An Excellent New Read: "A Brief History Of Why Artists Are No Longer Making A Living..."


Posted March 14th, 2019 by Ian Tamblyn. "A Brief History Of Why Artists Are No Longer Making A Living Making Music".

https://www.rootsmusic.ca/2019/03/14/a-brief-history-of-why-artists-are-no-longer-making-a-living-ma...


128x128ivan_nosnibor
But that landscape you describe keeps right on changing. EDM is booming now, in the living parts of the big cities, anyway. And as far you can see in reference to the names of performers you mention, when those people of that generation die out, do you see that there are others waiting in the wings to replace them...to replace them in the same style of music?...or something substantially different. I mean, I can see what you’re saying I think, but however it may start, you still must end up with "the musician". I’m not trying to limit the discussion on what influences the creation of an artist here, I’m just trying to uncover the pathways they may be taking (or may even be prevented from taking), now, or in the foreseeable future, within the industry in order for them to make a Living at it.
I think that's one of the points of the article.Everything is changing so drastically in a short time how can a musician keep up and make a living?The ones I know are constantly hustling to work here and there.There are still small clubs in the cities to play at but those seem to come and go too.Years ago when I lived in a large city the local bands would seemed to be on rotation through various clubs throughout the city,state,and even neighboring states.Then the occasional gig opening for a big name,sometimes touring with them for a period.Steadier work back then.
You mean you feel like you see fewer ’bigger name’ artists (in your locale) these days for the smaller bands to indirectly benefit from?
I think I have a fair idea notwithstanding @orpheus10 ’s comments. I worked as an outside lawyer and did a considerable amount of work in the music industry-- mainly music publishing but a fair amount of work for the labels, major and minor-- as a copyright lawyer. I was based in NYC but dealt with matters pretty much all over the world.
I also spent a fair amount of time with musicians, producers, venue owners and others involved in the business. And cared about music and sound. Some of the people in the industry are music lovers- some are just business people. That’s always been true, at least as long as I’ve been around, and my understanding of the history before my time is that it wasn’t much different. Even the big name artists often didn’t earn. And the band members- well, a regular gig was a good thing. Appearing on a record didn’t mean much in terms of money as a sideman (or woman). The credential was good, and hopefully led to more work.
My take is that we have this "rosy" view of the past: it has never been easy for musicians trying to work full-time based on their art. That, of course, was the key- to be able to make enough money from songwriting or performing to be able to devote full time to the art without having to work a "straight" job to put food on the table and cover the rent, kid’s needs, etc.
I don’t think it has ever been easy. The days of the majors as a funding source and incubator for aspiring musicians to develop their craft are largely gone to the extent that even existed. Some labels, like Warner Bros here in the States, had some pretty amazing in-house producers who were able to foster and help develop talent. As mentioned, Chris Blackwell was another person who had an ear for music, not just counting the beans and in some profound ways, shaped the sounds of rock, progressive rock, reggae (he helped put Bob Marley on the map) and other sounds, e.g. Fairport Convention, though a lot of credit is due to the artists as well as Joe Boyd. Guy Stevens, who worked for Island and produced some great records, went on to break The Clash, which was pretty successful at the time.
Independent producers today are a driving force but getting hooked up with the right people isn’t easy. I’m now based in Austin, which is a vibrant live music town, but there is very little in the way of "infrastructure" compared to Nashville, which has long had publishing and an established studio/session player scene. A friend was on four tracks on Paul McCartney’s latest album- he makes a living, but even with that level of talent, he needs the gigs, record sales are a fraction of what they once were, streaming royalties are no pot of gold and gigging-- it may be ok when you are 20, but if you are 60 years old?
It’s always been a tough business. The people that "hit" are sometimes spectacularly talented, but there are a hundred others, just as talented, who are unknowns. I think this is as it always was.
The best we can do as consumers and music lovers is to support the local venues, buy recordings, go to shows (some are quite expensive now) and find other ways to help. There are any number of non-profits that offer everything from legal advice to health care and aging assistance; there are start ups which act as incubators; you can fund artists through kickstarter type projects or buy their work on band camp.
There’s lots of talent out there. People complained about being force-fed crappy music when the majors ruled. Well, nobody is force feeding anything these days- radio promotion is a thing of the past and apart from a few big name artists, most releases are not accompanied by huge marketing campaigns.
Sorry if this sounds preachy, but it’s real easy to say new music sucks and there’s no good path to reach audiences anymore. I think there is a lot of great current music and you can get it easier and cheaper than ever before (legitimately). If you want to do more, that’s up to you--