relative terms. Though the odd thing is that I also have the feeling that if I had not been in as culturally backward a place like Maine all these years, I might not have done as many interesting things as I have done. So it worked out, though I am ready to get the f*** outta here asap. But sometimes it all sorta balances out. As someone else pointed out, if Solzyneitisn (spell it any way you want) wrote novels while he was in the Gulag, we can do something while we suffer in Suburban hell. And it's ALWAYS good, from a quality standpoint, not to be in academia, though I wouldn't turn them down either. And Lewis Porter, at Rutgers these many years, is to my ears the most interesting pianist performing today.

and by the way, wanted to mention that mastering engineers HAVE changed my life - David Baker, John R.T. Davies, Doug Pomeroy....

Edited October 10, 2013 by AllenLowe

[porcy62]

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

Do you have Spotify in Italy, Porcy?

I don't do download, stick to lps, and unavoidable cds, so I didn't know but from my computer spotify home page is in italian, so I presume it exists over here.