Musician's POV on intellectual "property"

[-Jrabbit]

David Lowery is unique -- a singer/songwriter (Cracker, Camper Von Beethoven) and a mathematician (quant guy, worked as derivatives trader and financial analyst).

He has written pretty prolifically on the problem of how artists might find a way to get paid for their work, but instead of the usual "I wrote it, you guys stole it" whining, he actually provides a pretty solid backdrop in terms of historical and legal perspective. It should come as no surprise that he blames the interwebs for the decline of the music industry, but at least he's doing it from an analytical perspective.

This is TL/DR material, but those who are interested might want to check it out.

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...subscription-2

[C0ckney]

i read the first few paragraphs, will read the rest when i get home work from. it looks very interesting, thanks for posting jrabbit.

[Tuberski]

I will read anything by the writer of "Take the Skinheads Bowling"

ACK!

[OzzyKP]

I read it.

[MikeH]

It's a shame he didn't address Spotify in that because I think that is the next phase of the "new model".

(I am a subscriber)

[Jon Miller]

I know that there are pro-gamers that make a good living (100k a year) by streaming/youtubing their work.

Yes, this is generally one person, and things are cheaper. But each hour of streaming is viewed by 6k (for the ones who make a lot), and youtube might get a bit more but generally not huge numbers. Gamers can make enough to be pro-gamers with streams of ~1k.

Musicians should be able to get more from youtube, at least per video/song.

Now it is a lot harder to make a new song than it is to play a game 6 hours a day. But the artist also has itunes/spotify/etc.

JM

[Jon Miller]

What about using kickstarter to get recording money if you are an independent artist?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Finally, yes it is difficult to make up a great song.

But shouldn't that mean that you spend most of your time doing something else? I mean, most people do sports/music/art/games/etc for enjoyment.

Only the very best can make money on it, or lot's of money.

That is OK.

Take even great geniuses like Mozart. Yes, it was in the past, but he had to do all sorts of other jobs... not just 'create music'.

Why don't these artists spend time doing lessons+teaching courses+making video game/advertisement music+working some other profession+and so on?

JM

[Jon Miller]

I can understand how the old system was better for some people.

But it doesn't mean the old system was better for society or for artists in general (which are not only professional artists who make a good living on art) or whatever.

I would argue that having the government support art in some fashion would also be acceptable.

JM

[-Jrabbit]

It's a shame he didn't address Spotify in that because I think that is the next phase of the "new model".

(I am a subscriber)

He addresses Spotify specifically in another piece.

Spotify is, of course, a licensed service and it is encouraging to see investment pouring in to its coffers. Make no mistake–we’re happy it exists. The unfortunate thing is that Spotify is another example of reacting to massive piracy with a business model that in the long-term is nearly–although not quite–as unsupportable as the piracy it promised to help fix.

Spotify”s model is essentially a variation on Web 2.0, or as we say around the Trichordist, The Man 2.0. With the usual Web 2.0 company the users provide all the content and the tech oligarchs (or wannabe oligarchs) get all the money. (Like with Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Google, Wikipedia, Instagram in no particular order.)

Except with Spotify it is the artists (and not the users) who create all the value and get none of the profits. Like other Web 2.0 darlings, the tech oligarchs build the platform, create none of the content and will get the lion’s share of the profits on Liquidity Day. Spotify is just a couple compass points away from oligarch status—call them mini oligarchs. In the meantime, Spotify profits from the artists and pay a laughable royalty in return.
...
So who makes money? First and foremost—Spotify employees starting with Daniel Ek. These guys get a steady paycheck and have equity in a dark future for artists.

Next, venture capitalists who are the 1% of the 1% don’t forget. These VCs, especially Silicon Valley VCs, are some of the richest people in America who nearly single handedly brought you the stock market crash of 2000 when the last tech bubble popped in a frenzy of irrational exuberance.

And of course, another group of Spotify stockholders are the major labels who extracted equity ownership in the company in return for licensing catalog at ridiculously low royalty rates. The fairly consistent rumor is that the labels own 18% of Spotify, which at its most recent valuation of $4 billion is worth $720,000,000.

Here’s the twist—because the deal with Spotify is for the entire catalog of each label and not of any particular artist, it is doubtful that any artist will ever participate in that 18% equity.

[Jon Miller]

But Spotify being pro major record label does mean that the record labels will still exist and want to do things like acquire artists/promote/etc.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

One thing he forgets IMHO (and which definitely also attributes to make life for musicians harder) is the emergence of casting shows.
Every year dozens of new casting stars are creeated in most western countries (with many countries having multiple casting shows competing for the viewer).
While the careers of most of these casting stars are rather short lived, most of them not bringing out more than 1-2 albums, before returning to obscurity, these 1-2 albums still are aggressively promoted by the TV companies who created the "stars" (and therefore generate sales, in which people spend money, which they, probably, would have spend on established musicians instead)

Or, to say it in more general terms ... the new world order of music has a greater number of musicians who compete for the money of the people, while the amount of money available to the people hasn´t grown in the same way, meaning, that there is less money per musician, than there was before (in the 80s/90s)

[MikeH]

Spotify royalties are higher than radio royalties.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/indus...05742352.story

Artists also don't own equity in commercial radio stations.

Focussing on who owns Spotify is as irrelevant as who owns the record labels I think. Totally doesn't matter as long as the artist is earning a reasonable amount.


A counter argument:

http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm


I listen to stuff on Spotify where I already own the CD thus earning the artist further royalties for something I've already paid for because it's so convenient.

[MikeH]

Finally, yes it is difficult to make up a great song.

But shouldn't that mean that you spend most of your time doing something else? I mean, most people do sports/music/art/games/etc for enjoyment.

Only the very best can make money on it, or lot's of money.

That is OK.

Take even great geniuses like Mozart. Yes, it was in the past, but he had to do all sorts of other jobs... not just 'create music'.

Why don't these artists spend time doing lessons+teaching courses+making video game/advertisement music+working some other profession+and so on?

JM

Yes, I know a lot of them. That is what happens.

[Guynemer]

I will read anything by the writer of "Take the Skinheads Bowling"

ACK!

[Jon Miller]

One thing he forgets IMHO (and which definitely also attributes to make life for musicians harder) is the emergence of casting shows.
Every year dozens of new casting stars are creeated in most western countries (with many countries having multiple casting shows competing for the viewer).
While the careers of most of these casting stars are rather short lived, most of them not bringing out more than 1-2 albums, before returning to obscurity, these 1-2 albums still are aggressively promoted by the TV companies who created the "stars" (and therefore generate sales, in which people spend money, which they, probably, would have spend on established musicians instead)

Or, to say it in more general terms ... the new world order of music has a greater number of musicians who compete for the money of the people, while the amount of money available to the people hasn´t grown in the same way, meaning, that there is less money per musician, than there was before (in the 80s/90s)

I would say that there is less money per musician, since disposable income has actually decreased.

JM

[MikeH]

Also the original guy is dismissive of new income streams, and of the possibility of operating truly independently. There are things like this:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...-book-and-tour

Ok there is an element that you have to be famous to make money that way, but you can become a cult Youtube star, create your own content, get fans to fund it directly and use that capital to release it. At that point you are 100% owner of your work and you are operating with a tiny budget compared to a major label release so you need less income to recoup your costs. The downside is that the risk is yours, not that of a record company. You are actually an entrepreneur.

There is definitely less money going into music industry overall and there is definitely more competition for what money there is. There are ways to make a living as a professional musician, but it's very hard to get rich doing it. And it's going to be incredibly hard work.

[onodera]

This guy's explanation sounds true, but it's useless. What's the point of lamenting the death of the old business model if it's dead? You can't unmince the meat, you can't remove digital music from the internet. What's the point of telling us the new business model sucks if you can't suggest a way out?

[OzzyKP]

I think one of his suggestions is that Apple should just take less of a cut from iTunes sales.

[-Jrabbit]

I don't think Lowery laments the death of the pre-Web music industry. He's really just pointing out that, in most ways, the new digital world is even less musician-friendly than the old.

It's never a good feeling to have your original works aggregated/distributed for the profit of others. Particularly when the profit-makers take no risk. That seems to really vex him.

[Tuberski]

I knew I could count on you to know it.

ACK!

[Guynemer]

Everyone should know it. It's a great ****ing song. It is a shame that it never got major play.

[Tuberski]

In Utah, we had a station that played CVB a lot. Those were the days.



ACK!

[MikeH]

I don't think Lowery laments the death of the pre-Web music industry. He's really just pointing out that, in most ways, the new digital world is even less musician-friendly than the old.

It's never a good feeling to have your original works aggregated/distributed for the profit of others. Particularly when the profit-makers take no risk. That seems to really vex him.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the big web players have taken no risk to get where they are now. Mostly artists are on Spotify or iTunes because their labels have put them there. Those labels have taken a risk funding the artist, and the makers of the likes of Spotify (and the venture capitalists who funded them) have taken risks to fund large new developments. For every Spotify there are a hundred dead internet music startups, just as for every U2 there are hundreds of bands who never sold a single record.

The opportunities are there now for an artist to make a living selling their music internationally, direct to the consumer without the need for a major label. Before, that really wasn't possible.

Recorded music is an incredibly modern development, prior to that you'd make money with commissions or from live performances, and there are lots of musicians who still make money doing that. The cover band/wedding band type performer etc.

Let's not forget, in the pre-internet economy the vast majority of musicians didn't make any money, just the lucky few who got signed by major labels. For those few, things have got worse, for the vast majority the opportunity to make a small amount of money, rather than nothing, is there.

[MikeH]

Here's where I stand:

1. Whether it is right or wrong digital piracy is the reality of the modern world.
2. I have yet to see a 'solution' to digital piracy which really addresses the problem, and which doesn't end up penalising the people who are actually paying for content.
3. Instant access, on demand services is what people want. Listening to something on spotify or firing it up on Netflix is vastly quicker and easier than torrenting something, and a lot of people are prepared for such services.
4. Those that aren't prepared to pay for digital content, won't start paying for it if it is not available for free.
5. The opportunities to connect directly with a global market via the internet is something that we are only just starting to see bands explore.
6. Making money out of being in a band is 10% making good music, 90% traditional business and marketing.
7. It has always been true that the bands that make money are the ones that are prepared to work incredibly hard. This is usually the reason why a "better" band was passed over for a major label deal, because the label knew the band wouldn't work for it.
8. Sadly though, just working hard, doesn't mean you'll be successful. Nor does being really good and working hard.
9. Live performances (in the UK) are attracting record ticket sales, vastly outstripping what the prices were in the good old days.
10. There is a much broader market for licensing work to film, TV and advertising.

[MikeH]

I have a friend, who is in a band which is signed to a major label, he signed himself up for a digital licencing agency and produced bespoke music for film and adverts. He made more money out of that than the band for a while. one time a request came in after a band refused to let their song be used in a film. "we need a song that sounds like this band, this tempo, this long in 24 hours." he produced one, they used it.

My brother's band have been used in various TV shows, movies, film trailers, computer games etc. They even had a song licensed to appear as one of the tracks on a music phone.

Another friend had one of his songs used as the closing credits for The Inbetweeners TV show and made more money from that than all his album sales.

So yeah, people don't buy CDs or MP3s, you have to look to other markets, but there are markets and there are people making a living out of music, or as JM said, doing it part time because they love music anyway so they are just doing it.

None of the people I know who are professional musicians making their own music are making anything like what they could make in a traditional skilled 9-5 job. But they do get to tour the world playing music which is pretty cool.