Are the chickens coming home to roost?

[BTH K10A]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33526045

[struth]

I think it has already changed, and it is getting harder for musicians to make a living. The middle men take most of it. Maybe the day will come when there is so little good new music out there that people will just say, Enough, and go back to buying physical music(probably second hand) Those old records that no-one wants may yet rise in value considerably.(right said fred etc):lol:

[Macca]

Interesting. I don't think it is the streaming that is the problem but this attitude:

"I feel like it's getting harder and harder to survive in the music industry and to get established in any way. Not as many people are buying records as they used to, which makes things a lot harder for us. Because if people don't buy my record... I will get dropped by my label''

Try not looking at it as an industry. If you want to make music and put it out there you can, those barriers were long since broken down. What do you need a record company for except to take most of the revenue off you?

"I was interested in the number of streams I got on Spotify and I think it was around five million plays of the entire album from start to finish, in America, which for me was really exciting. But at the same time I didn't see any money from that... so I don't think it's actually made a difference how the company sees me as an artist."
''Spotify says that for five million individual plays, it pays $25,000. But they don't pay artists directly: instead they pay the artists' labels and publishers who own the music''

So you make the music and they pick up the £25k and you get nothing? Good deal you made there ! Why assume that you should be able to make a living soley out of sticking some songs on the internet? Get out and do some gigs and sell some t-shirts, that is were the money is in music now. We'd all like to sit on our arses and get paid again and again for work we did years ago but that paradigm is almost over.

I suppose they would argue that they need the record lable to promote them. Well, whatever. This isn't 1980: 'We saturated! We over-saturated!' Promote yourself and keep the £25k for yourself.

[Gordon Steadman]

I reckon that one of the problems is competition for time. When I were a lad, back in the mists of time, there were only three or four things to do TV/Radio, music, playing scrabble with the folks or chasin' wimmin. The internet hadn't been invented - neither had computers smaller than a house. Nowadays there is much more for kids to do. There are more and more people chasing part of a smaller and smaller pie.

There was an obscene amount of money to be made in the music industry. I don't mind the artists getting rich but who actually needs £400,000,000? The assumption that riches were there for the taking has diluted striving for quality. When I was in a band, it was all about pulling girls, getting a bit smashed and if we got popular it was a bonus. We didn't actually take the music too seriously. Now everybody is an undiscovered genius.

It is good that live music is back on the agenda. Who knows, some of them might actually have to learn to play instruments and sing in tune.

Anyway, I will probably read that article now!!

[Joe]

Of course, artists getting ripped-off isn't new either. Just look at the sad case of Badfinger, or the way the Beatles got tangled up over contracts, or Col Tom Parker's 50/50 deal with Elvis. You either need to understand the economics yourself (and 'creative' people aren't usually much good with numbers), or find a manager who's both honest and competent; few are both and many are neither.

[anthonyTD]

Good point Martin!
Interesting. I don't think it is the streaming that is the problem but this attitude:

"I feel like it's getting harder and harder to survive in the music industry and to get established in any way. Not as many people are buying records as they used to, which makes things a lot harder for us. Because if people don't buy my record... I will get dropped by my label''

Try not looking at it as an industry. If you want to make music and put it out there you can, those barriers were long since broken down. What do you need a record company for except to take most of the revenue off you?

"I was interested in the number of streams I got on Spotify and I think it was around five million plays of the entire album from start to finish, in America, which for me was really exciting. But at the same time I didn't see any money from that... so I don't think it's actually made a difference how the company sees me as an artist."
''Spotify says that for five million individual plays, it pays $25,000. But they don't pay artists directly: instead they pay the artists' labels and publishers who own the music''

So you make the music and they pick up the £25k and you get nothing? Good deal you made there ! Why assume that you should be able to make a living soley out of sticking some songs on the internet? Get out and do some gigs and sell some t-shirts, that is were the money is in music now. We'd all like to sit on our arses and get paid again and again for work we did years ago but that paradigm is almost over.

I suppose they would argue that they need the record lable to promote them. Well, whatever. This isn't 1980: 'We saturated! We over-saturated!' Promote yourself and keep the £25k for yourself.

[The Black Adder]

Bands/musicians tend to opt for a low cut for the promise of exposure. The problems arise when the contract goes further than the initial deal. That is, when the contract locks the artist/s in at a set rate of return. It's how the industry has always been. But in our celebrity driven society where social climbing none entities would rather rub shoulders with up and coming artists, it only makes a case that the agent is doing a good job. It's mostly down to desperation of an artist at the initial stages with an agent that cocks the deal up for the future.

[Macca]

I don't know who said it but in my view it is true; 'Obscure bands are obscure for a reason: it's because they're not very good.'

Come out with some cracking music, even if it is just one tune, you are going to get noticed and played. It's hardly surprising that some American female singer-songwriter is finding it a bit of a struggle - they are ten a penny.

[walpurgis]

The opposite applies too. Most popular music is real garbage that is downloaded in vast quantities by the kids and less discerning adults. None of it is worthy and it exists purely as a money spinner.

Better musicians these days don't have broad appeal. Doesn't mean they're no good though.

[Macca]

That's right, it's not that they are less popular it is just that their appeal has become more selective. ;)

There is something of an inveitability about this as modern culture continues to fracture into more and more tiny splinters. Once we all drank from pretty much the same cup, or cups; Radio One and Top of The Pops and The Tube and Whistle Test if you were 'serious' about music.

There was always a small crowd who thought they were super-cool and eshewed all the chart stuff to follow obscure, ususally local bands - that became indy, then indy became the mainstream, and then the internet came along with file sharing and after that: The Deluge.

Now you have to make an effort to find the good, new stuff since it is buried in a billion gigabytes of on-line music - assuming, that is, that it exists at all.

[Rothchild]

Come out with some cracking music, even if it is just one tune, you are going to get noticed and played.

The bulk of what you're saying is pretty bob on I think but this is plain wrong, it doesn't really work like this (unfortunately) as for 'do it yourself and keep the £25k' that's also (for the most part) wishful thinking. You've got to get followers and air time (these are sort of reciprocally linked too) you need to pay for pluggers (the odds of a DJ - even an 'inspired by John Peel' Six music one - playing a sent in demo without some providence, the push of a plugger or a 'friend' is utterly minimal). Promoter's first port of call when offering gigs is facebook/twitter to determine how many followers / likes you have and how many punters you might drag in. All this costs money.

Nothing has really changed in the music biz but the control over the means of production and distribution - however punters haven't changed as quickly or as radically.

The other area that's being clobbered with similar issues is television, you can (fairly) easily make broadcast standard productions with a decent computer and a go-pro, lots of kids watch far more youtube than tv.

Also, on the claim that 'it's getting harder' (made by an under 30 in the foothills of her career...) how do we know how hard (or not) it was before - are we suggesting that the Rolling Stones didn't have to make any effort? Are we saying that there were no hard working unsuccessful bands / musicians prior to the internet?

[Macca]

I ws talking about getting played on u-tube etc rather than by radio or tv DJs. obviously to break into that area is still very difficult but anyone can upload to u-tube and if it is good it will get views and word-of mouth. Likewise getting live gigs is still not that easy. Soemtimes you have to pay the venue for the privilege of playing there. I understand that is the norm in London now.

I'm not really sure why anyone these days expects to make their living from writing and recording music. Everyone I know who does that also has a full time job or is retired or on the club. They do it becuase they want to and it probably costs them a little money each year as any hobby does. That doesn't make their music any less valid than someone with a recording contract and a full tour schedule.

There still seems to be a perception that if no-one ever got paid for making music then there would be no more music, possibly a hangover from the 'Home taping is killing music' days, or the Napster furore. Whatever the cause I believe it to be mistaken.

[Rothchild]

Sorry I'd mis-understood you, but I would still quibble the point - even on youtube getting 'found' is a tough break and requires knowledge, skills and or resources - I remain pretty skeptical about the whole 'artic monkeys were famous on myspace first' even the whole gangnam thing has a whiff of astroturf to it. Just because anyone can make and distribute music doesn't mean that everyone can get it heard by the right/enough people to have a hit, that's why we still have record labels.

If no one got paid for making music it's quite likely that the world of music would be a far more interesting and diverse place, but it also has a parallel to politicians wages, if it doesn't pay it will end up staffed by the rich, the mad and the mad rich.

[struth]

Sorry I'd mis-understood you, but I would still quibble the point - even on youtube getting 'found' is a tough break and requires knowledge, skills and or resources - I remain pretty skeptical about the whole 'artic monkeys were famous on myspace first' even the whole gangnam thing has a whiff of astroturf to it. Just because anyone can make and distribute music doesn't mean that everyone can get it heard by the right/enough people to have a hit, that's why we still have record labels.

If no one got paid for making music it's quite likely that the world of music would be a far more interesting and diverse place, but it also has a parallel to politicians wages, if it doesn't pay it will end up staffed by the rich, the mad and the mad rich.

It is!!!!