http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/60991p-57008c.html
Interesting, isn’t it?
–James
http://www.flutesite.com
Anyone involved in art–or craftsmanship–as a way of living should never coppare his net income to those of city workers…
Too depressing. Trust me. 
This is old news. I wish I still had the link to that old article on salon.com written by courtney love (yea, yea I know, big bimbo, but she knows the industry) that showed even greater how a band can get royally screwed, and went into detail on several other evils in the recording industry.
For what it’s worth, the music industry is in deep doo doo right now, with its earnings dropping. The industry as it stands in its current form may collapse in a few years. I doubt either musicians or fans will miss it at all…
On 2003-02-24 10:12, TelegramSam wrote:
This is old news. I wish I still had the link to that old article on salon.com written by courtney love…
If you do a search for Mel Martin’s (jazz saxophonist and educator) official site, he’s saved a copy of Love’s letter. I remember reading it when I happened to chance upon his site.
Money controls music. That is why the “Industry” is so opposed to the Internet. The Internet makes it possible for artists to promote, market and sell their own music. This means lower cost to the consumer and higher income for the artist.
$18 US for a CD is ridiculous when the artist only sees 5 or 6 cents per song.
Gary, you beat me to the punch! I was gonna say that! 
I think we can reverse the title of this thread to “Why the music industry hates musicians”.
I might add that many in the music industry (it may be best not to broad-brush the entire industry) have done more to kill creativity than to promote it. What often happens is that once an artist signs a record deal, the company gets in a big hurry for the material so they can get it out as quickly as possible (and get the money rolling in as quickly as possible). Then it’s just like any other rush job: fast = low quality. So, unless you have a big stack of material waiting in your closet, you’re sunk. It’s kind of like that book report you had to do in school and waited until the night before it was due to write it.
Hmmmm.
I have it from the horse’s mouth that a certain record label highly regarded for promoting various branches of folk/trad music is not exactly up to ISO 9000 standards when it comes to coughing up royalties.
On 2003-02-24 08:52, Zubivka wrote:
Anyone involved in art–or craftsmanship–as a way of living should never coppare his net income to those of city workers…
Too depressing. Trust me. >
{shrug} Life is tradeoffs. Artists and musicians choose to trade security for the freedom to create and to live as they choose, a life divorced in many if not most cases from the constraints of time clocks, work rules, hierarchy and boredom. Others, less talented, or merely less adventurous, opt to accept all of those constraints and more in search of stability, security or perhaps some sort of societal approval. Generally, the tradeoff is simple. In exchange for the surrender of their freedom, the mundanes among us receive a more secure level of compensation than the artist.
The modern city can live without the musician or artist, although it would be a greyer life. Neither the city, nor the artist that lives in it, can live long without the sanitation worker, the delivery truck driver or the fireman. Does this mean the mundane worker is more critical to civilization’s survival than the artist and thus should be better compensated?
I’m not necessarily making that assertion, but it is defensible.
I thot this would just be the latest Grammy bashing thread but read article with interest.
The truism I carry within is that there is more talent and creativity at the folk-club circuit level (and classical world) than at big bucks level. You can name some truly talented mega-stars but every time I go to the local folk club, I am amazed at the talent, the diversity in arrangements, singing styles and vitality of song-writing by non-famous composers . This of course, includes our trad and neo-trad bands. Maybe the Chieftains are big but as for most of the rest, they are relegated to the budget venues..
If you want to make a decent living, stay away from music, unless you absolutely cannot live without doing it. That’s the advice my flute-player duo partner has always given the casual questioners who approach us at gigs. We once played a party filled with psycho-therapists and were truly exasperated by one guy who came up and, after relating his college music making and local symphony activities as a cellist, asked us in very serious tones, “why we did it.” To this day, I wonder if he was putting us on.
Well, Week, everybody’s got an agenda, it seems like. And there’s no getting around it. In commercial music (which I’m not generally fond of) it’s making money for the corporation, and self-promotion for the artists. And amongst folkies (a much more tolerable bunch) there’s often a political agenda (take a look at the threads at Mudcat.org).
You’ve just got to chew what you can get, and spit out the gristle.
I have to say that I’ve always enjoyed the fact that I’m not a “good” enough musician to ever have been tempted to try to make a career of it. It’s the one thing I do purely for pleasure (and for this Type A personality, that’s a great thing to have!).
Redwolf
Weekenders, this could easily digress into a Grammy-bash. But, I’ll be nice.
Further back than I care to remember, I used to work for Jody Reynolds in his music shop in Palm Springs. http://www.rockabillyhall.com/JodyReynolds.html Now, there’s a guy that has it made! One gold record in the 50’s, and checks for life! (I can hear Dire Straits playing MONEY FOR NOTHIN’ as I type this.) He buys a house in Plam Springs, opens a little music shop and lives off his royalties. Every time an “Oldies But Goodies Volume…” comes out, he gets a check.
I even met Jimmy Van Heusen while working for Jody. Whatta guy! Jimmy gave me his reel-to-reel when he learned I was a songwriter, too.
Anyway, all I want is to be a one hit wonder. Then I can retire and play my songs at dinner clubs.
Gary
Aww, Waldski, I think the political stuff comes as a result of lazy thinking and wanting to be a mythic Bohemian archetype plus social-cultural posturing.
With the Hollywoodskis, I always think that they live in such a world of abstraction and illusion that its easy to put on a political activist persona and say the right things. I also wonder if those who have self-esteem issues don’t feel a bit guilty that they have earned mega-bux in an improbable way while Paco the Pool Man actually sweats for a living, right under their noses.They are under a lot of peer pressure as well in that industry to toe the line of Norman Lears and Ed Asners. A lot of insecurity.
With the poorer performers, its this blue-collar identity thing. The “higher moral ground because I’m not rich” bit. It’s tiresome to watch people feel superior because they have never had the responsibility of wealth, just as tiresome as excesses by same. There is always this thread of resentment of those who do not worship the Muses because they have “regular” jobs too. I love the paradox of rigid self-definition by those who profess free-thinking values. Try giving a pro-Bush speech in Berkeley if you want to see uniformity in (re)action. Preferred method is to seize all copies of disagreeable publications and toss in dumpster, as Mayor of Berkeley Tom Bates has shown. Death of ideas by dumpster rather than Fahrenheit 451. And yes, musicians often fall into this group around here. The conservative ones are usually quiet.
Also, socialism promises a possible living for artists without having to actually work at the bookstore and who ain’t for that (I ask rhetorically)?..Grifters is the word Savage uses..
Nobody owes me anything for devoting my life to music. It was my choice and I appreciate that we have the freedom to do so here in the US. To think in any other way is unacceptable to me. i don’t necessarily like the almighty buck hanging over my music stand but I have seen the alternative fail too many times to expect relief.
That said, it would be nice to have an industry that was supportive rather than rapacious. But look who is in those roles, besides professional lawyers and accountants? Its many who couldn’t cut it as performers themselves but love the world. A zillion ways to be a passive-aggressive roadie or rip-off music biz gofer, I reckon.
I have dealt with many music booking agents here in Bay Area and only found two that weren’t manipulative creeps at best. But they all STARTED as struggling musicians at one time and were probably likeable folk. It was the process that shaped them. You see, everybody wrestles with the same question, find their own answers, though they tend to fall into certain predictable categories.
See simony. Though specific to money-lending, the concept of snagging a percentage of other’s labors results in similar situations, resentments, etc. And the music big business is built on those percentages.
On 2003-02-24 16:24, Redwolf wrote:
I have to say that I’ve always enjoyed the fact that I’m not a “good” enough musician to ever have been tempted to try to make a career of it. It’s the one thing I do purely for pleasure (and for this Type A personality, that’s a great thing to have!).Redwolf
Interesting thought. I have a friend who has made a career of music, playing in many well known bands, appearing on CD’s many of you probably own. He even recorded on the Cheiftains’ Long Black Veil. As talented as he is, he told me he doesn’t always enjoy what he does anymore. It’s his job and it feels like work, he said. Having to rely on it for an income took a part of the pleasure of playing away from him. He does the commercial bit, playing the stuff that pays the bills. But his private projects are the ones he really likes, although they are not known. Mostly acoustic jazz, playing some classics. Oh, and he envies my lifestyle of having a nice home, wife and a few kids. He’s a month younger than me, and at 41 has never been married, and really has trouble keeping stable relationships. I guess fame is fun, but lonely.
Also, socialism promises a possible living for artists without having to actually work at the bookstore and who ain’t for that (I ask rhetorically)?..Grifters is the word Savage uses..
Well if you’re an artist under a socialist gov’t (at least every socialist gov’t that’s existed on this planet thus far) you may have money, but you’re left doing only art which glorifies your gov’t. You sacrifice freedom for comfort there as well.
Communism looks great on paper, but it doesn’t work out so nicely in practice…
[ This Message was edited by: TelegramSam on 2003-02-24 19:34 ]
here’s a nice site about the rundown costs - http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
it may not be truly accurate but the point is most of the artist don’t get the biggest share of the profit.
Corporations were originally set up to “limit liability.” WHY is anyone allowed to “limit liability,” in any economic system that purports to institute justice & equity? (If the phrase, “limited liability,” doesn’t set off an alarm bell inside your skull, you probably deserve to be paying $15 for a fifty-cent CD.)
Instead of chasing after always-scarce money, we need to rethink our entire approach to economics. We need to create abundance, ourselves, instead of blindly accepting the scarcity the usurers inflict on all of us. All power ultimately resides in the people; not in the devious machinations of the usury-practicing banking cartel. Fortunately, that revolution has already begun:
<A HREF="http://www.futurenet.org/2Money/Lietaer.html"target=“_blank”>BEYOND GREED AND SCARCITY
'luck now,
brian_k
On 2003-02-24 13:08, Roger O’Keeffe wrote:
I have it from the horse’s mouth that a certain record label highly regarded for promoting various branches of folk/trad music is not exactly up to ISO 9000 standards when it comes to coughing up royalties.
I’ve heard the same, also from the proverbial horse’s mouth. We’re probably hearing about the same label.
Don’t forget that rock/whatever bands make most of their money from touring and radio play (the latter if they write their own music). Every so often I wonder why most acts come out with an album every 2-4 years these days, when somebody like Donovan or Creedence Clearwater used to come out with 2-3 albums a year. It’s because albums aren’t where the money is; they’re primarily to get the public interested in another tour.
On 2003-02-26 08:35, chas wrote:
Don’t forget that rock/whatever bands make most of their money from touring and radio play (the latter if they write their own music). Every so often I wonder why most acts come out with an album every 2-4 years these days, when somebody like Donovan or Creedence Clearwater used to come out with 2-3 albums a year. It’s because albums aren’t where the money is; they’re primarily to get the public interested in another tour.
Right. I’m not about to defend the majors but before you get to feeling sorry for that poor band first find out
- How many more gigs are they doing since the album than before?
- how much more do they get for each gig since the album became a hit?
3 Assuming they are doing better, how much of that extra money is filtering down to them?
I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. I do think that someone who writes an article like that ought to ask and answer them if, like the author, they make the band out to be poorly paid victims. The record busines might be rotten to the core but, for all we are told here, the band might still be doing very nicely. Then again, they might not be.