Can Music Stand on Its Own in Today’s Entertainment Culture?
Posted on 03. Feb, 2010 by refe in MUSIC INDUSTRY
Has music become a sideshow?
Did you watch the Grammys? I didn’t.
Music’s self-proclaimed “biggest night” celebrated it’s 52nd year this past Sunday with one of the most colorful, over-the-top spectacles in the broadcast’s history. Pink pulled a Cirq Du Sole while dripping wet and suspended from the rafters. Lady Gaga played a duet with a rock and roll icon who more recently has come to resemble a Lady Gaga himself, Elton John. Green Day performed a broadway number, and the Black Eyed Peas dressed up like Tina Turner.
And most likely much of that was set to music.
It’s unfortunate that even on “music’s biggest night” the music itself is relegated to the background – an excuse to dress up and do something ridiculous that might buy you a few more weeks in the blogs and tabloids. Yet that’s exactly how the priorities appeared to shake out on Sunday. Yes, It’s an awards show and awards shows need to drive ratings to stay alive. It’s also a television broadcast, and translating music for a visual medium requires adding an element of interest to the performances. TV doesn’t have the advantage of the living, breathing energy of the club and needs to compensate.
Nevertheless, the Grammys are arguably the most ridiculous awards show on television. Certainly the least sophisticated, with the exception of the MTV music awards. I think that says something about music and the position it holds in the entertainment industry as a whole.
Music’s Position in the Entertainment Hierarchy
In some ways, music is an outdated medium. We’ve lived in a visual world for decades now, with TV and movies dominating entertainment. More recently interactivity has come to the forefront. Music plays an important role in each of these formats, but still hovers somewhere near the background. While music supports the overall effect of the media package, it’s subservient to the visual and interactive elements.
Music as a Celebrity Springboard
You can see this hierarchy in the celebrity world. When popstars reach a certain exposure threshold what do they do? Begin make cameos in movies. Landing a supporting role is like a big-time promotion for a pop singer. The actors who take the opposite route are usually the ones struggling to stand out in the Big Pond of motion pictures. Their agents convince them to take a short swim on down to the slightly smaller music pond where they can be a Big Fish. Take J-Lo for example.
Music as an Entry Point to a Media Empire
For another example just look at Apple. When Apple introduced the iPod and iTunes they revolutionized the way people enjoy music, but they also used these products to position themselves as a major player in the media/entertainment space. Over the past year Apple has shifted their focus heavily towards the mobile gaming industry. Remember that big Apple music event last September? It would have been more accurately billed as an iPod event, because Jobs spent much more time talking about all the great things the iPod touch has brought to video games than the new iTunes LP format. Music was the entry point for Apple, not the end goal.
I don’t say all of this to discount the value of music as an artform, or even as a medium of entertainment. Music has an inherent power that none of these other artforms can claim. With no shapes, colors, faces, no buttons, joysticks or touchpads, music is able to make an unparalleled emotional impact on the listener. Music has a unique way of capturing time and space, and the ability to transport a person back to the important events in their life.
The fact is that our culture has changed, and continues to change.
The Musician’s Role in Culture
Musicians need to figure out where they fit into the larger arts and entertainment picture if they hope to build or maintain sustainable careers. Maybe this means accepting the subservient role music has been dealt over the past two decades and focusing on licensing for film and television, or video games and Rock Band. Maybe it means trying to break this mold and attempting to capture the world’s attention again the way rock and roll did in the 60’s and 70’s.
Perhaps the reason why the Grammys feel so irrelevant and inauthentic is that the organizers appear to try to ignore music’s new role in entertainment and pretend that music is still king, while at the same time desperately relying on non-musical spectacle to get anybody to care.
What are your thoughts? Can music stand on it’s own in today’s entertainment culture or must it be paired with spectacle to be remain a viable industry?
47 Responses to “Can Music Stand on Its Own in Today’s Entertainment Culture?”
Leave a Reply
 |
 |
-
Fan Participation and the Democratization of Music
-
Music and Tech Recap - February 2010 Edition
-
State of the Music Business at the Millennium Music Conference
-
Kevin English: Hi Brian. Thanks for stopping by! It's true. La...
-
Brian John Mitchell: It's interesting to me not only how few musicians ...
-
wesbnkkmuzik: The list is just great help to indie artist, thank...
-
Gabriel Nijmeh: Thanks Refe... it is tough keeping up with the mas...
-
-
refe: Great recap Gabe. Love the overview of new music s...
-
Suzanne Lainson: I see a few musicians who excel across a variety o...
Julie D.
03. Feb, 2010
Do you remember the time… When the Grammys were a stuffy old respectable award show? And the VMAs were hot, not the new Source Awards. And the BET awards didn’t actually exist?
You’re dead on about how our culture is shifting away from music and into spectacles– costumes and dance crazes dominate the day. The lesson to be learned here though is that culture can shift so dramatically in such a short period of time. Its more important now than ever to press forward and integrate music into peoples lives. You say its become a backdrop, I say its become the landscape. Nothing is quite as appealing without it. Its just a matter of being recognized as such and being used to shift the focus back.
Manuel
03. Feb, 2010
Hi, I agree that music alone isn’t a megaseller anymore: It’s getting harder to get well-paid shows and I will not get into selling records here! As a band, we could either stick our heads into the sand and cry OR explore new markets! These days we give hands-on hip-hop lectures at schools and youth centres. Now guess what? These kids acutally buy our records after the workshops and once they’re old enough to get into a club, even return as paying visitors at our shows.
Kevin English
03. Feb, 2010
Another tough question Refe! I don’t have answer. No one does. That is what makes this climate so exciting for people us. Its totally within all of our reach to find ways to make music valuable again. Thanks for the thought provoking post.
Best,
Kevin
HubertGAM
03. Feb, 2010
I would say your assertion is a bit heavy. Everything has its place. Most films would be nothing with music. A lot of music needs a visual accompaniment to really be felt.
Music can stand on its own for those that prefer to listen to things than any other sensory functions. For the average person, I believe we appreciate for all senses to be engaged. I know I do.
That said, I feel your pain. It seems like the music industry has become a spectacle. There is more to it than that. What you are talking about is more of a comment on things in general. Businesses are clamoring to do whatever it takes to get a few extra seconds of your attention, so advertising is ridiculous as well. My local tax service pays someone to dance on the corner with a sign in their hands all day and it is 30 degrees [Fahrenheit] outside.
Lady Gaga, KE$HA and Katy Perry are a sign of our times, just listen to their lyrics. You have to be over-the-top to get people’s attention. Or else, you need to do a better job of finding those that get what you do. It is a greater question of what to call the two business-styles (showy versus self-aware).
refe
03. Feb, 2010
Great comment Hubert. You’re absolutely right – this perceived need to go over the top is not exclusive to the the music industry. I think a big force that is driving this showy gimmick-driven marketing is actually social media itself! While many businesses are using it to build real customer relationships many, many others are using it as a tool to make a big PR splash.
With that said, however, music is in a unique position in the entertainment industry. It is the least sensory of all the popular entertainment formats (meaning the fewest senses are directly engaged) which I believe sets it at a disadvantage when it is primarilty marketed as entertainment.
To clarify: as an art form I don’t think this is a disadvantage at all. But as a form of entertainment it is hard to compete with the increasingly sensory-interactive formats that are available.
But as our culture grows more focused on entertainment and less focused on art…
“Music can stand on its own for those that prefer to listen to things than any other sensory functions.”
This type of person used to be a whole lot easier to find. Today, culture has shifted. Video killed the radio star, and now the app is encroaching on video, etc. The trend moves further into interactivity and further away from single-sense artfroms such as music.
Is this really such a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. But it does present challenges to those musicians who just want to make great music without the circus.
HubertGAM
03. Feb, 2010
See even before I watched a lot of music videos, I have always been one to play music very loud. I didn’t just want to hear it; I needed to feel it too. There is nothing like feeling the warm bass tones of Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue or the cracking drums from “When the Levee Breaks” by Led Zeppelin, so I have never been just a listener.
Now you are right, it is harder to find the people that would rather JUST LISTEN. While it is a challenge for the simple musician, we are giving them the tools they need to actually find their core audiences. We just need them to pay attention to us, so how are we going to do it, Refe? Should we just keep it slow and steady? Or get some koalas, dress them up like monks and record them thrash-dancing to RANCID? ha ha ha!
refe
04. Feb, 2010
I say why don’t we dress ourselves like koala monks and thrash dance to rancid? Creative Deconstruction’s traffic would explode!
And then, three days later, it would all be gone. And we’d have to go back to being a relatively small group of thoughtful individuals discussing subjects we’re passionate about. Darn it!
Wait…
Kevin English
03. Feb, 2010
BTW…I asked a similar question of one of the Grammy’s Community Bloggers At Large and my Twitter buddy @calinative
http://bit.ly/ccNNQZ
Andre Nucci
03. Feb, 2010
I like the ideia of music interacting with visuals, but not in the Lady Gaga kind of way. When your clothes are more important than your music, something is wrong.
But using visuals complementing a live performance is something valid. Live video editing is really cool and brings both worlds together, giving more to your audience. It is a way to extend the music performance.
Will music stand on its own? I don’t know, but I think we are about to find out.
Matt Rod
03. Feb, 2010
This is great. I particularly think Refe has a very interesting point in his first comment on the comments section. And everyone makes valid points.
@Andre Nucci: to be fair, I don’t believe that Lady Gaga’s “clothes are more important than [her] music”.
Her music sales in 2009 speak for themselves:
15 million+ digital downloads (more than ever from a single artist in a year)
2.8 million physical CDs (5th highest behind the Beatles and Michael Jackson).
Are the glamour, provocative lyrics, ‘ridiculous’ performances a part of this success and this attention? Sure they are. But they are certainly not the only reason she has had so much success.
Lady Gaga is not only a musician, but she is an entertainer
And if you really think of it, haven’t most of the greats always been more than just musicians? Haven’t they all been incredible entertainers?
Michael Jackson, Hendrix, Pink Floyd… Tina Turner (I love her hehe)
I think that over-the-topness and attitude has always been a part of the live music show (whether on TV or in a stadium). Perhaps now it is more pronounced and perhaps necessary to call attention to one’s music.
Andre Nucci
03. Feb, 2010
Yeah, i agree with you. Maybe I used a bad example, or not. I guess i just think she’s a bit TOO much. Like Floyd’s concerts are a bit too much. And i’m a huge fan of Pink Floyd.
David O.
03. Feb, 2010
I don’t think music has a subservient role in today’s entertainment culture. American Idol continues to be very popular and that’s just one big example. Music is very popular on the internet, one of the top things people download. The issue is less people want to pay for recorded music. Moreover the labels can’t sell millions of albums with only two or three good songs on it anymore.
“Over-the-top spectacles” has always been a part of music for at least half a decade, it’s not just Lady Gaga, consider bands like Kiss, David Bowie, Gwar, just to name a few, did things some people felt were over-the-top. Funny how you mentioned that Black Eye Peas dress like Tina Turner. If that’s radical for our time think about the time when Tina Turner did it. Tina turner was popular decades ago, and did the things artist are doing today, she appeared in a movie too, the artist of this decade did not start that trend.
refe
03. Feb, 2010
Everything you say is true. This is not all new, but I would still argue that it is becoming more common or “necessary” to get people interested in music.
The examples you cite only serve to prove that this has been going on a long time. That makes sense, because Movies and Television have been around for a long time as well. My point is that as our culture becomes more accustomed to interactivity, music is becoming less interesting or satisfying to entertainment-consumers as a stand alone media.
Don’t you think that perhaps this shift in the way consumers want to be entertained – however long it’s been building – may have at least something to do with declining record sales?
Andre Nucci
03. Feb, 2010
Just want to say something here. I don’t think American Idol is popular mainly because of the music. It could be a dance contest and people would watch it as well. The great thing about American Idol is the show’s format. The music helps, but it sure isn’t the main attraction.
I agree with the rest.
David O.
03. Feb, 2010
hmm, funny you should say that, there is a dance show with that format and people do would watch it, but it’s not as popular as American idol. It’s called so you think you can dance.
http://www.fox.com/dance/
David O.
03. Feb, 2010
I think record sales in the past has been significantly inflated, because the labels did not sell many cd signals. They did not make it easy to get the few songs you like on an album. So instead of a major label backed artist selling 5 or 7 million albums, they are selling 5 million downloads, and about a million songs. They still try to pull this off with album only track which is silly since practically all major label release album is available on the pirate bay or similar sites. And that has trickle down to indies as well. Music as a stand alone media is still very satisfying, and very popular, it’s just that people don’t want to spend a lot of money on just the music. I always read about how close to 90% of music downloaded on the internet is not paid for, and there is a lot of downloading going on, in the millions… I think if people did not download much music nor listen to music on the radio or internet much, it would be easy to argue stand alone music is less satisfying, but that’s not the case, the problem is making money from it. I think those peak record sales of the past are gone, perhaps forever…i think there is a shift in not how people want to be entertained but what people want to pay for it. I will discuss it on blog.inkaudio.com in the future, after I finish my music experiment, and gather all my research data, this will take a couple of months.
Suzanne Lainson
03. Feb, 2010
I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, too. The one thing music had over other forms of entertainment was that you could listen to it. It held its own as an aural format.
As long as you could sell music directly in the form of recorded music, you could get compensated for what music delivered best (something to listen to).
But now music’s strongest advantage is no longer easily salable. So you have people proposing ways to link music to other stuff, which you then sell. You’re no longer selling the music so much. Now you’re trying to sell what’s around it or attached to it. That takes you farther and farther from music creation as a direct source of income.
I developed this list of ways to generate income from music, from its most direct compensation to a place where the music creator isn’t compensated at all for doing music.
No degree of separation: Sell your music.
One degree of separation: Sell stuff related to your music.
Two degrees of separation: Use your existing music to sell other people’s stuff (e.g. have your music in commercials).
Three degrees of separation: Write music specifically to sell other people’s stuff (e.g. write jingles and commissioned works).
Four degrees of separation: Play music. Use your visibility as a musician as a way to promote your real profession (e.g., the singing plumber).
Five degrees of separation: Play music. Don’t mix it with any money-earning activity. Keep your hobby and your income generating activities totally separate.
When people try to tell us how to “monetize” music, we need to ask at what point are we totally out of the music business and into another form of business which has nothing to do with music.
As your blog post indicates, in many cases music is not the centerpiece of a business, just a convenient window dressing.
refe
04. Feb, 2010
Great list Suzanne – and it’s a bit unfortunate to watch musicians forced to flow further and further down to the fifth degree.
Ethan
03. Feb, 2010
I see the future of the music business resembling Rock Band or Dance Dance Revolution more than the traditional albums and concerts. The specialization of music to professionals or highly dedicated amateurs is a historical and cultural anomaly. For most of world history, music was something that everyone participated in as part of daily routine. Plenty of world cultures still work that way. I was driven to become a musician because I felt dissatisfied passively standing there while other people played, danced and had a good time. Games like DDR offer some of the same pleasure that I experience making music. No accident that music and games share the verb “to play.” It’s also no mystery to me why album sales should be plunging while video game sales are doing just fine. People expect participation, and we as musicians owe it to ourselves and our audience to invite it.
Suzanne Lainson
03. Feb, 2010
Ethan, I started to write a response to your comment and then decided to check to see if you are Ethan Hein, which you are.
So I don’t have to tell you that I already agree with you, because you know.
What got me into thinking this way was reading all the music conference reports last year that the future of the music business was “direct-to-fan” sales. That makes the assumption that we’ll continue to have a world with artists and they will each generate their community of fans who will buy merchandise, special music offerings, etc.
But looking at trends, I see “fans” jumping into the music process, too. So the move toward democratization seems far more likely than preserving the wall between artists and fans.
Ethan
03. Feb, 2010
Hi Suzanne. I do indeed know that we’re on the same page about this. I’m encouraged by artists who can see the fan-artist barrier dissolving and are moving to get out in front of it. Kanye West is my favorite example. Yes, I know, he’s not exactly Mr Personality, but he did something that impressed me tremendously, which was to give away the stems to Love Lockdown in mp3 format right on his blog, every single instrument conveniently separated out. I leaped at the chance to remix the tune and work samples of it into my own tracks, and I’m sure many of his other fans have too. This practice seems to only be helping his sales; I wish every artist did it.
HubertGAM
04. Feb, 2010
Suzanne is right. The glorious internet allows for more “fans” – aka people that should probably stick to being fans than playing a musician – to get involved in the music creation process. I know my extended rebranding is a bit harsh, but I do feel that there will always be room for professional musicians.
Having fans engaged in the creative process is awesome, but it still needs to be clear that that cannot continue to happen unless folks support whoever is making a living by doing it. Someone mentioned Kanye giving up his stems for “Love Lockdown,” which is very cool. Kids all over the world fired up Garageband and rocked out, probably only to share the tunes with their friends. I have still had to bear witness to 100s of remixes of that song though and only a few were really worthwhile.
The DtF method may not be the be-all/end-all, but it is the essence of it – the direct connection with your true consumer base – that is the key. How else are you going to know how you possibly can make money? You have to build a community somehow, regardless of how you get money off of them. This is not an easy feat, which is why I want to be clear – most music acts that have not built up salaries doing money are technically still FANS/HOBBYISTS. In my line of work, that is how I have to see them.
Kevin M Richards
03. Feb, 2010
Well written Refe. I’ve also enjoyed all the comments. Some strong points are made.
It is a small minority of people who truly just want to listen to music. For most, it was and will always be consumed while doing something else such as dancing, driving, or watching a film synced to the music. Also look at the trends to streaming music or buying MP3s. The sound quality is inferior but most don’t seem to mind. Visual mediums like HDTV continue to get better while music listeners seem to be OK with poor sounding tunes.
Suzanne Lainson
03. Feb, 2010
It is a small minority of people who truly just want to listen to music. For most, it was and will always be consumed while doing something else such as dancing, driving, or watching a film synced to the music.
That’s why it is so interesting that some people are telling musicians that their future is tied to finding those 1000 fans and keeping them close for the next twenty years or so.
Over the history of popular music, relatively few bands/musicians have been career artists to begin with, and now when people are jumping from song to song and artist to artist, keeping them as loyal fans for more than a year or two might be a tough call.
I’m not saying not to do it. I have so many musician friends — talented friends — and I want them to make it. But I think we are setting up false hopes if we suggest that all musicians have to do is a lot of social marketing and providing lots of stuff for fans to buy and the fans will stay with them. I mean, look at how fast we migrate from one social network to another. Even when we have invested our own time into something, we leave for something else if it looks better.
HubertGAM
04. Feb, 2010
I don’t think we are giving false hopes. Building a community is not easy and maintaining it is even harder. I already know from my own personal experience how much I respect cattle ranchers. LOL
Music acts have to find out what their community values, then see if they (the music act) can see a need and fulfill it. It is kind of that simple. Thing is, it might take a while to build enough momentum for this to be sustainable lifestyle-wise.
My favorite labels right now seem to have a guru-like pinpoint on what they need to create in order to get my money. Labels like Stones Throw (J Dilla; Mayer Hawthorne), Rhymesayers (Atmosphere; Freeway & Jake One) and Ghostly are putting out collectable items that I actually want to buy. I am sure they make other things that their other fans want as well.
I am not sure how many “true fans” it takes to build a career. All I know is I see numerous examples of mid-grade level cool kids being able to fund creative projects with the help of donations on Kickstarter, which catapults my faith that people are not as greedy and selfish as the RIAA paints us. We just know what we want and we ask that you supply it. When you do, we might pay for it.
I tell this to many music acts and their heads explode. That is why they probably should come to grips to keeping music as a hobby, which they can possibly use to pay for itself. Or they need to get with folks like Refe, Kevin, Suzanne and myself and pay us to help.
Suzanne Lainson
03. Feb, 2010
Here’s another thought. In order to create more visually dynamic live shows (and also just because they like playing with a lot of their friends), some bands are expanding to 6-10 members.
Having that many band members makes touring complicated and expensive. So what you end up with are some great live shows that primarily play to local audiences. Which is perfectly fine. It’s another example of making music without an expectation of becoming a full-time touring musician.
Nice Discussion about “Can Music Stand on Its Own in Today’s Entertainment Culture?” | The Future of Music
04. Feb, 2010
[...] about “Can Music Stand on Its Own in Today’s Entertainment Culture?” is going on here GD Star [...]
Hector
04. Feb, 2010
Music companies entered in the Internet market before musicians reacted. Now they have control over what is sold or not but they will never be able to control 100% of the musicians. Because one thing is clear.. Internet showed to the world that there were many more good musicians that the companies advertised. And if there is plenty of something.. the value of it goes down because you have more to choose from.
Now there are services for very small monthly fees to access a huge catalog of music. This is something that an independent musician can’t compete with. So that’s why they offer music for free. Hoping to have some audience that they will go to their concerts. I believe that “Live music” will always survive everything.
James Pew
04. Feb, 2010
I did watch the Grammy’s this year (first time in years), and while I was entertained, I still felt disconnected from this mainstream scene that people call the music biz or music culture or whatever. I have been in the music business for several years servicing mostly indie musicians at my company – the music biz of the Grammy’s does not resemble the music biz I know and work in.
To me the pop music of the Grammy’s is like a category or genre – one segment of a larger industry. I feel that the Grammy’s sort of misrepresents the music industry in leading us believe that they ARE the music industry. The music industry exists in every city and town – at every small club, where indies bring 30 to 100 people to live shows and create for them intimate memorable moments, with the music “standing on its own,” far more than in a mainstream awards show scenario.
For the pop culture artists of the Grammy’s I do not believe music can stand on its own – pop culture by nature will always be in a state of hybridizing mediums, constantly morphing into new forms (which is cool…whatever), the masses are a fickle bunch who get bored quickly.
I think music will continue to stand on its own (at least in a bigger way than pop culture music will), on a smaller more intimate scale. Its possible that the golden years of the record industry where the exception and not the rule, regardless of digital downloading. If that is the case, then it follows that music as a medium, works better as an intimate experience for those who truly do love the art form (which I don’t believe is the majority of people by any stretch).
Seth Godin made a point about large book retailers in North America – their most important customers are the people who buy hundreds of books per year, not the casual reader who buys one or two. While not the majority, these people so crazy for the book ARE the book industry. In the same sense that the person who goes to two or three shows a week, has thousands of songs on their ipod, reads reviews of new records, and are constantly searching for new artists that turn them on – these people ARE the music industry, and I doubt very much that many of them watched the Grammy’s either.
Glenn Galen
04. Feb, 2010
I used to think that live music would replace record sales.
But now I realize that there are so many musicians today that unless a LOT more people start going out to hear live music, there simply aren’t enough places available to play live and make any money at it.
Touring is expensive. Gas, food, lodging, airfare, car expenses all reduce your profit from a show.
Also, think of all the types of music people will want to play live. Can you dance to it? Is it upbeat and happy? Bars want that, and there seem to be more bars than anything else offering live music.
Bars are not concert halls. They are not venues for thoughtful, subtle music.
I see a future where streaming music is available everywhere from the Internet, whether driving or walking in the woods with a portable internet device.
Musicians will submit their recordings to these services but most will be paid little or nothing. They’ll do it as an enjoyable hobby, and many will be superb. But thousands of equally talented artists will be available, diluting the impact of any individual artist.
Every year, one or two will inexplicably rise to huge prominence for a while and then fade back. Why this happens will not be well understood anymore than we can predict the weather two weeks away.
But there will always be a supply of talent putting their stuff out there. As each musician tires of it, another will step in, and thus a regular supply of music will be assured.
That’s how I am predicting it at the moment.
James Pew
04. Feb, 2010
Glen
While its fun and interesting to predict things…what do you base these predictions on. I fundamentally disagree with a couple things you have said
1) “Bars are not concert halls. They are not venues for thoughtful, subtle music.”
While certainly the bar is not the ideal music venue – I have seen, performed, or promoted hundreds of shows in bars that were intimate, thoughtful and subtle. This dynamic happens everyday in Toronto, as I’m sure it does in other cities around the world.
2) “Musicians will submit their recordings to these services but most will be paid little or nothing. They’ll do it as an enjoyable hobby..”
The majority of artists I work with cannot yet sustain themselves with their music solely. However a large minority of them can…much more than you are giving credit for. Are they super rich driving expensive cars, parking them in expensive garages attached to expensive homes? No. That is the trade off. To be an indie with 1,000 true fans employing a direct-to-fan model is insanely hard work to make that sustainable. However I see it every day! That is what separates the boys from the men…or the hobbyists from the pros. And I think its kind of an uninformed attitude to relegate all indie musicians to the role of hobbyists.
The mainstream music industry is measured by things like record sales – but only for acts that properly report these figures through soundscan or other reporting institutions. There is almost no way of really knowing the level of success of the indie music world, simply because there is no way to accurately measure it.
But, speaking from experience – Your assumptions/predictions have nothing to do with the reality I work in everyday.
Suzanne Lainson
04. Feb, 2010
Here’s my perspective, having worked with Colorado artists (both signed and unsigned) since 2001.
I think the truly glory days for DIY artists were in the days when jam bands were at their heights: String Cheese, Phish, etc. There was a time when people were still buying a lot of CDs, so independent bands that put out their own CDs were able to sell them for $15 each at shows and pocket all the profit. That was a great margin — a CD that cost $1.50 to manufacture (after production and design costs were recovered) and sold for $15.
Now that file sharing has eaten into CD sales, unsigned artists are affected too. Even for legal digital downloads, fans expect free or much cheaper albums.
As more bands hope to make up the lost CD sales playing in venues, those venue slots are now subject to competition. I worked with bands that played a 3-hour gig by themselves and kept all the door, less what the venue kept. Now it is more the norm for 3-4 bands to play the evening. The door is still the same, but now it must be shared by 3-4 bands. While in the past a successful band might make $800 to $2000 at a bar gig, now it is more like $100 to $500. And some bars have dropped live music in favor of DJs or karaoke.
Also, a good source of income from some of the bands I worked with were local/regional concert series. Typically a band would get $1000 to $3000 for a 1-to-2 hour slot. Many of those gigs are ending because they were paid for by park-and-rec funds or Chambers of Commerce. The recession has hit the organizers. Either the weekly summer concert series have been cancelled altogether, or they are booking bands that will work for free or considerably less money.
Glenn Galen
04. Feb, 2010
James,
I respect you opinion.
I’m just posting my opinion on conclusions I have come to.
We can agree to disagree.
But two things you claim just don’t line up with my experience, so I must admit, I am skeptical.
1) That people in bars quietly listened to subtle, thoughtful performances hundreds of times. And that this is quite common in Toronto. By a bar I mean a place where they serve alcohol, primarily. Not coffeehouses.
This just doesn’t line up with my lifetime experience of how musicians are treated in bars when they try to play soft, subtle, thoughtful music. Usually the atmosphere is loud and buzzing, and people want loud, danceable music.
2) Your claim that “every day” you see people that make a decent living from having 1,000 true fans and no day job.
I’ve been reading and researching that for a while, and the consensus I’ve been reading is that with the exception of Jonathan Colton, nobody has really done it.
The blog that started the 1,000 True Fans Idea, and they asked for people to come forward and reveal themselves if they had done it. No one did, and it was concluded that if this were common, SOMEONE who have.
If you have a link where someone posted their numbers, income included, to prove they are doing it, I’d enjoy seeing it.
Can they support a family on their income? Afford to have kids? Do they make more than $25,000 a year and have health insurance?
Suzanne Lainson
04. Feb, 2010
I have been working with an artist who was able to pull off the 1000 true fans, and she was making good money, but even she isn’t doing music full-time right now because she needed health insurance for her family and the only affordable way to get it was to take a part-time office job that came with benefits. Consequently she isn’t playing music as much as she did and her music income has gone down.
At the time I ran her numbers with her, she had about 3000 people on her email list and she was grossing about $150,000 a year. She primarily played within Colorado rather than touring nationally. Whenever she did play out of state she was a huge hit and could have easily gone national, but when she looked at the economics, it was so much more lucrative to continue to play locally that she didn’t have much incentive to expand.
She averaged about 3000 CD sales a year, which generated $45,000 and she also played about 200 gigs a year, everything from solo to full-band. She hired her band members on a per-gig basis, so their share of the gross was about $45,000. Since she does her own management and booking, she didn’t have to pay anyone for that.
She made it work because she put out lots of CDs (she’s got eight now), people loved her live show, and consequently bought her CDs, which she still sells for $15 each.
I’ve worked with other artists who haven’t been able to duplicate the model. They don’t have fans who buy as many CDs, they don’t play as many gigs, etc. You’ve got to have the right combination of music and fans to make it work and most don’t. It’s not lack of talent at all. It’s whether you can deliver shows that people will attend multiple times a year and then want to take something home with them. Also, to succeed like the artist I described above, you need to be versatile enough (and have enough material) that you can play in front of a wide variety of audiences — coffee house gigs to bars to outdoor concerts so that lots of different fans can see you.
The challenge with the 1000 fans model is that you may have to play in front of 10,000 to 100,000 people to find that much smaller group of hard core fans. How do you do that? How do you play enough gigs to get the exposure? How many shows? How many people in the audience?
HubertGAM
04. Feb, 2010
This gets deeper than the current discussion though, but you pose very important questions, Suzanne. I purport you do as many as it takes until you tip.
I have a term for the type of person you need to be an attract(ive)/(ing) tribe leader – PERSONABLE GEEK – and the most key ingredient for attraction is PASSION.
James Pew
04. Feb, 2010
Remember that not all musicians read blogs. And many indies running sustainable careers have never heard of Kevin Kelley or a 1,000 true fans. These cats are far to busy hustling to get gigs, teach music lessons, doing session gigs, live performances, etc.
One fine example is Gary Kendall – a client who has returned to my studio a few times. http://garykendall.com/ Gary has his own band, also plays in the Down Child Blues Band (high profile act in the Canadian Blues world), leads the Maple Blues Big Band, and subs in as a bassist for several other acts. Gary is a machine. He works harder than most…and yes he has a house and a family.
So obviously, since his revenue streams are quite diverse, his entire income does not come from the 1,000 true fans. I don’t have an example of artist who makes all of their money directly from a fan base – but that is not important, its all about multiple revenue streams (sorry if I mislead in my last comment). The important thing is these working class indies are doing it themselves, not relying or waiting for anybody, and making a sustainable living.
Gary is a fascinating person – when he was in the studio we spoke at length about his music career, and man all I can say is what a ride. This guy has lived the life of a real indie artist.
Another example is me. At the moment I am focused on producing and developing other artists. But I consistently play or sing on peoples records (I’m a producer & engineer – but was a musician first). Stepping into the recording studio world was my way of generating additional revenue streams as a musician. No I’m not rich by any stretch – but I have everything I’ve ever wanted in life. And I work full time (actually much more than full time) as a musician/producer.
Glenn Galen
04. Feb, 2010
Thanks, Suzanne for the details on your experience working with musicians trying to make it solely as a performer who writes their own material.
And thanks for the clarification, James, from the “multiple streams of music-related income” view. I’ll call the MSMRI. Method
I think that the MSMRI approach has a better chance of succeeding. But I think much of what musicians and pundits on the web are talking about is people trying to do what Suzanne’s client was doing: being solely a performer and a “name act”.
As a performing songwriter myself, I wish the future looked better for artists like myself as far as earning a living at it!
I have been fortunate to have a small business doing medical and scientific 3D illustration that has paid the bills. And I have had a nicely capable personal studio since 1985 so I can master my own CDs.
All the best,
Glenn
Suzanne Lainson
04. Feb, 2010
The musicians who fill out their incomes by teaching music in schools, giving private lessons, working with church groups, playing weddings and private parties, doing studio work, and contracting out with several different bands are definitely examples of “working musicians.”
I’ve felt there has been an unfortunate bias against that. There’s the assumption that if you have to do all of that to make a living in music, then you’re not that good. Which isn’t true, and I think more and more musicians who think this will be the glory days of the DIY musician will have a rude awakening.
While it is easier to reach fans nowadays, so many more bands are doing it that the available pie is getting sliced up thinner and thinner.
I’ve talked to musicians who were playing club gigs in the 1970s and they say they aren’t make any more per gig now (and sometimes even less) than they were then.
Kevin M Richards
04. Feb, 2010
I came from the punk rock scene a long time back where “DIY” didn’t necessarily mean working as a single individual. It was more about a sense of community… a community of bands, small talent bookers, bars, etc. I think that this applies well to the current music scene. Bands and artists should try and establish a community where they fit in with like minded artists. They can help to build a network to benefit all. One band may have a hard time marketing themselves alone, however a collective can all tap into each others’ fans. Smaller bars and clubs will be more open if they see a “scene” or network of bands building. I’m not just talking about what is the current hip thing either. If you are a folk artist, try and build a relationship with other folk artists worldwide. Perhaps your audience will be receptive to a like minded band opening for you in your territory. You can open for the other band in their market. Soon something can build.
I really believe that if the current streams are not readily available for you to tap into, its time to create your own. It’s tough for any artist out there and not all will make it. However if you try and help out the others like you, all could benefit in some way.
I discovered a lot of great bands that where on split singles with bands I already loved.
Suzanne Lainson
04. Feb, 2010
I don’t mean DIY as in an individual, either. String Cheese Incident was DIY and they created a record label, a booking agency, a travel agency, a merchandise company, and a PR company.
Denver has a lot of cooperation among indie rock musicians and Boulder/Lyons/Nederland has long had cross-pollination among jam/bluegrass/world music. People play on each other’s projects and form side projects all the time. It’s very creative, though relatively few are making enough money to quit their day jobs.
I think there are massive opportunities for collaboration and creativity, but the fan community hasn’t grown substantially bigger so you’re still tapping into the same pool of music spenders. That’s the challenge. People aren’t dropping other forms of entertainment and shifting money from those into music. If everyone dropped cable TV and then started going to live music venues several times a week that would change things a lot.
HubertGAM
04. Feb, 2010
See, there’s a challenge, but dropping cable is not the answer. It seems more that the community of bands haven’t found a way to keep up with shifting demographics as well as staying in contact with aging fans. I cannot imagine how the pool of music spenders never gets bigger, unless the demographic for the genre is comprised of senior age people.
You cannot convince me that people do not buy music. They might not be compelled to buy and that is more the fault of a disconnected industry than it is the internet.
When going DIY as you and Kevin are putting it, I think fan engagement and upkeep are key, which many scenes tend to not do. It is usually all about the bands and active people engaged in the scene, but what about those that just love the music?
There is no way the fan base should not be growing. It may slow, but unless utter upheaval happens it should never cease. Bands need to be more diligent in staying connected with fans/music buyers.
Music Producer | Songwriter
04. Feb, 2010
Great post Refe.
You bring up some great points that have obviously triggered a very intelligent “debate” via the comments.
There’s a point that I think should be brought to the forefront in this conversation: The Quality of the Music
* Not the audio fidelity but the music & songwriting itself.
As a producer I get to work with a lot of up-and-coming artists/ groups and there are some themes that are (to say the least) reoccurring. The #1 example I keep thinking of as I read this post is that so many artists are simply trying to mimic or recreate the current popular sound as opposed to creating their own style. It seems that “stepping outside of the box” has earned the stigma of being dangerous and therefore the music fan gets one carbon copy after another and as a result music becomes stale.
I admit that by itself this is a greatly over-simplified point, that it’s different per genre, that the industry is going to deliver what the music fans want to buy, that artists have to make a living, that the quality of music is subjective, etc.. but I think there is something favorable to be said for artists that do what they love and catch our ear with something that is genuinely different in contrast to the artists that perpetually regurgitate what’s already been done thousands of times.
There are many stems that can grow from this point alone but one thing I will say is that some would argue that the music coming out today is a far cry from what our parent’s enjoyed.
Damon Cisneros
Suzanne Lainson
04. Feb, 2010
When I was working day-to-day with musicians (these days I’m more involved with overall music business discussions than with individual artists/bands) I went to a lot of shows with them. As many as 200 a year.
Here’s the challenge with a lot of live music. The smaller venues are geared toward fans who are over 21, but who aren’t constrained by families and jobs. Anyone who has to get up early the next morning and who has to find a babysitter tends not to go to many club shows.
And at the same time, the number of venues offering all ages shows, to tap into 13-20 year olds, is relatively small.
There are a group of fans who start going to live music again once their kids are old enough, but they want something upscale. They don’t want to go to bars where the waitstaff is rude, their feet stick to the floor, and there is vomit in the bathrooms.
There is an underserved audience for family-friendly concerts. Boulder has “Band on the Bricks” every Wednesday during the summer. It’s in the center of downtown. Many families live within walking distance and come over after dinner. The concerts are free and there are lots of restaurants, shops, etc. to wander in and out of in addition to the music. Some of the more popular acts (all local) draw 1000 to 2000 fans.
Actually I think the live music sector (small bars and venues, community concerts, and shows held in schools, churches, and community centers) is the biggest opportunity out there.
Along those lines, I am advocating more participatory music that gets kids and families singing, dancing, and playing along. A lot of times audiences are far happier with a local cover band that plays classic Motown that everyone can dance to than an indie rock band that can’t get the crowd involved in the music.
Also, keep in mind that for many people, their live music experience is church. There are a lot of talented musicians who have gotten their start singing in church.
Chris Bro
05. Feb, 2010
Don’t remember how I got to this page but thanks for the lovely discussion.
refe
07. Feb, 2010
However you got here I’m glad you’re enjoying the discussion! Stop by anytime.
Brian Franke
10. Feb, 2010
I didn’t read through all the replies here, but someone said something along the lines of movies would be nothing without music. When they first did Star Wars they filmed it, played it back without music and it looked like a disaster. So they hired John Williams. That would probably be true of lots of other things, not just movies.
My take on this is, music affects one of our senses–our hearing. And we are more stimulated when one or more of our sense are being used at the same time–for better or worse. I mean, you can walk into some clothing stores these days and a dj is spinning to “enhance” your experience (and try to get you to spend your money).
In today’s society, America’s specifically, we’re constantly stimulating our senses. Movies, music, theme park rides, food–whatever. It’s about the experience. I don’t know if the human experience could ignore all of our senses for a moment to listen to an entire song they love without it impacting any of the other senses. Because some songs want to make you want to dance, others go to a specific location to see it, etc.
A great musician I recently took a workshop with asked us, what do musicians do? Many people said entertain, create, change, influence, etc. But he said we are in the therapy industry. People listen to music to forget, escape, change their moods, and so forth in society. And I agree with him. As unentertaining as many artists are these days, they combine all these other things with music for an experience that stimulates other senses and provides some form of therapy to them. It doesn’t always work, but that’s why we have preferences and choices so we can filter out the experiences and therapy we want for ourselves.
Brian Franke
Singer/Songwriter
http://www.brianfranke.com
Twitter: @bfrankemusic
Suzanne Lainson
10. Feb, 2010
But he said we are in the therapy industry.
I’ve thought of that comparison myself. I worked with a singer/songwriter who had a core group of fans who would come to every show, as many as 100-200 a year. Other people would claim she was overbooking, but she played a kind of music that her fans didn’t tire of. Therapy or going to church were the best comparisons I could think of.
And what’s important in comparing music to therapy is that it is cheaper. When we talk about music as entertainment and community, we have to keep in mind that there are many free and inexpensive alternatives to music. But compared to therapy, music is quite inexpensive.