May 3rd, 2007
Musicians: Will Play For Food?
Today at work, a co-worker commented to me “I don’t pay for music. It’s free. Maybe I’ll pay for a band live, but if it’s out there I’m taking it. Who cares if they make money. When they fail, someone else will be right there to take their place.” Being that both of us are in the content-for-sale biz, I was pretty surprised to hear that. So are artists destined for a life of poverty in this bold new area?
Some think so. According to an article at today’s Digital Music Wire, one attendee at the Millennials Conference felt that “In the future, musicians will make as much money as potters.” Article author Scott Goldberg then goes on to point out that, although he listens to more music now than ever before, he buys none of it. The simple reason ” music has dropped astronomically in value” due to oversupply.
A more rosy picture is painted by Jeff from SpinArt Records and Tunecore. I recently interviewed him about the model for his business (that will be posted in full shortly on IndieHQ.) He thinks that the democratization of distribution (for which he is the messenger) lays the foundation for artists to stand out without the need for labels. How will they rise above the unwashed masses? Through digital media exposure in an era where the collective hive mind of social media and networks is just as powerful as the MTV of the past. To demonstrate, he pointed out that this band’s HORRIBLE HORRIBLE cover of Europe’s Final Countdown is potentially better known than SpinArt artist Frank Black (of The Pixies), who’s had more traditional marketing dollars spent on his behalf over the years than that band ever will.
The third perspective on this was added during a recent Lefsetz series of posts concerning the band Cartel and their reality show marketing gimmick. One comment was that carreer artists are dead, and that all anyone can hope for now is a flashmob, courtesy of some hip-for-the-moment video.
Clearly I know that there’s simply too much out there, and the “middle class” of labels either have to step up into massive marketing, or return to the basements from whence they came. This inability to have a sustainable business by selling music is the reason my label hasn’t released any new stuff in almost a year. The adage of “paper not refusing ink” in the digital age is now at epidemic proportions and I don’t have the time to “do it for fun” or pockets deep enough to compete with the likes of a Trustkill, Ferret, or Victory.
Ongoing there will be two classes of artists. On the one side you’ll those who are funded heavily (through talent incubators a/k/a label-managers) and can perpetually dominate social media with tons of new free content. In an ironic twist, they’ll also be the ones who’ve sold their entire creative lives to that same talent incubator, who owns them lock, stock, and barrel. On the flipside there will be those that write good songs but are unable to keep up the rapid pace of a marketplace that changes at hyperspeed, those whose main sense of satisfaction will be those 5 days where their homemade video rises to the top.
Please sir, can I have some more?
Written by Bill Wilson
Subscribe
View more articles about
On May 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
Tim said:
I think that this is a very interesting topic. Having started in the Boston DIY scene in high school and then further in college and then finding my way into the music biz I look back now that i am no longer in the ‘biz’ side after working for 3 major labels and twice as many indies i can say this. Whether you are a musician, performer or whatever, you don’t get into this for the money. For me, music was my first and forever love but as I worked in the system my love and experience with music changed and you find yourself making comprimises that as a fan you wouldn’t.
In response to the comments above I have to state that Rock is not dead, Hip-Hop is not dead, music is alive and thriving. I am 100% in favor of musicians getting paid for their creations. Art should always play a huge part in society and it is often the epicenter for social commentary. I’ve attended a few music conferences of late and it seems that many of us, both from the biz side and from the artist side are scared because technology has changed art. Music has always been the bastain of the entertainment industry but its also the testing ground. MP3 came before online video.
What is dead is imagination. As an artist you should feel liberated, you don’t need a big grinding record label anymore. What happened to DIY in the 21st century? I remember making cut and paste fliers and playing shows up and down the east coast at elks lodges and community halls. If you actually HAVE something to say people will listen.
We’ve been fed that the CD is the end all be all and yet it seems every few months a new format of DVD comes out. What everyone needs to realize is its not about the round piece of plastic, its about the content. The CD will be dead, and sooner than most people want to realize it. But its all about the content. If you have a song that is compelling you can create other revenue streams than just CD, dowloads, merch, licensing are all obvious avenues every artist should be doing but i think many of us fall into the trap of claiming that this is dead or that is dead.
There are means of music distribution and retail that no one has thought of yet. Soon there will be a 3D internet and fans will be purchasing products through video games and new media channels. Retain the rights to your music or get a good publishing team behind you. Surround yourself with music mavens (marketing, management, merch, booking) and go make some good music that rocks!
You don’t become a painter or a photographer or a musician to get rich and if you do your art probably isn’t all that great. Go make something meaningful and others will flock to pay for it, just maybe not in the past traditional means. Put tradition aside.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 am
Bill Wilson said:
a follow up….
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/05/01/analysis-what-is-the-role-of-the-artist-in-a-digital-age
On May 5th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Steve-o said:
right, but kids don’t want to go see bands very often any more either. They have to be a pretty well known band to get any kind of attendance, and I’ve seen this outside of Pittsburgh. Its almost too easy to make music. And most of the kids listening to music are using it as a soundtrack and nothing more. They have no heart!
You might be able to get a job w/ my company in their marketing department if you ever feel like selling out. We have some good sushi places in town. ; )
On May 6th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
ChrisC said:
I do believe in a lot of the points, but in your statement: The adage of “paper not refusing ink” in the digital age is now at epidemic proportions and I don’t have the time to “do it for fun” or pockets deep enough to compete with the likes of a Trustkill, Ferret, or Victory.
Reason why those 3 labels are successful, is because they are signing bands that will sell or have a great chance at selling. Not saying bands you’ve signed are bad or what not, but to me they aren’t as marketable as let’s say Chimaira or Every Time I Die.
In this day in age, unless you are signing bands that have a chance of selling, you’re on the backburner. And when I say “selling”, I’m not just talking CD sales. I’m talking revenue from ringtones, tours, sponsorships, and the list goes on.
On May 7th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Bill Wilson said:
This not a qualitative exercise in “who puts out better bands.” Everyone (especially music buyers) remember all the “big” bands from a label, but very few remember the dozens upon dozens that Tony shits out and sweeps under the rug. At one point in time, Blackout! (H2O) and our short-lived indie imprint Engine (Guided By Voices) was billing over a million dollars a year, between sales, label, & licensing deals. Now we aren’t, but I don’t want a cookie or a hug from anyone. It’s now someone else’s turn.
If you don’t think that marketing budgets play a huge part in positioning a band, you’re deeply and very sadly mistaken. Hardcore / punk/ emo kids today simply soak up the marketing around them. Who’s hot? Those who have publicists that can get them into AP (money), those who can buy full page ads in magazines on a perpetual basis (money) who can produce “viral” videos and hire street teams to execute on them (money). Bottom line is most of these labels are hemmoraging marketing dollars.
I challenge you to find anyone who works at a label who says the same thing you do, and if they do.. have them post a reply here. I’d love to hear it.
On May 7th, 2007 at 11:58 am
ChrisC said:
I never said they put out better bands. Those labels are still pulling in money over the past how many years. They aren’t short-lived labels.
Did I say that marketing doesn’t come into play for position a band? No.
On May 7th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Bill said:
Maybe I don’t understand your choice of words: “chance of selling.”
if you mean by putting in money? Yes, then we agree. Those labels have the ability to put in the money, therefore their artists have a leg up on the rest.
But your comment seemed to be more about how talent and success can be somehow equated. That is where we have a difference of opinion.
On May 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Virgil Dickerson said:
The future for artists and labels in general do not look very promising. Sure there will continue to be bands and labels that remain successful, but there will be a number acts that will never be able to make money from their art. There will also be a ton of middle sized/smaller labels that will be forced to shut their doors as music sales revenue continues to decrease.
The examples of labels that do succeed (the victory’s, ferret’s and trustkill’s of the world) have to be feeling some of the problems the rest of the industry has been. I know that these labels sell a ton of copies, but I would love to see their profit loss / balance sheets at the end of each year. I just wonder with their large marketing budgets, I am curious how many releases are largely profitable. There may be a number that are, but I am sure it is the really big titles that pay for the marketing of the many that don’t stick.
Music is just simply so over saturated and that coupled with the fact that most consumers are not interested in spending money for music, you have some serious problems facing this industry.
The answer? Who knows? The reason I moved my office into my house and cut staff is to reduce my expenses and try to survive in this retail climate.
I do know that if you could download gas and oil from broadband connections, you would see some serious intervention from W and his cohorts. How many businesses will be forced to shut down before some serious legislation or solution is put into place?
On May 8th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Bill Wilson said:
I agree… I think all the labels are bleeding money. What’s the sense in billing 250k a month if you spend 300k to get there? Look at how fast Thorp and Sailor’s Grave burnt out. I love Andy but he did the right thing at the wrong time. (and that’s not shit talking… I think he did a great job.)
Which is why they’re all getting into the touring, merchandise, and mobile biz. This is why you see all the major companies buying percentages of these higher profile businesses.
Everyone’s on a treadmill… you need to push more so your returns don’t kill you.
On May 9th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Dave Allen said:
Simply put, music fans value a bands T shirt more than their CDs. Music is now a commodity that has been brought down to zero in terms of its monetary value. Music’s emotional value remains high though. The trick is to find that sweet spot if one is out to make a buck or two. Something to think about in this music-saturated world - just because you can make music, record a CD, play live etc, does tha mean you deserve a career? Obviously not, talent wins out every time.
Dave Allen, Gang of Four, Pampelmoose.com
On May 11th, 2007 at 9:20 am
beth said:
I don’t think downloading music is taking food out of artists’ mouths. Don’t get me wrong, I believe musicians should be compensated for their hard work. But crappy label deals are what keep them from making money, not filesharing. They see pennies per unit sold in the traditional label/artist relationship, so downloads aren’t going to make much difference.
However, you’re definitely right on there being two classes of musicians, the megahyped, and the underfunded, but I think that downloads could actually be an advantage for the smaller artist, an opportunity to get them the exposure and audience their label cannot.
I agree with Jeff from SpinArt, In the future I’d like to see artists selling their music direct to consumers, no middle man (save distributors), but we know this won’t happen anytime soon.
Ironically it’s the smaller labels and artists who deign to give their music away free anyhow. The RIAA labels are too busy suing grandmas to follow suit.
Digital media could be the death of feudal labels keeping artists as indentured servants. Anyone can get a copy of garage band and produce something decent (presuming they also have talent), and throw it onto MySpace.
On January 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 am
HewHapItene said:
I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links: