How Will Musicians Survive The Spotify Era - Music

meccalecca

Voice of Reason

Gender: Male

Location: The Land of Enchantment

I just finished reading this rather thoughtful discussion between Sasha Frere Jones, Dave Allen (Gang of Four), DJ Rupture, and Damon Krukowski (Galaxie 500)

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/sasha...he-pinhead

All four of them make a lot of great points.

I found this particularly intersting:

Allen: O.K. The Gang of Four reunion in 2005 through 2008 netted me more income in those three years than I’d ever made in all the prior years of touring with the band. My other outfit, Shriekback, was a “studio-only band” for a span of an EP and two albums, and weirdly (although probably, obviously, with hindsight) the lack of live shows created demand—ex-Gang of Four member, ex-XTC member. When we lit out on tour we had audiences! And Shriekback on the tour circuit created a better stream of income for me than G4.

But this discussion shouldn’t really center on musicians’ income or the lack thereof. I believe that’s where the search for solutions takes a wrong turn. It has always been difficult to make a living as an artist—and I mean artist generically, whatever the preferred medium. I chose to be a part of the system back in 1979 by signing to EMI Records and Warner Bros. Records for our record deal, and to EMI Publishing and Warner Chappel to administer my publishing rights. For those actions I received advances. Thirty-four years later I remain un-recouped with EMI Records and finally, in the last five years, in the black with the Warner Music Group. Those companies still control our master rights (recordings) and my publishing rights. And for the last two decades the Internet brought about profound change. So we can’t cry over spilt milk, over those original deals that don’t help us now in the new music world. We must adapt and move on.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Kiki

Not to detract from the topic... I must say I would like popular rock music going in a Kiss Merchandising direction. Proper battle of the bands. It would be a slap against all those people who after discovering music for a few months decide how and how not a music should make money. Also it would double up as a... what should I call it? Think

A flip perhaps? Like how Grunge and Punk were opposites of what was going strong a few years before? Turn away all the new music fans from the culture of reviewing and analizing everything and merchandise like some popular kids cartoon. Have them all salivating over the next lunchbox and bobblehead doll while all the rate your music users and people with 'eclectic' music tastes cry as the most fabulous death of music to date unfolds around them.

Only if it fun however. Smile

As long as the songs are fun and awesome.

So my answer overall, unfortunately meccalecca, is 'Sell sell sell' what you can if the music is selling well to companies. You must have had a fondness for band/music artist badges and posters, have you?

meccalecca

Voice of Reason

Gender: Male

Location: The Land of Enchantment

an_outlaw wrote:

I must say I would like popular rock music going in a Kiss Merchandising direction.

Doesn't most mainstream pop music already do that?

Disney Shows, Hannah Montana, Beiber. Remember the Spice Girls?

I think a lot of popular rock bands would love to go the Kiss route, but it takes a lot of money and resources to pull that off. And it also gets real dirty when you have to worry about whether or not the products are being made by child slaves in China
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Kiki

meccalecca wrote:

Doesn't most mainstream pop music already do that?

Mainstream rock hardly does and "indie" pretty much never. Laughing

As you say some artists would take to it if they had the money/resources. Some would say they shouldn't have to pay for music because music acts should get all their money from shows. What could an artist or band sell if not the music or shows? I think it goes a big way to answering your question as 'Money' is at the route of survival.

Unless musicians are endangerd by something else altogther...

meccalecca

Voice of Reason

Gender: Male

Location: The Land of Enchantment

an_outlaw wrote:

Mainstream rock hardly does and "indie" pretty much never. Laughing

As you say some artists would take to it if they had the money/resources. Some would say they shouldn't have to pay for music because music acts should get all their money from shows. What could an artist or band sell if not the music or shows? I think it goes a big way to answering your question as 'Money' is at the route of survival.

Unless musicians are endangerd by something else altogther...

You need money to make money. Every band is a business. Kiss was a corporation. Beiber is a corporation.

If every band was selling merch like Kiss was, then they'd all be failing to make money that way too.

It's all about supply and demand.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Kiki

meccalecca wrote:

You need money to make money. Every band is a business. Kiss was a corporation. Beiber is a corporation.

If every band was selling merch like Kiss was, then they'd all be failing to make money that way too.

It's all about supply and demand.

I mean seperate to my little idea up there. Musicians are more likely to survive 'The Spotify Era' if they have more money. Unless I am getting something wrong there. It just seems more money, means a better buisness, meaning they get to do it longer, do it for a living or perhaps be set for life if they get big.

With this in mind, and forgeting the Kiss thing, what ventures do you believe could make music apart from the shows and music itself for an act or band? I don't ask in a "Well how's it going to work if it is not done the way I said!?" but instead I am asking for ideas. Smile

meccalecca

Voice of Reason

Gender: Male

Location: The Land of Enchantment

an_outlaw wrote:

I mean seperate to my little idea up there. Musicians are more likely to survive 'The Spotify Era' if they have more money. Unless I am getting something wrong there. It just seems more money, means a better buisness, meaning they get to do it longer, do it for a living or perhaps be set for life if they get big.

With this in mind, and forgeting the Kiss thing, what ventures do you believe could make music apart from the shows and music itself for an act or band? I don't ask in a "Well how's it going to work if it is not done the way I said!?" but instead I am asking for ideas. Smile

like most business ventures, it just happens to help if you start off with money before entering the business. Such as Civil Wars and Mumford & Sons. Both bands worked hard to get where they did, but they had the money to make things happen also. Licensing is really where money is in music, which came up a few times in the article. Like if you're a band who happens to get your song in an iphone commercial, you'll be doing quite well.

Merchandise has really high costs. Printing t-shirts for example is a costly endeavor for a young band. it can really pay off well though. so, like all aspects of the music business, it's a gamble.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

them

Location: Virginia

meccalecca wrote:

it just happens to help if you start off with money before entering the business.

I'm kinda just jumping in here just to respond to this statement. We probably would not have much of our most loved music from back in the day when bands started out with little or nothing. Also, wouldn't music suffer because only artists with money would be able to actually make it anywhere? It used to be that a band was in debt when they started and never really saw any money to speak of until they got an advance on a future album they were to put out but now that is over with pretty much. And what about bands like the Beatles who stopped preforming live and focused more on making better albums and spent more time creating them. They made their money off of the album sales almost entirely at that point did they not? Just some thoughts I'm sure I'll get bashed for them but here they are nonetheless.

Wombi

an_outlaw wrote:

I mean seperate to my little idea up there. Musicians are more likely to survive 'The Spotify Era' if they have more money. Unless I am getting something wrong there. It just seems more money, means a better buisness, meaning they get to do it longer, do it for a living or perhaps be set for life if they get big.

Obviously that goes for any era of music. As meccalecca put it it doesn't just apply to musicians but all artists in general. The biggest struggle for any artist has always been supporting yourself. Just surviving so you can continue to create your art.

Of course once you get to a certain level (Beatles for music, JK Rowling for books, Spielberg for films etc) suddenly you don't have to worry anymore and you can do things like stop performing and purely focus on your albums. But that's obviously a very small percentage of people trying to get into music. Even then at some stage they were all struggling.

But I think that's how art has to be. You have to go into it with the awareness that there's going to be struggle. It could be short term or long term but there's going to be struggle. I don't know how important it is to want to be successful though. Because that could lead to a person only focusing on the success. If it doesn't matter to you then your focus will be on the art. I personally subscribe to the latter at the moment, even if I'm not successful in it I could see me doing music all my life. Of course it'd be nice purely for a portion of the comfort that the aforementioned uber-successful artists have. In that you can purely focus on your creations rather than having to worry about where this week's rent is going to come from.

Spotify and music streaming services in general are tricky because they're a great concept - all the music in the world (or at least a large percentage of it) available to you all day every day. But given that it is so cheap (11 bucks a month for most of the albums you could want???), I think individual listeners need to start taking more responsibility. Paying for a spotify or google play account and thinking you're okay because you're doing the legal thing is barely better than pirating music. It's a pretty simple maths equation to work out at 11 dollars per month how much would be going to the service, how much would be going to the execs who give the rights and then finally how much would be going to the actual artists. People still need to support their favourite artists by paying for their album or going to a concert. Don't get me wrong as I put befor Spotify is a great service and similar to illegal downloading - in our musical climate absolutely a necessity. There's no point in gambling on maybe liking an album when you have the enormous volume of artists who are making music today. So definitely try before you buy, but if you like it - make sure you buy it. It's something I have to get better with too.

To answer the question, how will musicians survive it? It was hard for musicians in the 60s. You had to rely on getting a recording contract in order to actually get your music made. These days you can make music that sounds relatively professional for relatively cheap. So we overcame one obstacle but it created another. If anyone can do it, everyone will. And they do. So you're only shot in regards to making it these days is setting yourself apart from the crowd. And that's through marketing. Marketing is so vital if you want even one person to hear what you do. Look at someone like Janelle Monae she's made her look, her concepts and her mythos as important as her music so everyone is curious now. Bon Iver had an incredible story that got people listening to his first album. It's all marketing and that's how artists will survive the spotify era. Not everyone will and that's always been the way with music. Only a very small percentage stick it out.

Speaking as someone who wants to do music for at least the next 20 years, I don't care how much I struggle - I'll be happy as long as I'm making music. I hope people like my music because there's no point in making it just for me (well I obviously wouldn't release anything if I didn't like it somewhat - part of the reason why I've released barely anything despite making music for 7 years Razz

) but I don't need to be Kanye or Arcade Fire level successful to be content. So I'll release probably the next 8 things I do for free because I adapt to the musical climate. If I feel like my stuff is good enough that a larger audience could enjoy it I'll market it (and I will do when I'm ready to release my debut album because I think it's that good) but if it goes nowhere...oh well...I'll continue to make music just because I want to. Hopefully that trait will help me survive the spotify era because...well...a legal service this convenient to the customer ain't going anywhere any time soon.

Probably a lot of rambling but i think it answers the original question.

meccalecca

Voice of Reason

Gender: Male

Location: The Land of Enchantment

them wrote:

I'm kinda just jumping in here just to respond to this statement. We probably would not have much of our most loved music from back in the day when bands started out with little or nothing. Also, wouldn't music suffer because only artists with money would be able to actually make it anywhere? It used to be that a band was in debt when they started and never really saw any money to speak of until they got an advance on a future album they were to put out but now that is over with pretty much. And what about bands like the Beatles who stopped preforming live and focused more on making better albums and spent more time creating them. They made their money off of the album sales almost entirely at that point did they not? Just some thoughts I'm sure I'll get bashed for them but here they are nonetheless.

I understand what you're saying. But those artists did have financial backing. The advances that major labels gave bands like The Beatles were gambles, but gave those bands opportunities that unsigned artists never had. Of course the Beatles are the exception to the rule in pretty much every way. They made a ton of money early on with touring, merchandising and movies, to the point that they could afford to be a studio only band, but that really didn't last all that long.

If you look at Rolling Stones and McCartney (probably the two biggest touring acts in history), I would have to assume that album sales only lead to a very small % of their overall revenue.

It's extremely unlikely for any young band to receive a large advance if they have no plans to tour in support of their record. I've known many bands who had label interest turn sour because they didn't have enough touring experience.

From what I understand, in the eras when physical records were actually selling, bands made almost nothing off of the album sales. The revenue from those sales went to the labels. If you read the article, Dave Allen of Gang Of Four mentions that it took 35 years to recoup for the advance of one of their records. So, selling albums were definitely not a significant part of their revenue stream at any point.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com