MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
Money is one of those things that brings out the cliche counter in all of us.
"That was on the money"
"A complete waste of money"
"Money for nothing"
"He knows the cost of everything - and the value of nothing"
But of course, if it didn't exist, we'd find life remarkably difficult - even if some form of barter or exchange system eventually emerged. We need money to live: we go out to work - or work at home - to earn those notes and coins so we can have shelter, warmth, food - and some of the creature comforts of life. We expect to earn a decent sum for our labours and although we accept that taxes have to be paid, we do rather like to have as much as possible left following the extraction process. Some of us enjoy spending our money, some save it - and others find that the week is always longer than the supply of cash available. And yet, love it or hate it - we have a daily relationship with it.
Which makes the whole issue of technological change and the rise of *free* movies, TV shows, books and music all the more difficult to grapple with. Free to the user perhaps - either legally (and perhaps irritating ads and promos dropped in to monetise the transaction) or not so legally in that on-line grey market. But open access and free music has a cost - and this blog has covered many aspects of this before. Some of the changes have been positive (it's easier, quicker and often cheaper for artists to get their music recorded and out there for people to hear) - but the downside is that it's getting tougher and tougher to make a living in the world of music. And in case I'm accused of singling music out, let's be realistic and say that most creative activities are suffering a similar difficulty. I'm a writer - and boy do I know it.
A couple of instances this past few days have brought that home to me.
 |
| Pandora - Controversial approach to paying royalties |
Firstly I must thank my Portsmouth chum Jeff for noting the latest issue relating to how musicians are being taken for a ride. This relates to Pandora, a US-based music streaming service and how it is gradually killing the hand that feeds it. It's taking a draconian view as to how to *pay* for the music it streams. For an ostensibly simplistic and convenient legal reason, it refuses to pay royalties on music released prior to 1972. It isn't a co-incidence that it was only in that year that "master recording for copyright" was created on a federal basis (ie: at a national rather than an individual state level), a loophole which Pandora is exploiting - and a number of record labels, publishers and artists are vigorously challenging. The conclusion is that older artists and bands aren't getting paid for their work - and some see this as the start of a slippery slope.
Secondly though - and more parochially - comes further anecdotal evidence of how small music venues are continuing to under-value the worth of bands and artists they contract to perform on their premises. I know it's been a tough few years for pubs and clubs - just as tough in some ways as it has been for musicians. However, by encouraging too many open mics (a free drink and a slice of pizza - rather than a fee), a culture is growing whereby musicians are no longer guaranteed to be paid properly for their time and creativity. To some extent, it's always been thus - but at a suburban Dorset pub in a large catchment area just this past week, the current position was nicely illustrated. The landlord seemed to be music-friendly, he wanted to run weekly open mic nights and complement those with a weekly band night too. Publicity and promotion didn't seem to get much of a look in - "If they play...the punters will come" - seemed to be the view - and that perhaps explained the somewhat sanguine opinion as to what artists could expect as a fee. It's unfair to quote some rates out of context, but let's just say that a fee for a four-piece band seemed to be about half of what might have been expected some 10 to 15 years ago. Split the fee between the members and their costs are barely covered, let alone the need to earn an income. Solo artists would be paid a lower fee - but ironically, the fee was substantially more than an individual band member would receive.
 |
| The Ropemakers in Bridport - Good Music Venue |
It's difficult to square the circle. The propensity of punters to go and see live music has changed in recent years. Some argue that it's the smoking ban, others that there are too many competing activities vying for time - or even that pubs and clubs are nowadays more concerned about dining than dancing. There's an element of truth in that - but let's just note that there has always been a climate of change going right back to the immediate post-war years. People will always want to make music - and others will always want to enjoy that music. And a vital way of bringing the two together is a live gig. Established acts can command some element of realistic fees. More well-known bands can trade on their back catalogue. But the days of bands starting out in back-street boozers and then working their way through the venue hierarchy seems to have gone. And it's by working in a live environment - pubs to clubs to colleges to regional venues - that bands learn their craft and build their base. Today, social media is a double-edged sword - it can add that publicity thing, that promotion which is so vital - but it also encourages instant gratification, instant results - and equally as instant failure.
 |
| Big venues - not everyone makes it |
Turning back to the Pandora issue, I'm looking at the legal action with a curious interest. Pandora are doing what all large companies do - minimise costs, maximise profits. And in some ways, the principle isn't as bad as it sounds. But, it's how it's done, it's the process and understanding of the music and it's creation that's so important. If money doesn't filter through to young new bands an artists, where will the new acts, the new money-making entities come from? Does Pandora behave strategically - and build a future of mutual support and co-operation - or does it act purely tactically, moving from month to month to improve the bottom line, whatever the social or cultural cost?
 |
| Drenge - Made good use of The Music Export Growth Scheme |
There is a hint elsewhere that the market is recognising the need to support and nurture musicians. The UK government - not always known for its wide-ranging championing of new music - has recently launched something called The Music Export Growth Scheme. Even with such a dry, market-driven title, it has been well received so far. Artists can apply for funding and subsidies to help them create and promote their music. This helps the government as even they recognise the wealth that British music brings into the nation from sales around the world. To use that cliched phrase - "we punch above our weight". And the scheme isn't just aimed at the big acts - several small, promising bands have benefited such as Catfish & The Bottlemen who we featured on The Musical Box just last month. It only scratches the surface, it's only £250,000 a year at the moment, but it's a welcome move and might presage interest from other bodies too. Indeed, the BBC - well known for their BBC Introducing programme this past few years - seems poised to push harder in this direction. It has always supported music, but has seen that in the run-in to its charter renewal in a year's time that it won't do any harm to be actively growing the nation's interest in new music and performances.
 |
| Lesser known bands (except to Musical Box listeners) also made use of The Music Export Growth Scheme - Catfish & The Bottlemen |
But as the Beatles sang all those years ago "let me tell you how it will be - one for you nineteen for me - 'cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman", money is always going to be a tricky issue in the world of music. It was ever thus - and it doesn't look as if the bottom line will change in the near future.
Alan Dorey
2nd September 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment