30,000 Musical Acts Are Making A Living... But Is That Good Or Bad?
from the sounds-pretty-good dept
We've pointed out in the past that one of the big "myths" that supporters of old industry (i.e., gatekeeper) business models like to express is that since not everyone is a success with new business models, it's proof that those business models don't work. Except, no one has ever claimed that embracing new models means you're guaranteed to be a success. All we've said is that if you embrace the models properly you can be better off than you would be otherwise. That doesn't mean you'll make a living. It just means that it enables you to make more than you would have otherwise.Yet, for some reason, the strawman claim lives on. Witness, for example, the glee some industry supporters are expressing at the "news" relayed by Ian Rogers of Topspin (based on data from Ian Hogarth at Songkick) that "only" between 25,000 and 30,000 musical acts are making a "living," these days. This leads to the claim that these numbers are "depressingly slim." I'm not sure I believe that. First of all, that report (by Paul Resnikoff) misstates what was said in Rogers' actual talk: that 25,000 to 30,000 acts were making a living. Resnikoff changes that to 25,000 to 30,000 "artists." Since many bands include a lot more than one artist, the actual number of artists making a living is much higher. Second, no one seems to be stating how many acts were "making a living" before. Is it more or less? On top of that, this only counts "touring bands." There are plenty of people who make their living in music outside of touring -- and this count ignores all of them.
I'm reminded of the reports in the early 90s, as personal computers were becoming popular in companies, of studies that showed giving employees computers did not help company productivity. Of course, that was because many companies and employees didn't really know how to use them yet. Within a few years, no one was questioning the productivity gains allowed by computers. Watch the new business models more carefully, and watch as more people understand and adopt them, and then we'll see the old industry apologists start to run out of things to say.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, making a living, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wha?
Wrong Question ...
The question you need to ask is how many professional "whatevers" can make a living in a given market.
There are "ONLY" x professional
Actors
Newspaper Reporters
Atheletes
Jugglers
Clowns
Town Idiots
Record Label Executives (I just noticed I ranked them lower than town idiots)
I can't make a living. Woe is me, Woe is me. Get over it! Markets become saturated, profits are distributed across the the entirety of the market, redundancies and inefficiencies are removed, and some make more than others. The pond is alot bigger now and the record money is being distributed across more people.
2 fuking B@d ... get a day job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology is changing every creative industry right now. Ask photographers how well they're faring in the age of digital cameras. The people who will truly fail are the ones who put all their effort into trying to protect the way things "should" be (ie the way they used to be), rather than looking realistically at the changes in the market and adapting to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the old way of doing things
I REALLY want to know how many acts (of the same classification) were making a living back in say, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. That, I think, would be VERY interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Given the old way of doing things
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=musicians+1990&asynchronous=false&equal=Submit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Given the old way of doing things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Statistical warfare
The population of the US is around 300e6 (according to wikipedia).
So, 30000/300e6 = 1e-4 = 0,001 % of the population of the US. Looks like a dismal failure huh?
But what about if I tweaked the numbers and told you that 1 in each 1000 US citizens is making a living through art? Sounds a lot nicer.
All these numbers are good for is for manipulating public opinion. The big recording industries DO NOT want to be seen as the loser on this war that they cannot win, even though it is obvious, even to the casual observer, that they are just delaying their inevitable death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statistical warfare
"30000/300e6 = 1e-4 = 0,001 %"
should be
"30000/300e6 = 1e-4 = 0,01 %"
and
"1 in each 1000 US citizens"
should be
"1 in each 10000 US citizens"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Statistical warfare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Statistical warfare
So is electro stimulation ... it make math easier ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statistical warfare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the recording industry really cares about is how many middle men it can keep employed by leeching off the artists. Artists will figure out how to make money if that's their goal, one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that far more limited by...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't that far more limited by...
* Consolidation of traditional media channels homogenizing the market even further?
* The sad fact of so many would be true artists trying to emulate the cookie cutter products of the system outlined above rather than producing distinct art rooted in personal experience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misquote
"First of all, that report (by Paul Resnikoff) misstates what was said in Rogers' actual talk: that 25,000 to 30,000 acts were making a living. Resnikoff changes that to 25,000 to 30,000 "artists." "
It is OK to call out Resnikoff misstatement but then you go and misquote Rogers. Rogers I believe said verbally (my ears are shot from being a musician) "25 to 35K bands" and also the slide on screen also says "25 to 30K bands "earning a living"".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misquote
Acts & bands are synonymous for the most part.
Acts & artists are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, you've got a nice context-less number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, you've got a nice context-less number.
Mike's is that it isn't or doesn't have to be. (cue new business model)
If qyiet's and mike's sources numbers are to be trusted & comparable & taken in the right context, then we're seeing a huge increase in people making a living from music anywhere from 2-5x the amount we saw in 2006, (Depending on the average # of artists per act). The stats wolfram alpha provides go back to 1990, and peak around 50k people in the music industry at the 1990 data point.
What do you think that suggests?
Now, if you wanted to question Mike's reporting . . .
My question is whether the number of acts making a living are largely dominated by single artists; it's much easier for one person to make a living from something than 5 people, right? So the average size of a band and the average size of a band making a living could be vastly different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, you've got a nice context-less number.
I didn't say the number supported anyone's view one way or the other. I was just trying to understand what the number meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In particular, if the bands "consistently played 1000 capacity venues", which also means that it isn't people teaching violin to neighbourhood kids; It's all performers in that 30k.
That's part of what leads me to believe that the 30k number is largely single acts. I'm still digging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assuming though that the number you quote is correct, I wonder if that amount is before or after operating costs. I'm probably going to make about 30 grand off my art this year, but the cost of doing business takes a huge chunk off of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the 30k I quote is the 30k acts.
The more meaningful number is the "consistent 1000 capacity venue", which is still very annoyingly vague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the part I am curious about. Although I haven't sat down to make a list, I don't think all of Colorado has more than about 20 acts that consistently play 1000 capacity venues. And if you are looking at how many acts that come through Colorado that play 1000 capacity venues, I'm guessing that it wouldn't be more than 1000-2000 per year (I don't know the exact number of 1000+ venues, but lets say there are about 10-20 in the state and each of them averages two shows a week -- some have more and many have fewer) you end up with 1000 - 2000 headlining acts playing the state per year.
Now Colorado has fewer bands and fewer venues than a place like California, but you can see that it is hard to come up with 30,000 bands that consistently play 1000+ venues. Colorado tends to get quite a few bands on tour, so I think if they exist, they do play here. But many of them play venues that hold between 100 and 600 people. The bands headlining venues that can hold 1000 or more tend to be pretty well-known, either because they have been popular for a long time or because they are the big thing of the moment.
I suppose it might be possible to come up with that number throughout the world, but it still seems high if 1000+ venues is the criterion. And maybe we are talking about bands that tour every few years and make enough money to then not tour every year. So perhaps those 30,000 bands aren't all touring in any given year.
At any rate, I know that very few Colorado bands consistently play 1000+ venues, and among those who do, most are signed to a major label, are signed to a big indie label, or have in the past been signed to a major label (e.g, The Fray, One Republic, Big Head Todd, Yonder Mountain, Devotchka).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about weddings? What about grouping together a few nights at a few bars as being a single 1000 capacity?
What is 'consistently'?
Is this 30k worldwide? US only? North America?
What is a 'middle class salary'? Is that before or after operating costs?
I don't like these numbers at all, and the further I dig, the worse it gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small Subset
Now they don't make a huge amount of money, but they do ok. Yes, plenty of them supplement their income with other jobs, but they could get by no problem with just the music job. Besides I know a bunch of people making $40K, $60K, even $100K that have second part time job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So then you agree with Mike that the statistic as given is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How exactly can good or bad be judged if the statistic is meaningless? Answer: It can't. We can assign no value judgment to this, and any effort to do so is a form of spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you're right, sharing an impression is a viscious, evil, and horrendous form of mind twisting political propaganda wizardry, and you and I both should also be tortured along with Mike for the rest of our natural lives. It would be worth the pain to serve justice in this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your attempt at hyperbole is pointless. Either these numbers have value or they do not. I'm not seeing any reason to have any faith in these numbers, and subsequently they have zero value. Applying any weight to them (positive or negative) is a meaningless endeavor.
You asked if I agree with Mike that the statistic as given is meaningless. It is. But Mike doesn't seem to be treating as such. In short, you asked, I clarified. What's with your hyperbolic attitude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Stats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was at one time, the labels groomed groups for long term appeal as that was where the money came from. In interest of the short term gain that was dropped along with future income that would have coming from the long term earnings.
Most of the mom and pop record stores closed because they could not compete with the big box chains that sold music as a loss leader. This eliminated from the public marketplace those stores with large inventories.
The reduction in total available product and sales dropped like a stone. (of course it's all the pirates fault was the drumbeat on that one and still is)
The point of all this, is that when the labels took the big hit, they then turned to getting some of the touring bands concert profits. So unless those bands are doing really well, then they don't survive to do many concerts.
Given the above, 30,000 sounds like another round of inflated data, massaged this way and that in another attempt to influence lawmakers and justify another gouge out of the til.
No sympathy here. The only ones raising a fuss are those artists held at blackmail by the label to do their bidding or the industry itself trying once again to get their hands on more money.
Not the words but the actions of those labels speak for just where the real interest is...taking from everyone that deals with the music industry one way or another. Call it a vampire business relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very few have ever made money directly from a label, but whatever marketing and promotion the label has provided may directly impact how much the band can make via touring, merchandise, sponsorships, etc. And pretty much everyone says that the real way to make money from a label is songwriting. If your song is on a mega hit and gets radio play, that's where you get paid. So if you are the songwriter, you make more money if the album sells millions than if the album just sells a few copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Thoughtful Insight...
Anyways, they are saying that piracy is the cause? If there are that many making a living, then they are the popular ones. The popular ones would be the most pirated, and therefore would fail.
If piracy were a real problem, the world of music would cycle indefinitely in this fashion. But it doesnt, so it isnt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course you eat that number up with a spoon without questioning it.
How many 1000 seat venues are there in the US?
That number is ridiculously high and not even remotely connected with reality. Unless there are a lot of 1000 person weddings going on...
Anyway, now back to the usual "entertain me for free" entitlement bullshit this site is so well known for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Er... the point of the post was to question it.
Anyway, now back to the usual "entertain me for free" entitlement bullshit this site is so well known for...
Never ever suggested that. Perhaps you are confusing us with another site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=musicians
(Thanks to "qyiet" for turning me on to this site.)
But, this doesn't tell the whole story. Most musicians who earn a living doing music, are not the musicians most people think they are. They are most likely not in bands, recording, and touring. They are "work for hire" musicians: studio players, backup singers, members of orchestras, etc.
In other words, they are employees of the recording industry. Since that industry is tanking, it's only natural that less musicians have jobs in that industry.
But that seems mysterious when you consider that more money is being spent on music by consumers. Where is that money going? It's being spent not on professional musicians, but on musicians who have day jobs. In other words, it's evidence that the playing field is being leveled.
Of course, the RIAA has trotted this out as justification for their war on file sharing. For an example, read "Illegal Downloading = Fewer Musicians" from their Music Notes blog. But that assumes that "illegal downloading" is the only reason that the recording industry is failing.
Obviously, that's not true. As an example: In my former day job, I was a print operator. My job was to make paper copies of architectural plans for subcontractors and architectural firms. But the advent of digital technology decimated that industry. Why pay for a paper copy of a set of plans, when you could just email a PDF to whoever wants it? And the print idustry became obsolete without any "piracy" occuring whatsoever.
Are the two industries comparable? Well, look at the "printer" data from WolframAlpha, compare it to the "musicians" data above, and see for yourself:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=printers
The graphs show a decline that's roughly equivalent. The reason print shops are going under is the same reason CD sales are declining: digital technology has bypassed the need for physical copies. "Piracy" has nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
I love it when people just make up stuff, pull it out of their ass, and post it on the internet expecting everyone will believe it.
Music workers, those that create or assist creators, have been destroyed in the past 10 years. Half as much money is being spent on music now as opposed to 10 years ago.
Piracy is responsible for that.
Now, any other lies you want to get called out on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
People like the LA Times? Or PRS? Or eMarketer? Or Chris Anderson at Long Tail?
Now, money from recorded music sales is going down, but that's because more people are buying digital tracks (which are cheaper). But the difference is more than made up by consumer spending on other music-related purchases, e.g. live concerts.
And that doesn't consider spending in related markets, such as music equipment - which grew 5.72% in the past ten years, according to NAMM.
Piracy is responsible for that.
Really? It's not the fact that consumers are spending more on video games and DVD's? It's not the fact that the CD is an outdated medium, like cassettes or vinyl? It's not that labels threw record stores to the wolves, instead cutting deals with Wal-Mart and Best Buy? It's not the fact that the recording industry attacked digital distribution, rather than embraced it, despite the fact that it's what consumers want?
Uh huh. The biggest losses due to "piracy" are because of all the bad will generated when the RIAA and their clients started suing the fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
And that doesn't consider spending in related markets, such as music equipment - which grew 5.72% in the past ten years, according to NAMM.
If we are playing with numbers, I think they aren't going to look as good for 2010. NAMM reported significant declines last year. The US Labor Bureau reported that average household spending on entertainment went down comparing 2009 to 2008. And Live Nation has reported declines for its concerts this year. We won't know for sure how the overall music market is doing (and will probably never know since some of it isn't reported), but based on the trends I've been seeing, I don't think we'll see increases for 2010. I think the recession has taken its toll and I'm wondering if there will be a permanent shift in spending priorities. This is what has happened in Japan:
Japan Goes From Dynamic to Disheartened - NYTimes.com: "Hisakazu Matsuda, president of Japan Consumer Marketing Research Institute, who has written several books on Japanese consumers, has a different name for Japanese in their 20s; he calls them the consumption-haters. He estimates that by the time this generation hits their 60s, their habits of frugality will have cost the Japanese economy $420 billion in lost consumption.
“There is no other generation like this in the world,” Mr. Matsuda said. “These guys think it’s stupid to spend.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
Yes. But if you're looking for someone to blame for this, it's not file sharing "pirates," it's Wall Street bankers.
Will spending on music improve when the economy gets better? Probably, but in order for it to improve dramatically, the music industry will need to sell things that consumers want. They don't want CD's anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
I guess I joined in on a thread about piracy, but I wasn't trying to make a case for or against that. My thoughts were just on how the economy is impacting music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Professional musicians, legacy players, and "piracy"
"Music workers, those that create or assist creators, have been destroyed in the past 10 years. Half as much money is being spent on music now as opposed to 10 years ago.
Piracy is responsible for that."
You don't think that the advances in technology, like home studios removing some of the need for professional studios, digital distribution of music removing the need for CD Pressing, or even Myspace and Facebook reducing the need for professional marketing for small, startup bands has had any effect on the need for those folks that "assist creators"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And cheap recording equipment has been around for decades now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Hello, computer?"
"I think you're supposed to use this" (hands him a computer mouse)
"Thank you.(smiling, holds mouse like a microphone) Hello, computer?"
You do know what a computer is, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's certainly not a myth that skilled musicians now have the ability to own their own recording gear. Nor is it a myth that distribution channels aren't as necessary as they once were.
I know tons of musicians, most small, a couple big. All of them know that the actual costs of production are orders of magnitude cheaper than they were even a decade ago. It's not musical talent that is being replaced; it's the need for "gatekeepers" - pro recording studios, labels, commercial radio.
Metaphorically speaking, we've gone from a hammer that costs $100 to one that costs $1. That benefits everyone, carpenters included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are still almost no well known records done at home.
You can't buy talent in a store or get it free from the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The difference between an 80's 4-track and an 80's recording studio was immense. (I've worked with both.) That discrepancy is becoming more narrow all the time.
There are still almost no well known records done at home.
There are still almost no well-known records that aren't released by a major label, and major labels generally won't let you record at home. That's changing, and changing rapidly.
Also, I guess you've never heard of Sebadoh?
You can't buy talent in a store or get it free from the internet.
You also can't get it from a $500/hour recording studio with a Neve, a phalanx of Telefunkens, and a rack of LA-2A's.
Obviously cheap gear won't make everyone equally talented. But for those who do have talent, it's cheaper than ever to record a pro-sounding album. Because of the internet, and places like CDBaby, it's cheaper than ever to release that album. These things help the talentless and the talented alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to move the goalposts.
The comment I was replying to, was:
It's a myth that there is some kind of flood of music being released that was done at home.
I point out it's not a myth, and now you seem to imply that unless CDBaby produces the next Taylor Swift, it doesn't matter.
Of course CDBaby won't produce the next Madonna, at least not for a decade or so. But why does "success" have to be measured in terms of mega-stardom?
The plain fact is that for your average musician - i.e. one that isn't an industry insider - it's vastly easier now to make money. Not Paul McCartney money, probably not even a living wage. But these same musicians would never have made any money ten years ago. That's what's changing.
Why do you think this is a bad thing? What's your agenda here? Are you really that willing to sell grassroots musical culture down the river, just so you can believe the pie-in-the-sky myth that the record industry promised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just lets people that would normally have been ignored pretend they have some shot at success.
The cream always rises to the top. And that's why most of what you describe is nothing but one giant ego trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It will, without any doubt, result in more art that is much better. It will also result in much more art that is much worse. That's what happens when the playing field is leveled. I don't think anyone here pretended otherwise.
Will that hurt the music scene? Only if you believe a slew of bad bands will "devalue" the good ones. I don't believe that. I think bad bands only make the good ones more desirable.
It just lets people that would normally have been ignored pretend they have some shot at success.
Techdirt has a number of articles about people who normally would have been ignored, who are now making a living doing their art. Here's a summary that includes a small number of them.
But you seem to think that Techdirt is saying, "follow our business model, and success is guaranteed." Nobody here is saying that (unlike the major labels). There are no guarantees, especially not with music. That doesn't mean that opportunities aren't increasing, especially for the once-ostracized.
The cream always rises to the top.
If your ideal music is limited to the Top 40, then that's absolutely true. But if it's not, then a more appropriate saying would be "shit floats."
Meritocracy is only an option if there aren't any artifical barriers to success. It's the same with society: meritocracy isn't compatible with monarchy, or when people are excluded from participation (e.g. institutional racism or sexism).
The current (dying) recording industry is just such a barrier. There were tons of bands who were kept out of it, not because they weren't talented, but because they didn't match the sound that the industry thought would shift units. They didn't fit the suit.
Routing around those gatekeepers levels the playing field, and helps remove those barriers. It allows the cream to float and the shit to sink. It is far more of a meritocracy that what we have now. That's part of the reason I'm all for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://blog.tunecore.com/2010/10/music-purchases-and-net-revenue-for-artists-are-up-gross -revenue-for-labels-is-down.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I checked their database against some artists, and the database is missing a lot of information. A couple of the artists weren't big (which is why I picked them), so the database doesn't include smaller acts - and the acts that I picked are ones that are working music full time.
This got me wondering. It appeared that the database was biased towards Rock and Roll, so I checked their listing for Stompin' Tom Conners, and it claimed that he hadn't performed a concert since 2004, though his website claims he was busy nearly every weekend this summer.
You can read my conclusions in True Or False? The Latest Stat: Less Than 30,000 Artists Are Actually Earning a Living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did some research on their article, and wrote True Or False? The Latest Stat: Less Than 30,000 Artists Are Actually Earning a Living, which digs into their numbers, and also into their database, which it turns out is woefully incomplete.
Regards
Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let Y = the unsuccessful acts.
The true picture is X(X+Y)
Not everybody wants to be a musician!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]