The end of a musician’s long day

What the article didn’t comment on, which I think is related, is the royalties paid by radio stations.  Surely those royalties are fair and balanced to the artist, so why wouldn’t internet streaming services pay the same rates?  

I have not read the article — maybe it mentions this —  but another side effect is the loss of skilled people who edit and produce music. 

What a refreshing attitude! I have for years told people it is wrong to download music for free. I have always compared it to walking into a store and walking out with a CD without paying, you just would not do that. I have taught my kids to pay for music using iTunes or, like me, buying actual CDs so you know the artists actually make at least some money. I buy t-shirts at concerts (from the actual vendors not the shade characters in the parking lot) because I know that these days the majority of revenue for my favorite bands is made that way.

I have worked in the radio and record industry for almost 15 years, I watched the problems downloading has caused front and center in some cases. The record industry was wrong in how they dealt with things and they are suffering from it, but that does not make it right to simply want everything for free.

Brava for you Sabrina Benton I am exactly the same way and I have had that conversation with my stepson.  I often hear students tell me that they can’t afford to buy music the “old-fashioned” way and that’s why they listen to it for free. My response is always the same, then save your money until you can afford to buy it. Then I get the further argument that “everyone does it,” to which I always say, “That doesn’t mean the philosophy is ethically right.”

Interesting that now, years after S. Jobs was criticized for taking money out of musicians’ pocket with his low purchase fee, iTunes seems outright generous.

I am with you on this one Sabrina Benton. We have gone down the wrong road here.

So, Jim, how do you think artists should make money?

Same way they used to before copyright.  By producing it.

I would agree to a very short term inalienable copyright.  One that cannot be sold as property.

The next revolution (with guns) will be over copyright.

Jake Croston I’m glad you pay for Spotify…but there is still a grand overlooking of the fact that the musicians themselves, unless they are huge stars, are not doing well. The “rap” is that it’s good for everyone. It’s good, in fact, for no one except the companies who can put together the capital to create these services. Making money off talent is not hard. Making talent survive for the long haul, and being responsible to that talent, on the other hand, well, that takes talent too.

You’ve said everything I could have possible thought of myself. OK to share this here and on Facebook, ideally also on my blog with full credits to you and your page here?

Hi, Werner Nieke of course you may. Everyone…Werner here is a musician himself.

I think this is part of a larger philosophical question that we will someday (coming soon!) have to really confront. Namely, is it always going to be possible that ‘what people do all day’ == ‘work’ == ‘how they get food/clothing/shelter.’

The problem here is that we all love and value music and the arts, yet, at the same time, we believe that ‘musician’ and ‘artist’ are “jobs” and the people performing them have to “earn their keep.” I think performers are on the leading edge of something many of us will face as more and more of our jobs get “taken” by computers and automation.

That said, I guess I haven’t really thought much about my participation in the Spotify model. I am paying the $10/month for premium, and have used it like radio in my car. I’d like to think that the artists I discover with Spotify will end up as my purchases one day, but I guess I can’t guarantee that.

A lot of what I also use Spotify for is to play music from my youth that I previously bought on vinyl (which is in boxes in the attic).

(Alexander Becker Jeff Jockisch I feel like you could add some thoughts to this conversation.)

I have developed an allergy to the word ‘exposure’.

And the ‘agreed to a lifetime of poverty’ is a big part of what I call the Cult of the Amateur. The idea that artists should not expect to make any money and should have two choices:

1. Get up, go to day job, work on art, sleep.

2. Be a burden on their families.

This idea, the ‘Cult of the Amateur’, justifies that by saying that art that is paid for is belittled, that the artist who asks for or expects to get money is a ‘mercenary’ or a ‘hack’, and MANY artists…especially writers…buy into it. I see it all the time. That by refusing to pay for art we’re somehow valuing it more.

And Brian, you are absolutely right, but until that time, artists have to pay their bills too. We all accept that doctors and lawyers have to pay their bills from their work. None of us would fail to pay a landscape gardener or an auto mechanic.

Giselle Minoli I really respect your passion. I do take issue with one fundamental assumption with which I disagree. My wife is an artist. She has played the piano for more than 20 years, composes music, and sings beautifully. But she does it because she loves it. The fundamental assumption with which I disagree is that artist = professional musician. My perspective is that if an artist becomes filthy rich for their music then it’s icing on the cake for a job well done.

The music industry, just like any other industry is a business. And, like any other industry, there is competition which must be factored when one attempts to establish a career in that industry. It’s just the reality of capitalism, and I think it’s great because it drives the American dream.

If you want a good example of artists who “get” what I’m describing, look up The Piano Guys on YouTube – in fact, if you want to see a piece of artistic talent with which I’ve been mildly obsessed lately, search for Jon Schmidt All of Me. The man is a master, and his free music on YouTube led me to purchase his CD on Amazon.

That’s how I see success in the music industry. I give all the credit due to musicians, but lots of other entrepreneurs fail too.

(And I’m not trying to be harsh, either, so I apologize if it comes across that way)

This is an ages old problem Jennifer R. Povey. The difference between the patron and the person who wants it for free. This has always existed. The different is that now it is actually possible to get it for free. It didn’t used to be that way and I had to save my money for the albums I wanted. And I loved them more because I earned the right to pay for them and/or that theatre ticket.

I get your point Kenneth Trent but I never made the statement at artist = professional musician. If your wife had wanted to make money at it perhaps her life would have been different and she would have made different choices with her life. I am quite specifically talking about artists for whom that is the goal. There are many fortunate artists whose personal circumstances cushion the blow of not being able to pay their bills with the money they make. But that is not the same thing as sanctioning a system that makes it difficult for those who want to make a living off it. And there will always be The Piano Guys and Jon Schmidts and bravi to them and rock on and it is awesome. And bravo for you for buying their CD. As I do of the musicians who play beneath the Under New York banner in the subways. 

But this article was written for a reason. I didn’t write it and it didn’t come out of nowhere.

And no, you aren’t harsh. Just articulate. Thank you.

Giselle Minoli I just want to say — thanks for speaking out so eloquently about this. I’ve come to the decision that I no longer pay attention to anyone who has opinions about this topic unless they are an artist, musician, writer, or anyone trying to make it as a creative person

I’ve seen so much vitriol aimed at anyone who dares to say that they believe they should be paid for their creative work.

But Eve A I respect you so much for admitting that. How refreshing. Listen there are many people who can’t afford to purchase music (and I’m not saying this is true of you), but that doesn’t mean the philosophy and financial arrangement between artist and customer should be based on what the customer is willing to pay. The artist’s needs have to be included in this “game.”

Giselle Minoli I have worked hard to reduce and divest myself of much ownership as possible. I listen to radio and do not purchase music (or download it for free or whatever). I get books from the library instead of buying them (mostly – it is one hard habit to break!)

Having said that I have no interest in supporting a bankrupt and corrupt business model which has screwed artists for years…why should I put a penny in that direction? The model is broken – don’t blame the streaming services for it. If the model worked there would be little to no impact on the artists for the occasional (or even massive) black markets. Because black markets always arise whenever the system is broken – black markets from everything from food to music exist precisely where what is produced does not get to those who would consume it.

In fact the much more egalitarian model of self-publishing which the internet has allowed will eventually allow all artists to gain. Plenty of authors are making the switch, and being substantially better rewarded.

Finally, speaking for poets who never ever get any breaks anyway – what is wrong with having a “real job” to support your passion? Never hurt anyone to do a little work….I am a little tired of musicians (mostly) complaining that they get no money. Try writing poetry. Bah humbug.

Leo Campos I’m sorry to note that it seems like you’ve given up on yourself. Most artists I know work for years at one, two, three jobs. I make no difference between the work involved in writing and composing music and poetry…I think that would be unfair. But I pay for my haircut and am happy to pay for music. You have made another choice.

OK, here’s my comment and reasoning on this: http://wesbound.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/how-bizarre/

I’m with you on most of what you say, Jennifer R. Povey . “The Cult of Amateur” – very good coining! As far as PayPal and breach of terms: There is http://flattr.com/. I have personal experience as to how well that model works. I get the feeling it may not work all that well for the individual artist as the common reasoning seems to be to get as much for free as possible. If that is the case – and this very thread here unfortunately seems to confirm this as current reality – then I wouldn’t expect the philosophy as giving voluntarily as a widely spread one. Even charitable causes seem to do better as supporters seem to feel they’re closer connected with what they support. Or s.th. along those lines…

Well – make sure, you got “anger management” written all across it 😉 For I’d hate having to schedule a trip to the state penitentiary to attend a – cough – free reading of “Starbringer”… (:o

Bookmarking flattr – thank you. Seems like it might be a good system to use for donations if I were to do a web comic or other online serial.

So, Jim Williams, the solution is for artists to go on strike? The problem is not copyright. The problem is major corporations ABUSING copyright.

Somewhere in all of this there’s a balance. I’m not talking about artists being “filthy rich,” but a GOOD artist SHOULD be able to sustain a middle class lifestyle from their art.

I don’t see finding a balance while the Copyright Industry exists.  Sorry if the artists get hurt, but the only solution is to completely start over — after the industry is dead and gone.

The problem is Copyright — or rather IP and what it has become.  See: http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html

I’m not as familiar with options for musicians as I am for writers, obviously. I DO have a publisher (I HATE the term traditional publishing, by the way) and I happen to think they’re a good one. Even right now when I’m buried in what feels like an ocean of red ink.

I define middle class as not having to worry about food, clothing, telecommunications, and shelter, being able to take the occasional vacation, and having at least some budget for entertainment. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation for somebody who is working full time in what is, after all, a skilled profession. (Don’t get me started on McRates for writing work…)

Giselle Minoli I truly sympathize with the plight of anyone (artist or otherwise) who is forced into wage-slavery instead of being able to pursue the craft they love.  I think you’ll find this describes the vast majority of people throughout history, and even 80% of people alive today.  http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-04/strategy/30001895_1_new-job-passion-careers

Brian Titus hit the nail on the head.  We are headed for a time in which there is no longer a market for anyone’s labor; You have the misfortune of being one of the first casualties.  However, your battle is not with culture, but economics.  Philosophy does not dictate the price of an Mp3, economics does.

Information is not free because a bunch of cyber hippies decided it ought to be, and artists be damned.  Information is free because we live in an incredibly information-abundant age.  When a product (such as the work of undiscovered artists) becomes hyper-abundant, that product (and those for which it is an acceptable substitute) experiences falling prices.  One can’t blame the culture for that, there are just millions of people making music, and only so much music to consume in a day.

Is it right that artists should have to work 3 jobs waiting tables to support themselves and their passions?  No.  But honestly, artists aren’t special.  It isn’t right that Anyone should have to work 3 jobs or wait tables to support themselves.  

Well, somebody has to wait tables. And in SOME parts of the world, waiting tables is a respectable career, not something you do if you’re unworthy of anything better. France comes to mind.

But nobody should have to work 3 jobs. Especially when other people have 0 jobs. You’re right.

That’s a deeper issue, though…how we fix society and how we move on from our current economic basis to something more sustainable.

But our economic model of working is based on paying people for things that need to be done. We get sick, so we need doctors to fix us. However, if a drug was found tomorrow that could cure everyone of everything, guess what — no more need for doctors.

Artists don’t really fit the model because there isn’t a “need” for artists per se — we want art, but what we need is the way to get it. The internet and streaming have begun to address the “need” part of the equation for musicians. The barrier to getting music is being removed and now that is being construed as removing the value in the art. But it was never the value in the first place!

I sooo concur, Tessa Schlesinger !!! And besides, Brian Titus – even in the most “barbaric” times, there were rulers and nobility who’d keep artists around to entertain them, when they didn’t go to war or otherwise engage in securing and expanding their kingdoms. If you want to speak about need, then there was even less of a need to do so in those times. Yet they did and they fed them and paid them and kept them around. (Hence the expression “He who pays the piper, calls the tune”). Why do you think that is? For mere need? I reiterate: Culture is part of being human. Remove culture from the equation and we’ll end up reversing evolution. Is that the idea….?

Tessa Schlesinger You don’t seem to realize that we are on the verge of everyone being in the same plight.  With the rate of growth in automation even CEOs will be “redundant” in 20 years.

In fact, 30 years from now artists will probably be the only people who can find work — and there will be laws to protect the “made by a human” label.

Within the past week, I was talking about one of my favorite CDs and someone asked “are they still making those.” Yes they are still making them and buying them is one of my few presents to myself.

Our kids have grown up in a seemingly anachronistic family that pays for its music.  That said, Pandora is a great resource for finding new music to purchase. It really doesn’t replace those purchases for me.

Such a good discussion and of course others are more eloquently making the point that I was attempting. When I said “need” I did not mean that humans don’t need art. I meant that the “need” in the economic equation is mainly around the technology of distribution. Spotify has reduced the cost of distribution to the level of nearly free. But of course the cost of distribution has nothing to do with the true value of the art, or the human desire to experience and/or create the art.

I agree with Tessa Schlesinger — what we are going to have to do is confront the questions of a post labor economy. Topics like this one are important because even though not all of us are artists, all of us may one day face a similar fate.

“The idea that only people who have something that someone else with money wants to buy should be able to survive is simply wrong.” And yet it is vigorously promoted e.g. in my country and from what I see, elsewhere, too, David Whitlock  Which is why threads and discussions like this one are more important than ever, lest we forget what a culture thrives on and from.

How much do artists normally get per play?  If I pay $10 for a CD with 15 songs, that’s about $.66 per song for unlimited plays, if I listen to it 100 times that’s comes out to about a half cent per play and the artist only gets a fraction of that.  In the per-play model they get paid every time it’s played instead of only once.  It may be that they’re not getting enough, but I think people may be forgetting that it’s a per-play model instead of the normal per-song model, and half a cent may not be any worse than they’ve always received.

That argument Joe Naylor sounds very much like the one used by CEOs who ship jobs to China and underpay their workers and then justify it by saying that the $1.50 per hour they get is better than they were getting before. 

It seems to me, more and more, that some sort of micro-patronage is the way out for all of us. Just consider, if an artist can have, say, just 1000 fans willing to support their work with 50 dollars per year on average (which means, it maybe 10 from some, 200 from others), it would be a living already. And, of course, this patronage can be rewarded with things like signed CDs, books, prints, some original works, tickets to concerts, etc.

You are right and my apologies Joe Naylor. However, I beg to offer that I am not biased simply because I am in the “arts” businesses. It is not a philosophy for me in the intellectual sense. It is a business practice. I pay artists for what they create and I also expect to be paid for my artistic output. My “rationality” if you will, is that this is the way the world works. Were there a way for the technological world (or science perhaps? Or Lucasfilms?) to bring edible food to the internet that would be free too. But the basic things that we “need” we have to pay for – food, shelter, clothing, cars, gas, furniture, jewelry…you know, stuff.

I simply do not think that because the brilliance of technology makes it possible to now have so much “information” for free, that the creative issue of musicians, poets, writers, photographers should assumed to be fodder for the grand consuming machinery that is the internet.

The leap in rationality has been huge. Just because it has happened, doesn’t mean it’s right. And it most certainly doesn’t mean it is a healthy state of affairs for ours or any other culture.

Those who know me know that I am a staunch defender of ownership rights and intellectual property rights.  An artist, a developer, a writer – they all deserve to make whatever the legitimate market will bear for their wares.

What Giselle Minoli brings up here is not really about an artist being able to make a living with their art.  The reality is that sometimes an artist CANNOT make a living off of their talent.  I am less concerned about someone making a living from their talent as I am making sure they are compensated for the sale or use of their talent.  Spotify and Pandora have entered into contractual arrangements for the music they stream with the owners of the rights to that music (which may or may not be the artists themselves, but could be a record company or some other entity).  People enter into these contracts knowing full well what the payment arrangement is – and if they don’t they didn’t do their homework.  All along the chain of contracts, people made choices to enter into these arrangements.  You cannot whine about what you signed up for after the fact.  Well, you can, but it doesn’t have much impact.

The reality is that art and talent does not exist in some kind of protected vacuum where they are not subject to the whims and influence of the marketplace.  There are incredibly talented people (in my opinion) not making any kind of money from their talent while there are plenty of hacks (in my opinion) making mountains of money.  The market determines what people are going to be paid – regardless of what I think some piece of output is worth.

Jennifer R. Povey If a musician signs a contract handing over electronic distribution rights, then by default the DID agree to the contract with Pandora or Spotify.  Because they handed over the rights, they have nothing to say about any contract with Pandora or Spotify.

Part of this has to do with the complete lack of vision both the video and music businesses had with regards to electronic distribution.  They were so locked up in their model of physical distribution that they failed to see the coming train of Internet streaming and electronic files.  While the music industry is much farther along on their understanding and contractual maturity than the video business, they still have things to work out.  Artists have not been much better at figuring out the new marketplace they have to exist in.

Daniel Bobke I think your points are valid and important, but I would say that while I agree that artists must read the fine print and be careful about what they get locked into Jennifer R. Povey, part of the problem is that the technological upper hand is held by the makers of the technology, not the artists. It might seem like an artist can walk away from a contract, but, when you’ve been working those three jobs for such a long time that you feel you have to take a chance and just say Yes, this is where it all gets whacky.

You are right that there was considerable lack of vision…but, again, the technology of the future is driven by the makers of the technology. Artists are busy making art. That’s what they do. It often happens that unwitting clients sign contracts with things in them that they don’t understand. Not everyone has a high-powered lawyer to protect them. Not everyone is good at this kind of business…just like not everyone is a talented painter or concert pianist or jazz musician.

There is an integrity issue at stake here as well. The ground is constantly shifting under the feel of the artists’ marketplace, which makes it very tricky to figure out which direction to go in. And, no matter what, it takes time, money and technology to fit in. If an artist doesn’t get paid, it’s virtually impossible for them to do that.

Well said Giselle Minoli.

The leap in rationality has been huge. Just because it has happened, doesn’t mean it’s right. And it most certainly doesn’t mean it is a healthy state of affairs for ours or any other culture.

I can’t disagree with that.  Music is also a difficult business because great success depends so much on fame, and that’s difficult to predict; those most worthy are rarely the most successful.  But I hope they at least find enough success to continue!

To my best knowledge, intellectual property rights always remain with their creator and are unalienable. Copyrights and licensing, a.k.a. useage rights , are subject to contracts, individually closed ones or via record company/label. In my understanding, a work for hire contract is still a license – but an exclusive one given to one user and potentially “forever” (personally, I’d always include a “sunset” clause, as you put it, Jennifer R. Povey, even with work for hire).

Technically speaking, available technology offers more control for the artist than ever before, but it’s an incredibly large effort to wear all the hats of the “value added chain”. I’ve tried… but I haven’t succeeded in generating substantial download numbers. The latter could have to do with the particular genre I tried to get a foot in, as other aspiring artists have had the same or similar experience there and it seems to be the case that this particular demographic isn’t all that open to downloading per se. It all boils down to powerful campaigns – and those require a substantial budget. Crowdfunding filled this gap for some artists, but largely for those, who have already established themselves. It can work, though…

“Artists are busy making art” is a cop out.  Artists that want to compete in the marketplace against other artists and other options for entertainment or pleasure better pay attention to technology and how it impacts the market they play in.  If you want to sell your product, you have to simultaneously get better at producing it AND distributing it.  As I said, there are people making mountains of cash compared to other (better) artists because they understand the market they exist in.  If you are too busy making art, don’t blame anyone but yourself if the market passes you by.

I think you misunderstand my comment Daniel Bobke. If the people running the companies who make a living off of artists were 100% capable of being artists themselves, they would be. So, too, if artists were 100% capable of promoting themselves they would do so. It has always been a symbiotic relationship. Artists have been represented by galleries not at all because they are “coping out” but because you do have to pick how you want to spend your time. And you would never make that comment about a surgeon. You would not tell a surgeon to go to medical school, graduate, then buy all of their own equipment, set up a hospital, do all the surgery and everything else that is entailed in having a profession in medicine. Nor would you say that to a scientist. 

This notion that artists can do absolutely everything is naive. The only artists I know who are doing that and completely making a living off of it usually became well known under the umbrella of an organization first, then branched out on their own with some structure beneath them. Oh, yes, I know artists who like to claim that they have done everything themselves, but most people in any business get a lot of help along the way. To succeed as an artist you have to get a lot of help along the way.

Further, I know many people who are proficient at technology, but could not do what Lena Levin does as a painter…yet the reverse is fully expected. So it’s very much a double standard.

That’s not what I referred to, Matthew Graybosch. I hence chose to delete my comment.

I am not sure Giselle Minoli but they have to figure it out. Art and the ability to make a living doing it is a market like any other and there is no room for sympathy for someone that can’t figure out how to exist in that market. You either trust all those people who handle the “non-arty” things – and that has proven to be a mistake for many, many artists – or you learn about it and understand the BUSINESS you are in…because it is a business.

Werner Nieke Name a business that doesn’t have moving goalposts. You have to keep up with the business you are in.

… or the RIAA going after the little guy instead of the big downloading portals – what’s all that got to do with keeping up? It’s just plain backstabbing, bullying, cornering and unfair play. How am I or anyone working autonomously supposed to be prepared for that? If someone else tells you, as of now we’re not going to distribute as much as we owe you and keep the rest – that’s just stealing.

Part of the inequality in life is that value creation does not equal value capture. Starving artists and laborers and more and more of us know this and adjust, change, do something new.

Media companies are experiencing this now b/c the internet is disrupting their value capture. But instead of moving on, they claim poverty and litigate.

Of course, the breakage and piracy isn’t really killing them anyway (check revenue and profit growth) but they cant live with the thought that a chunk of profit has gone uncollected.

I think its sad that we don’t reward people based on a better measure of their contribution to our lives. Maybe we can get past that when we get past Capitalism 1.0.

Thanks for the tag, Brian Titus 

Actually I think we agree Giselle Minoli.  I don’t expect an artist to do everything for profit or remuneration.  However, when one does step out to try to make a living purely by selling their artistic output, then they must understand and operate with some sort of business sense.  If an artist wants to produce their art purely for the enjoyment it brings them or others, more power to them and I applaud them.  But you can’t whine about the money side unless you choose to participate in how it all works.  What I reject is the argument that because one uses the word “art” that it somehow brings immunity from the real world of marketing, selling, distribution, and profits.

BTW – another great example of someone who has embraced the business side and taken control of their own destiny in that realm is Bon Jovi.  Specifically, Jon Bon Jovi learned a while back that they make more money when they control more aspects of the business they created.  I am sure they have advisors and good people around them, but Jon Bon Jovi is the guy in charge.

In your language you describe artistic failure as having something to do with an artistic unwillingness to understand the reality of business Daniel Bobke. This is fairly patronizing and is, at its core, part of what the problem is that inspired this post. For any person who is not an artist to claim that they have any idea how difficult it is to make a living and that if that person doesn’t it means they haven’t been able to go with the flow is judgment at worst and naive at best. The economic and artistic difficulties of getting a play up on its feet, of mounting a show, of writing a play, a novel or a book of poetry are staggering. And while many of us who are in fact artists are able to multi-task and work at jobs outside of our dreamed for fields for years and years and often years, many people who are not artists cannot do that in the reverse. The truth is that most artists understand the grassroots of economy and hand to mouth far more than most people ever will. Traditional employment gives someone, if they are lucky, a job that gives them a paycheck every two weeks. I personally admire people who spend their lives continually having to find a way to pay the bills because, as others have said here, they are compelled to be artists like my husband was compelled to be a surgeon. The only difference is that economically his life is more secure than theirs. The talent, ability, passion, discipline, years of effort and often training are comparable.

There should not be an iota of blame in that. Only admiration. Particularly when so many non artists are willing to partake of an artist’s output “for free.”

I just found that Giselle Minoli has mentioned everything relevant in regards to your replies, Daniel Bobke  – and with much greater eloquence and charm than I ever could. So I will simply concur 🙂

Your comments feel judgement to me, Daniel Bobke. I am always suspicious of the very military like “You signed up for it” doctrine. It is never a productive road to go down, most particularly when talking about art. There have been many, many changes in the medical field that none of the many doctors in my family have been able to keep ahead of, predict, work with, change or influence. I would never tell any of them that they have failed to keep up with their business. But you seem to have more empathy for someone in a more traditional metier like medicine not being able to keep up, than you have for artistic people, and that’s unfortunate. I hope your son made the right choice. If I had a dollar for every artist who gave it up…and came ’round years later to ask “What if…”

No judgement Giselle Minoli – just the facts.  If you choose a path and are clearly informed of what that path entails, there is no whining allowed.  I don’t care what field it is – art, medicine, or technology.  I am in technology and there is very little that moves as fast as tech – in fact I would challenge that changes in technology happen faster than changes in the practice of medicine.  I spend a tremendous amount of time reading and staying abreast of my field – it is incumbent upon me to do so and I love what I do so it is not hard.  Your level of success if most often dictated by the amount of effort you put into what you do.  Certainly there is a little luck involved with everyone, but most success comes from pure dedication to all aspects of what you do.

As far as my son goes, the “what if” is all on him.  We invested a tremendous amount of time and money into his music, but he proved to himself that he is just not passionate enough about it to dedicate his life to it.  He is very comfortable continuing to play for fun on the side and not worry about making a living with music.  I think he made a wise choice, but it was his choice to make.

Call it what you will Giselle Minoli – we judge many things on their merits every day.  The word “judgmental” may have a bad connotation in your world, but not in mine.  I do see a lot of whining in the article.  The music market has changed a tremendous amount in the past 10-15 years, with the primary result being that prices have been driven down and ease of access has gone up.  The artists may earn less, but the market is what the market is.  I know the artists don’t like that, but that is not really the issue.  The issue is what the market bears for what they sell.  There has been, and always will be, more actors and musicians in waiters or waitress uniforms than there ever has been on a stage or a recording.  Having lived in the Los Angeles area for a long time, I can certainly attest to that.

As for my son, I think your comment is snarky and, to use your words, dismissive and disrespectful.  His path is his path.  He didn’t “give up” – he made a choice about the kind of life he wants for himself regarding his vocation.  He still plays (very well I might add) but he chooses to do it purely for the joy of playing rather than trying to squeeze out a living with it.  I respect that he thought it through and realized that his passion for it was not strong enough to motivate him to seek the “starving artist” life.  Now he can have the best of both worlds – he can make a good living and play whenever he likes and just have fun doing it.

I liked the post and the interaction even though I have a different conclusion than you do Giselle Minoli.  Have a good night.

Good morning, everyone. Denis Labelle kindly drew my attention this morning to a post of Adam Singer’s entitled 21 Reasons You Should Make Art, and, after our long discussion yesterday, I thought it would be the perfect after dinner drink so to speak. Adam wrote it in 2008 but every point in it holds true today. As an example: No matter what type of art you make, it is one of the most fulfilling things you can do as a conscious and creative person.  I not only find it a driving force in my life, but have witnessed what happens to someone when they get involved as well. Read on, and have a good day everyone:

http://thefuturebuzz.com/2008/10/01/21-reasons-you-should-make-art/

Brian Titus I am not disagreeing with the hope that 0% cannibalization and 100% fair pay is the norm in the future. If this raises the importance of the question and highlights the need to be conscious of these issues, that is a good thing. We, do, however, need to pull away from the widespread belief that everything should be “free” and that art is “information.” It is not.

Why wouldn’t everyone want everything to be free? Wouldn’t that be a wonderful world to live in? But I underscore the collective continued willingness to pay for “tangible” things such as cars, shoes and potato chips, which resides uncomfortably and weirdly alongside an ill-conceived wishful belief system that anything one can’t “touch,” such as a song or a piece of writing, should therefore be free, like the wind, or air. Good grief even gas stations are charging for air these days!

Daniela Huguet Taylor Here in the States yes I do think a significant number of people have come to believe certain things should be free and it doesn’t help that so many people are out of work. I don’t think at all that it is a wish for artists to starve, I think it’s a disconnect from consciousness about what things actually cost. And that disconnect has come from technology itself. In the good old days of record stores (I remember when you could put on a set of headphones and listen to an album in a booth…) you would pay for something that was tangible. It obviously cost money to press it, to make it, to manufacture it and no one would even suggest it should be free. But without the dots to connect to it has become easier to forget the process. The honor of business is that the deal has to be good for all parties. I hope that at the forefront of mind is that it be good for the artists who are creating our entertainment. Long live support for the arts.

I haven’t forgotten Daniela Huguet Taylor and you can believe me or not but I never did that. I had a problem with that, too. But…I always believed that if I own a CD of a particular artist and I download it onto my laptop that I have the right to download it onto all of my media players – iPhone, iPods for the car for the exercise bike for everything. And I believe that what I buy digitally I have the right to bequeath to someone, just like I can bequeath my paintings or books or old LP collection. There are certain books that I fall in love with that I buy multiple copies of and I give them to people.

Look, I’m not saying it isn’t complicated. Intellectual copyright is extremely complicated and we are making this up as we go along. But I am saying that we can never forget that there is a human being underneath something artistic that we are enjoying and it matters that they are being properly compensated for the creation of it.

Here on G+ I think it is crucial that we properly credit writers, poets, photographers, graphic artists and any other kind of artist whose work we enjoy or share here. It matters and it makes a difference.

I never wrote that every single person always paid for everything before Daniela Huguet Taylor. I could never make that claim. I mean that the culture of knowing that one has to pay for music has shifted to believing that one doesn’t really have to now. That is a huge, huge, shift. 

I’m not sure that’s true.

A movie in theaters is not directly comparable to a purchased album. It’s directly comparable to a live concert.

A purchased album is comparable to buying the movie on DVD. And hey, you know, those can be streamed too…

Giselle Minoli You have to remember for music and TV shows there is also netflix and hulu, which are at roughly the same price point as music streaming services.

Brian Titus Christine Paluch and Jennifer R. Povey I do understand your points and am mindful of the fact that it is tricky if not impossible to make comparison to other art forms and formats because nothing is exact. Still I made the comparison only to underscore that I think the most important thing to keep in mind, ultimately is fair compensation for artist endeavor. What a nightmare to determine what that might be. It seems I read something about this subject virtually every week. Given the response, I could make a blog post about this subject alone and be busy for weeks!

Jennifer R. Povey pondering the direct/not direct comparability of CDs and DVDs. While it is true that you can buy a CD then pay to see the artist live and you cannot do that with a film, still if I want to see a film that is a favorite I either have to buy it, or pay on demand or something that costs money. Am I the only one who has a huge stash of movie DVDs? It’s like my hardcover and paperback Library. I love them. I personally need to get away from my computer and earphones. I need a big screen to absorb the full creative power of a movie and I need to listen to music on a good system (while cooking, or just lolling about.) Ease isn’t everything ya know…

Ha! Cheryl Machat Dorskind! Everyone, may I introduce you to a brilliant photographer and artist and writer and teacher, whom you may already know through Google+, but Cheryl and I go way back. We worked together at CBS Records in the old days before it was Sony. Cheryl was a product manager for Epic Records when I was the National Director of Customer Merchandising. She left to pursue her own artistic passion for photography as I did to pursue mine for theatre. Cheryl has a deep commitment to the arts and if you don’t know her I encourage you to visit her profile page and to Circle her!

(apologies for embarrassing you, Cheryl).

Cheryl…I’m in NY but am literally holed up writing a speech and feel guilty because I haven’t called anyone!!!!

When I bought my 37″ plasma TV some 6 or 7 years ago, it cost me over 1,400 euros. Nowadays, I can buy a 50″ plasma TV (same make) for under 600 euros. Many things go through that price cycle, expensive when new and costly to make, and then gradually cheaper. Music has not, nor have films. Nor, more sadly still, have our salaries gone up much, and this is true for the US as it is for Europe, business profits and growth have gone up, but we’re still earning the same money, which as certain things such as housing and foodstuff get more expensive, makes us gradually poorer.

I can buy a game for my mobile or tablet for under 1 euro, which will give me hours of gameplay even if I don’t replay it ever again (which I also could, of course). I doubt these cheap games get pirated much, it feels very cheap to do so. Yet one song, typically something over 3 minutes, costs over that amount. Yes, of course, you can listen to it again, yet not all songs are classics that can be listened to eternally, nor should they be. A well priced streaming service is a good solution to this dilema, and allows many more artists to be supported (if the music houses are paying them right!) than would the selling of individual songs.

That said, I do actually only listen to the radio quite happily in the car, and don’t listen to music elsewhere. And that has been my lifelong habit, I’ve never bought much music at all, except for Queen’s A Night at the Opera and little else.

We have a tendency to paint the past in a rosy colour, and the future in ever blackening tones. We think the world is more violent now, and yet the data shows that it is not. And I have read this, and repeated it, several times… and yet I feel as if it weren’t true. Ah the good old days! we always think. And yet Van Gogh died a poor man, as did so many other artists. It hasn’t gotten worse, really, the internet is actually allowing many artists to free themselves from the shackles of the producing houses, and I bet that if you added up the money being made from all the alternate channels, you would find that we are not spending any less on music. That story I wrote is for a book that a group of us is producing, that we will put up for sale directly on Google Play and Amazon, do you think any publishing house would have taken it? And what percentage of the sales would we have received, to be divided between the seventy-odd authors? (actually, as an aside, the whole proceeds are going to charity).

Also, the internet has allowed us to be better informed, many of the people who go for the “all free” model are rebelling at the unfair business model that we didn’t used to be aware of. Nowadays, we know full well that artists generally make pennies off what cost us pounds.

Gah, this may all be unrelated ramblings, sorry, I’m writing it from the car while I wait for my son to finish his study class. Hugs, dear.

Hehehe… the joys of having an Asus Transformer, with attached keyboard. 😉 Even so, it’s not the best of places to write clear-headed stuff.

I agree with that assessment Tessa Schlesinger. I grew up around artists of all kinds. My father was an architect and painter/draftsman, who was also a furniture maker. Most of my parents friends were artists of one sort or another, many of them painters. One of her closest friends did not become internationally recognized until she was 75, when she was finally financially successful. I was raised with a respect for what artists do, as much respect for them as those who spend their lives in more financially secure professions.

I think the general assessment that times are a changin’ and too bad for artists, you signed up for it baby, and if you can’t take the heat get out of the fire is frankly, rubbish fueled by jealousy and envy.

Artists more than any people I can think of have not only changed with the times, they are the documentarians of that very change. They are the photographers and filmmakers who record the horrors of war. They are the playwrights and theatre directors whose works are read and produced decades upon decades after they are dead. They are the writers and poets who works are studied in high school and college classrooms hundreds of years after pen was set to parchment and that stand the test of time. They are the composers whose pieces of music still compel silence, or joy, or stunned awe when their notes hit ones ears. They are the choreographers who have changed the way we see the human body, who can make us feel while sitting in our seats. They are the painters and sculptures in front of whose works of art we stand at packed museums all over the world. The are the architects who build the houses we live in and design the parks we linger in.

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, but I do believe that if we lose sight of what we used to do that worked and destroy it, we all lose. I do believe that part of our job, while we are oh so busy changing, is to take quality and appreciation and value with us into the future and to teach a respect for it to those younger than us who come across our paths.

van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime. Because a young woman who was a friend of his brother bought it. He is still considered one of the greatest painters who ever lived. None of us know whether the young woman in the article I attached, for whose financial plight there seems to be so little sympathy and who some think of as a “whiner,” will eventually create a musical legacy that will outlast and outshine us all. I hope she does and that I can hear those notes from the al di la.

I want to read that book Tessa Schlesinger. But there’s something about it that I don’t believe. Soldiers are suffering greater degrees of Traumatic Stress Disorder than ever before and the suicide rate is very high. I don’t buy that we are so one way or another. I do buy that children are “trained out of or into” a way of being. If a child has parents who are fearful, they will be fearful. If a child has parents who encourage them to take risks they will take risks. We are part biology, part education, part cultural training, and part our own consciousness. With those skills we can either expand our own consciousness and understanding of the world around us, or shut off to it.

Funny that the hard-wireds who would fall into the “insensitive” category in this book, are the ones who usually love to hang out with artists!

Jennifer R. Povey Flattr can be used with Music too and currently has a partnership with Grooveshark to support artists better there, see more here: http://help.grooveshark.com/customer/portal/articles/669416-flattr

I think one of the issues is music has been technologically interdependent for at least the last century, in fact much of modern music evolved out of technology. So as much as the idea that musicians are independent of changes in technology, strikes me as a bit…let me put this, absurd and out of touch, especially as a musician and composer. Those musicians that have been both at the knowledgeable of both  technology and music have been the ones who are often not only some of the best musicians, but also the most celebrated. Those who can both master the technical aspects of production and engineering, but also the instrumentation, often are the best in their field. The reality is most musicians I know these days work a great deal on both. Music is far to wrapped up in technology to claim any sort of purity, and that has been the case for decades, but is especially true in an age of the rising prominence of electronic music, where technological wizardry is at the core of the music. Music has always been subject to changes in technology, and adaption to emerging technologies has long been part of music, both in the marketing and in the creation aspects. 

Also there are two things to note. The woman mentioned in the article left a highly successful rock band (Rasputina) to pursue a solo career doing experimental music (whatever she calls it, that is what it is). The economics of experimental music has always been a bit different. There is less of a reliance on record sales, and more on making a living on the technology side of music (engineering), through composition and sound design, or more often having a day job that pays well. Taking many experimental musicians, are technical, this is often in technology and engineering.  The more traditional economic structures are not there as much, largely because the audience is small for the music making it less economically viable. While there are popular acts who have broke into the mainstream who do experimental, it is exceptionally rare. Often experimental is a fringe music.  Those of us who pursue experimental music, and I am one, often do so knowing there is not really a career in the music itself, but the related skill sets that come from making the music, and real recognition usually does not come in ones lifetime if it does happen. There has been more of a breakthrough where it is a bit more economically viable, but this is because of the internet, not in spite of it.  The dehomogenization of music, and the relative democratization, has been beneficial, especially for those on the more electronic side of experimental. But this does not mean the audience is much larger. It just means there is more of an audience then there was previously.  

The reality is some music is becoming harder to live off of for some is because of shrinking audiences that are independent of technology, audience taste and preferences shift. The audience for classical is literally decreasing because of death, and classical is suffering as a result.  I would say the same for more traditional forms of jazz, but the reality is jazz kind of lives on through all modern music. Even Rock’s core audience is aging, and I think rock musicians know this. The reality is much of the audience preference has moved on to more electronic forms of music, and this started in the 1990s. Electronic music, has different economics from the traditional music industry, but has allowed it to adapt and thrive in the modern era, and this includes benefiting from the internet.  This is the reality of music, with new technology, often comes alongside music and audiences for music evolving once more, but also the market and economics of music itself. Music is more prone to disruption than any other entertainment and arts market.  Because of that, there is an aspect of adaptation that has long been there.  Rock was tailor made for the TV era, Jazz the radio era, and electronic…the information era. Music is thriving, but not every musician or musical style is. This is the hard thing for many people to grasp. 

In terms of having a day job, it has long been a reality for most musicians, even before the internet. Those who usually make a living off of art are often coming from a place of relative privilege, where they have access to the resources, connections, and people to make that happen, and this is no different for musicians. This is something that is often not talked about, but I think it is critical to bring it up, especially considering those who have commented do in fact have that privilege.  I know people do not like to hear they are coming from a place of privilege, but that is something that should be noted. For most musicians the reality is they have to work for a living, but with music itself being so linked to technology these days, it is not hard to find a job that pays well using related knowledge.  

 I am not a traditionalist, I find traditionalism about as bad as conservatism. I see the evolution both in the market, and music itself, as largely positive. The beauty of music for me does come from the fact it does change and evolve, that there are new boundaries to be broken.   Music, like film and video games, evolves alongside technology changes, not despite those changes.  The ground is always shifting with regards to music, the difference now is it happens faster.

Evan Schoepke, (Comment deleted, thanks for the information.)

I think everyone on this thread would benefit from reading this recent Q&A with Amanda Palmer on why pay what you want is a new vable path forward for creatives. http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/indies/1533797/amanda-palmer-qa-why-pay-what-you-want-is-the-way-forward-and-more

best regards,

Evan @flattr

Very interesting comments Christine Paluch and I appreciate the time you took to express it all. I have not been in the music business for decades now, but I am as much a music lover as I ever was. I have been in the fine art and writing businesses since then. My own observation is that while everything is shifting and changing and new technologies and styles are being added to “what was,” “what was” doesn’t disappear. There was a time when the technological ability to watch a movie at home had everyone believing that movie theatres would vanish. They didn’t. Neither have books. The publishing industry has changed, but the future does not wipe out the past. In terms of musicianship, proof of that is the huge, huge, huge success of Adele, who in a weird way rolled by the clock. Not only in her style, but in her musicianship. She stripped away all of the Lady Gaga accoutrements and went back to basics – voice and song. And then there’s Dylan, who is still doing his thing.

So, too, in photography, I read a review of a photographer who doesn’t use digital cameras and still develops his own film.

Not all music will be electronic. Not all photography will be digitally retouched. There is no only one way. Most artists moving at break neck speed into the future, are devout students of the masters who came before them in any medium.

Has anyone heard Bowie’s new album?  Love the man. Very curious to hear what he’s all about musically after a decade of silence.

Giselle Minoli I have heard one song from the new album, it is fantastic, filled with pathos. It is on my buy list (and yes, I still buy music). I am not discounting that people will go back to older styles, there is more or less a cyclical aspect in music where styles fade and come back somewhat fresh. 

Whew! I started reading this thread 2 days ago and am finally caught up!  Thank you, Giselle Minoli , for starting this conversation, and many thanks to so many of you who have added lots of wisdom and info (I now have more interesting people in my Interesting People circle).  🙂

This is kind of a heartbreaking conversation to read.  I’m sure many of you are familiar with the even more heartbreaking song by Gillian Welch, “Everything is Free” — which is basically about this very topic.  I cry whenever I really listen to it.  If you haven’t heard it, you owe it to yourselves to look it up and give it a listen, and perhaps even purchase it, if you like it.  If you’re a HSP, you might want to have a hanky on hand.

For the record, so to speak, I have been purchasing music since I was a kid; my allowance, my baby-sitting money, and money from every job I ever had, except for those times when I was simply too poor to afford it, went to the purchase of singles, albums, cassette tapes, CDs, and now MP3s plus CDs.  I have slacked off on the physical media lately, though, due to house-room issues.  I do listen to Pandora almost all the time (paid subscription).  I would like to think the musicians got more than a few pennies per song, though, so that makes me sad, but if they get a few pennies every time I listen, maybe it’ll add up.  I don’t know.  I do buy music from musicians I discover on Pandora.  And I’ve never downloaded a free song, unless it was an offer from the musician.  We also go out to hear live music at times (here in the Live Music Capitol of the World, where there are 80-100+ bands playing every night, and more on weekends), and support the musicians (hopefully) through our cover charge, with money in the musicians’ tip jar, and by buying their CDs directly from them.  

 David Whitlock : I love what you said here: “The biggest loss is the creative work that is not done because those doing the creative work can’t do it because they need to scrabble to put food on the table.”  As a painter who struggled to get the time to paint while working full-time+ jobs, or 2-3 jobs at a time, this sentiment is near and dear to my heart.  The most time I ever had to devote to art was while I was in art school (which I put myself through, btw; no help from the folks).  Often the jobs a Highly Sensitive Person finds to work at can be so draining, that maintaining a discipline of creating their passionate work after getting home from the paid job and on days off becomes challenging, to say the least.

My husband said something the other day that has really struck a chord with me, something like, if I weren’t doing these little paintings, they wouldn’t exist.  They could only come from my own particular take on the world.  All artists are (hopefully) adding something of beauty or importance to the world by following their true creative voice, something that would not be in the world without their endeavors.  I think of all the painters, writers and musicians without whom the world would be a much poorer place.  Too bad our society makes it so hard for artists to survive by doing their art.

Part of the problem is the tragic devaluation of the arts in the U.S. by the government, in schools, etc.  And yet the arts generate billions of dollars of revenue for the various levels of government.  How is it that the people with the specialized artistic visions, the ones doing the creating have to live so poorly, when this is the case?  (OK, clearly, I’m not an economist, nor do I wish at this time to get into that whole mess).  In many other civilized countries, there is enormously more support from the govt.: http://www.thecitywire.com/node/17119#.UQsHVaU8CSo  

One wonders, for example, would Jackson Pollock have ever achieved his drip style, had he not been given time to develop as a painter through the WPA?

I think G+ #Hangouts on Air are accomplishing this or at the very least, it seems to be a direction they’re headed in, ideally marrying their two social media platforms G+ and YouTube. Do a #hoa #hangouts #g + musicians live search to see what I mean, Brian Titus . I participated in such a hangout the other week (http://wp.me/pobd4-LB – my performance begins at around 17.45 into the podcast). It wasn’t all professional and such (on my part, I mean, but you get the idea (and I see where this might be headed if done properly): 

Apologies everyone for how long it took me to get back to this thread. I had a draft of a major speech due today and I’ve been holed up writing…but I did read the article Evan Schoepke suggested and I swear I felt I was reading my own words. Amanda Palmer is so right on. It is the tradition of a system (also in publishing) that used to compensate musicians for their work, to the current one in which this global world makes it very difficult for “companies” to make money so it is the talent that suffers.  Decades ago…and still now surely there were patrons of artists in the art world. We were more connected to the artistic value of life. Then a barrier was put between us and the people in our lives, our communities, who are the artistic spirits and it became easy to distance ourselves from how they make a living. I have been thinking about this thread all week. Tonight as I walked home in the cold, making my way from Madison Avenue over to Grand Central Station, where there are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the building where people arrive in New York to go to work every single day with a musical concert…scores and scores of people were hanging out trying to figure out who was playing, watching the grand piano be tuned and the music stands set up and the drums…and it mattered and they cared. No one was coming to listen to someone in the technology world give a lecture on technology. They were coming to the celebration to listen to a group play music, someone sing and someone else read poetry. There was no businessman in a suit standing in front of the crowd pointing at a pie chart. The crowd was assembling for the art that was going to be presented there.  I was too tired to hang out for hours until the show started and I’m claustrophobic anyway and so I made my way around the corner and passed a man playing classical music on a violin. His violin case was open on the floor at his feet. It was filled with money. Not with change, but with dollar bills and five dollar bills and ten dollar bills. And it made me smile. Artists art special. And people do support them. We just need to think about it more.

Basically…you all rock!

Talented musicians who have worked most of their lives, perfecting their art, reflecting their feelings and life experiences back to us, to make our world a more beautiful place,. are simply being ripped off.

You are welcome Mark J Horowitz. But honestly it didn’t take much…I am a long time music lover and lover of the arts. It is artists who inspire me every single day of my life. The older I get this feeling only intensifies…never abates!

Hi Ev Sütter not in the slightest are you an intrusion. Your welcome are completely welcome. I’m wondering if I understand you correctly however. I grew up listening to classical music, and every other kind of music because my mother loved it whether it was Willie Nelson or Rachmaninoff. We never referred to it as “entertainment,” rather as part of the other culture with which we surrounded ourselves – art, music, theatre, dance, painting, poetry, literature – because in my family it was perceived as something necessary to our lives. If you removed it the quality of life went down, down, down. We purchased records and theatre tickets not to be entertained, in what I perceive to be the modern sense of that word (and there certainly isn’t anything wrong with entertainment), but because it was part of our life. When I was in the record business all of these genres of music were a part of life – classical, country, folk, rock, rap, opera, pop – and then slowly but surely the marketing plans got skewed to those genres that were selling more than others and venues started closing (like for Jazz) and then it was the slow spiral downward. Personally, I just don’t think of music as entertainment, nor do I see movies or theatre that way. They are just a part of my life. Like breathing and sleeping and eating. So…are we agreeing or disagreeing with one another? And I assume your daughter plays classical piano?