Issues addressed:
- Bottom line: The model in place for earning revenue for recorded products is not working. We need to be framing the conversation differently and working together as an industry to find new solutions with the tech sector that allows us to profit off of our recorded creations.
- The proliferation of free online content makes creating new paid models tricky, so artists have to find a way to frame the conversation differently and be hyper aware of what their goals are in giving away free content, and how they plan to recoup. This needs to be done as an industry- and not to be constantly framed as a charity handout
- The models for touring behind a new album and the need for tour dates to be in place for a discussion to happen of the new album needs to be examined in light of a complete lack of physical events and the lack of income from current models of recording consumption
- The next 2 seasons are going to see a huge cutback in number of performance opportunities due to vastly reduced budgets. We need to be thinking ahead and making changes now.
I am a touring performing musician and recording artist who co-runs a small, independent label and producing company (Table Pounding Music) with my partner; clarinetist, bandleader and composer David Krakauer.
Last week was absolutely brutal for the cultural sector, with each day bringing at first a barrage of cancellations for the immediate future (March and April), then May and June. Next followed the news of cultural institutions calling in the force majeure clause that exists in most standard performance contracts (see the Metropolitan Opera as an example) and then the shuttering of organizations themselves. By the end of the week, it was obvious that even once we move through this immediate period, the devastation will extend to a minimum of the next 2 seasons, as institutions seek to cut back on costs, curtail programming and find out how they can cut their spending budgets. Additionally, many institutions will prioritize trying to reschedule existing acts, meaning that there will be fewer possibilities for new bookings.There is also huge uncertainty at present as to how long social distancing is going to last.
It is incredibly hard to look past the immediate fear as artists to see the possibilities of the road ahead, but the only way to move forward is to begin discussions now about how we are going to get through on the other side. If we continue to perpetuate the same models once the immediate crisis ends, we are going to have squandered a huge opportunity to make fundamental changes to our sector. The aim of this piece is not to come up with definitive answers, but rather to attempt to raise some questions as to how to proceed.
1. The complete erosion of the value of our recorded work in a digital age & the need to tour to recoup:
As written about in so many valuable articles over the years, the value of recorded materials was completely eroded once Napster crashed onto the scene, laying the models for the current payment that basically serve up all profits to the tech companies and leaves the musicians with negligible income.
The Catch 22 for the recording artist is that we live in an age where one is required to produce high quality recorded content to be taken seriously; and at the same time to lay out all cash and risk themselves to pay for (or fundraise for) recording, production, artwork, manufacturing, registration, rights, distribution, mixing, mastering and session fee payment of all hired musicians with zero possibility of recouping the investment (due to current streaming models and consumer expectations of free content). The only possibility to even hope to recoup this investment is to go on the road to support the recording- or to change the model for how the money is raised. To understand the amounts paid to artists per stream, see this very comprehensive article from Souncharts Blog.
Of course the costs associated with a recording vary wildly. Equipment for home recording studios have made many things cheaper, as has the advent of more accessible editing software. However, for the sake of clarity and understanding here, I will use the albums released on Table Pounding Records as a model. These albums have cost between $5000 and $30 000 to make. Those sums do not include payments for publicizing the albums, but merely for the making, manufacturing and dissemination (as outlined above). Those costs are not reflective of the hundreds of hours that have gone into donated time by the principal artists doing their own additional editing or production and performing. Some of these recordings were partly funded by partnerships, crowd-funding and donations, but some have been entirely self-funded, and all have involved sinking our own money in.
Without any possibility of recouping through album sales (a model that even a decade ago was difficult but still possible), one begins any touring to support a new album at a deficit.
People do sometimes buy merchandise at live events, and many artists have come up with inventive and smart merch that generates income. However, this still does nothing to mitigate the fact that our core product, the music itself, has been rendered valueless. We have been told that we need to consider the recordings as a calling card that will count towards brand recognition that will help you move forward with future bookings. This may be the case, but there needs to be wide recognition from within our community as well as from the consumers and audience for the music that this is what is happening, not just from the few who have been successfully able to address this. (the immediate examples being artists like Vulpeck and Amanda Palmer who have been able to build up large enough followings to have their communities pay for their recordings upfront).
2. TOURING, STREAMING and the ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS
To follow on from this, we live in an age of environmental crisis, where we are constantly shamed (and as individuals feel a serious responsibility) to be responsible and fly as little as possible, not tour, only live stream. If however, the only model is to be able to recoup by touring, this is a real conundrum.
So you could ask two questions:
a) Why bother to record if it sets you back and requires touring to recoup?
b) Why not just do all your events online and broadcast to an even bigger platform beyond just your space?
Both are excellent questions that bring us to the core of this article.
To answer question a)
Because the current models dictate it. Especially for artists who return to a particular territory, it is not worth anybody covering it as a story or writing about it without a new project. Even venues that have larger databases and donor bases require artists to help spread the word amongst their networks, and to help create interest. This is best achieved by having a new project that will additionally be reviewed and discussed that can go in conjunction with publicity of the live tour. This helps the venues to increase the visibility of the event. It is a chicken and egg scenario that we have seen time and again: Without the new recording, there is a struggle to book a tour and without a tour, we are constantly advised not to release an album, as it will not be grounded in actual events. When we have tried to buck this conventional wisdom by releasing material without touring, it has fallen into a black hole void and had zero coverage.
To answer question b)
Firstly, there is no substitute for live music. It goes beyond merely the music to embody a shared experience of witnessing the creation of something in a room without filters of what equipment you have to listen. But to answer the question…. because free online content is so ubiquitous that it has no monetary value. To look at the articles at present celebrating the amount of free concerts, streams, content and recordings during self-quarantines and social distancing is to understand the depth of the belief in this.
To go back to the example of the Metropolitan Opera: The early instinct was to offer the entire world the whole Met back catalogue of HD broadcasts, free, night after night. While this is an admirable gesture, and gave rise to good cheer across the internet, there was no discussion at the time of the release as to how to monetize that, how to have gated streaming or possibilities of links for donations from the outset. Mere days later came the highly reported calling in of the force majeure clause in lead singers’ contracts which enabled them to not pay singers, and days after that, the suspension of pay for all musicians of the Met chorus and orchestra.
While there are, of course, many factors that an enormous institution such as the Met faced with these decisions, it is an example of the perceived lack of earning potential around home live streaming. In this time of crisis, I certainly understand the urge for cultural institutions to offer reams of free content. However, this further sends the message that cultural content is deemed to be monetarily valueless. Following that, the current fundraising model that cultural institutions are now employing is the oldest (and perhaps the most destructive) one our industry faces, which is to frame everything in terms of begging for some sort of “handout” (ie charitable donations), instead of asking for payments or donations in exchange for the consumption of valuable assets.
This is not to say that there are not incredible streaming services that offer gating, or ways of monetizing online content. There definitely are- from Twitch to Crowdcast, Key and Stageit to Eventbrite, who are accepting ticket sales for streaming events. Additionally, a cursory look at any number of other industries shows this. For the sale of e-books, for example, it is not necessarily any cheaper to buy a kindle version of a book than it is to buy a physical copy- in fact it is often more expensive. But somehow most musicians and concert venues have fallen in with the idea of “raising their profile” and using the “calling card” model when it comes to live streaming. With so much of the music industry treating the tech sector as the enemy, or a force to be feared, there we as an industry are falling short.
There are plenty of examples of companies in the tech sector that are willing to work with artists to supply a product that meets their needs. So how do we instead partner with the tech industry from the start- laying down what we need as the way forward instead of constantly being behind the curve and having our content given away for free?
The prime example of a platform that has taken the lead in giving power to creators in the online sphere is Patreon. Buy Me a Coffee has now joined in with a related model. It is the obvious model for all who want to grow a community of donors who feel a kinship with artists and the work we make. While some artists currently using Patreon have found a way to make it work for them, there are many others who have not yet gotten past the feeling of it being a charitable collection. It has been proven time and again that the value of the arts to a society goes far beyond the economic impact. However, in terms of pure numbers, the arts are a vital part of our economy, in 2017 contributing $877 billion (4.5% of the GDP). By way of perspective, this is more than the sectors of construction and transportation/warehousing combined. Between 2015 and 2017, the arts and cultural sector grew at more than twice the rate of the total U.S. economy—at nearly 4.45 percent, in terms of annual average growth rate! (These numbers from the National Endowment for the Arts).
And this is the heart of my question: How have artists allowed themselves to be painted as an industry in need of charity? Changing the model of how we talk about our process, the value of our work and what that means is going to be the key to turning things around.
Bending the Notes 