Free Music Now Seen as an Inalienable Right by Consumers
For a while, it looked like the 2015 Super Bowl Halftime Show might be the first in modern history to showcase a country music artist. Rumors had Carrie Underwood in the running to appear on what has become the most-watched musical performance of the entire year. A country music artist filling that slot only makes sense in the current music climate where country music is ruling the roost over all of the other genres, but in the end it wasn’t meant to be. Whether Carrie was ever considered, the three finalists for the coveted spot were announced as Katy Perry, Rihanna, and Coldplay, with the final choice to be announced soon.
But there was an addendum to the news of the three finalists that has sent some sectors of the entertainment world into a tizzy. Apparently the NFL is not willing to pay the eventual halftime performer for their services. In fact, the NFL expects the performer to pay them.
Though there is no question the exposure to television’s largest audience of the entire year carries with it a monetary value, the idea of an entertainer paying an entity to perform is a dramatic, and dangerous flipping of the paradigm that could have implications much farther beyond a 20-minute halftime show. It seems fitting that this paradigm shift would be presented with the backdrop of the NFL, whose coffers are the most flush of all professional American sports, while their greed appears to have no limit. Football players also don’t receive guaranteed contracts like many professional athletes, and can be cut at any time. It’s also the sport that sees the greatest physical toll endured by its players. In other words, the NFL is already drilled in maximizing profits, and minimizing the payout to their talent pool.
This system of not giving an equitable amount to the football industry’s most valuable asset—it’s players—is established in college. Public institutions, who are many times partially funded by tax dollars, profit in the millions, sometimes billions off of college football programs, while players receive no compensation aside from free tuition. It is expected of college football players and other athletes to play for free, despite the millions of dollars they bring in for the institutions.
And so it is slowly becoming for musicians.
Of course whomever plays the halftime show will receive tremendous exposure, but so will the NFL when non-football consumers tune in to see the halftime performance. So why is it imperative on the musicians to play the subordinate role and pay the NFL?
The underlying problem is that free music is quickly becoming seen as an inalienable right for all Americans, and all of the world’s consumers, if we haven’t reached that dangerous plateau already. And the even more dangerous step of expecting musicians to pay to have their music heard is becoming more of a reality every day—evidenced by this Super Bowl Halftime news.
As an example on the consumer side, on June 18th, T-Mobile announced that the company’s Simple Choice customers would now be able to stream unlimited music from Pandora, Rhapsody, iHeartRadio, iTunes Radio, Slacker, Spotify, and other services without it counting against their data service. “As a committed music freak, I’m personally outraged at the way the other guys are using the music you love to lure you into over-priced plans with sweet ‘promotional offers’ that quickly roll into higher prices or trigger those absurd overage charges,” said T-Mobile CEO and President John Legere. “Music should be free of all that. Music should have no limits. So, beginning right now, you can stream all you want at T-Mobile from all of the top music services data charges do not apply.”
But of course the problem is, music does have limits. At some point, somebody has to pay for it. Somehow, the capital spent to record, produce, and distribute music, and the artists, songwriters, and musicians who made the music, have to be compensated, and at a living wage. Music just can’t be free, but that is exactly what not just T-Mobile, but all wireless providers have in mind. And if the consumer won’t pay for it, then the artists eventually will.
The problem with offering free music is both financial, and psychological. Like the T-Mobile CEO said above, if after six months of free music a streaming service or wireless provider begins to charge you, then it is perceived in the mind of the consumer that an injustice has somehow been done. However the true injustice was actually getting the music free in the first place. In the mind of consumers, it is now intuitive to them that music should be free. And as illustrated by the comments of T-Mobile’s CEO, consumers feel they shouldn’t even have to pay for the data that music streaming racks up. “Music should be free of all that,” John Legere says, saying that he’s “personally outraged” that companies expect for consumers to pay for music. “Music should have no limits.” In other words, every single other data source that exists for smartphones, you should be charged for, and consumers are perfectly fine and understanding of that. Surfing the web, watching videos, downloading pictures—this all makes sense to be charged for. But music? Music should be free, completely free, meaning no charge for the data, and no charge for the music, for all people, and forever. And if not, then it is the consumer who is getting screwed.
Granted, people who use T-Mobile’s current unlimited music streaming plans still may have to pay Spotify, Pandora, or whomever they have a subscription with (unless they’re on a free, ad-based plan), but all of that could change with bundling. Wireless providers are getting into the music streaming game so they can offer the service directly on smartphone devices without consumers ever spending a dime on streaming itself. Consumers pay a flat monthly charge that includes everything the smartphone is capable of bundled together, including music streaming, and they never even see an itemized charge for streaming music on their bill.
The promotional deal for wireless plans is the portal to making music streaming absolutely free in the near future. With rabid competition and more companies getting into the streaming business by the day, companies are offering enticements to consumers like never before. What is the enticements the companies are offering to the artists? Exposure to their subscribers who number in the millions. Opt out of being included on their networks because you’re not happy with the payouts, and nobody will have access to your music.
Could we see a reality in the future where artists actually pay to have consumers listen to their music, instead of getting paid? In many cases, including with the Super Bowl Halftime Show, this is already the case. The anemic earnings many artists accrue from streamers like Spotify in no way realistically recoups the costs for producing the music. And as physical music formats continue to fall in market share compared to streaming, paying to have your music heard will become an even bigger reality for a wider swath of artists.
Deepening the problem is the formula companies like Spotify use to figure their payouts. The reason payouts for some artists are so low is because the formula Spotify uses will only become financially lucrative for artists if the company has a massive subscriber base. So as more companies get into the streaming business and their numbers are splayed across a wide variety of services, it results in the parsing of the music dollar even more. Even when the profits from Pandora, Spotify, and others are combined together, it in no way creates a living wage for many artists, even for artists with wide, established consumer appeal.
But back to the Super Bowl Halftime Show, and how this could be a significant game changer. The Super Bowl quandary presents two even more dangerous scenarios for the monetization of music moving forward.
The first is that the Super Bowl Halftime deals with the live context, which for many musicians big and small, is the last bastion for being able to make money from their craft. For larger artists, including ones that may some day find themselves eligible to play The Super Bowl, touring is the only true way to make money off of their music. Albums are simply part of the overall merch pool to help pay overhead. As sales and prices for physical and downloaded music plummet, concert ticket prices have held steady, and are on the increase for some artists. Consumers are incorrigibly stingy when it comes to paying for recorded music, willfully circumventing copyright law, or choosing the free option for streaming service before even paying a meager $5 to $10 a month for unlimited music, but they will regularly take to the secondary market and shell out three to four times the face value of concert tickets to see their favorite artists live. If venues, entities like the NFL, content providers, or God forbid, consumers, feel like there is no commercial value in a live performance either, like they currently do for recorded music, or if they begin to think the “exposure” is enough, this could further eat into the overall revenue stream keeping the music industry, and many artists afloat.
The second problem with the Super Bowl Halftime issue is it is starting at the very top levels of music talent, not vice versa as it was though the pay-to-play paradigm would first take hold. By insisting that exposure is payment enough to the very top of industry talent, it could set a trickle-down precedent that could affect the entire industry. Pay-to-play is nothing new in music for smaller artists, though it is still rare. Big music gatherings such as South By Southwest which transpires in Austin, TX every March ask for payments from artists to be considered to play an official showcase, and even if you’re not chosen, the money is non-refundable. Then if the artist does play, they are not compensated for the performance, with the idea the potential exposure to journalists and industry representatives is payment enough. Other entities practice similar tactics to entice free, or paying talent to their events.
And since so few people are paying for recorded music, the money the performer must pay for their equipment, musicians, overhead, travel, etc., and to the NFL, it may not be a worthy investment if the halftime performance simply simulates consumers to go to Spotify or Pandora to stream the artist’s songs at meager penny payouts per play.
Simple exposure is not an equitable form of payment, and asserting so puts music on a slippery slope. That is one of the reasons why performers and guests on late night talk shows get paid scale. Of course the exposure the artist gets is an important boost for them, but the exchange of money (roughly $540.00 for an American talk show) ensures that artists are not being taken advantage of.
The Super Bowl performance issue is mostly symbolic. What is very real is the perception by the American public that all music should be free, and the growing perception by many institutions who believe exposure is payment enough. It is also one of the reasons consumers are seeing diminished returns from the music industry. With less revenue, the industry does not have the wiggle room to take risks and experiment, and to develop upcoming talent. Instead they make the safe bet, switch out producers and DJ’s for true artists, and favor computerized music over costly side musicians.
Music is no different than any other sector of the economy. You get out of it what you give to it. The underlying problem is not Spotify, Pandora, or even the Super Bowl Halftime Show. It is the perception that music is a commodity not worth paying for, and the cost of that perception shows in the quality of the music consumers are served with today.
August 26, 2014 @ 2:29 pm
Are they asking the artist to pay for the exposure? If you’re a big enough name to play the halftime show, do you really need anymore exposure? Does the halftime act actually make any money from anyone other than the NFL for performing during halftime? What happens if no artist wants to pay? This whole idea confuses me.
August 26, 2014 @ 2:39 pm
Actually in many cases it does give them a bump. When Bruno Mars did this year’s Super Bowl, sales of his last album more than doubled from 15,000 the week before to 40,000 the week after. The year before, Beyonce’s sales rose about 60% in the week following her performance.
The boost from doing halftime is short lived, but most of the time it is real.
August 26, 2014 @ 2:34 pm
Radio has been “free” to the listener since it’s inception.
“As a committed music freak, I”™m personally outraged at the way the other guys are using the music you love to lure you into over-priced plans with sweet ”˜promotional offers”™ that quickly roll into higher prices or trigger those absurd overage charges,” said T-Mobile CEO and President John Legere. “Music should be free of all that. Music should have no limits. So, beginning right now, you can stream all you want at T-Mobile from all of the top music services ”“ data charges do not apply.”
Sounds to me like he’s saying specifically that data charges shouldn’t apply.
August 26, 2014 @ 2:46 pm
Radio has been “free” to the listener since it”™s inception.
Clearly there’s a difference between listening to whatever the radio is shoveling you and listen to whatever you want on demand. Radio was set up to promote music so that consumers would then go and purchase it so they could listen on demand. Also radio has ads, so in theory it is not free, it is ad supported, like the non subscriber versions of Spotify and Pandora.
Sounds to me like he”™s saying specifically that data charges shouldn”™t apply.
Exactly. The point I’m trying to make here (and I understand it’s a tricky one), is that consumers have no issue paying for data charges when it comes to every single type of media they may consume on their mobile devices, including surfing the internet, watching movies or videos, uploading or downloading pictures, etc. etc. But when it comes to music, the CEO of T-Mobile says he’s “personally outraged” that people would think music should cost against data. The reason this is important is because it speaks deeper to the mindset of consumers that music should not cost them anything at any point in the consumer process, and if it does, they should be “outraged.”
August 26, 2014 @ 9:44 pm
Radio was set up as a public service and entertainment broke up news reports. The second round of radio strikes in the 1940’s was over recorded music taking airtime from live acts.
August 27, 2014 @ 7:27 am
If streaming music on demand without using data somehow leads to music being “free” and the artists no getting a cut, then sure, it’s a bad idea.
I don’t listen to streaming music, so I don’t know how the advertising works. I assume customers pay a fee to use the streaming service, and a portion of that fee should be given to the artists that you’re listening to. I’m sure the cut that the artists get seems unfair to most people, and it probably is.
The artists need to diversify. If they are relying solely on income from streaming services they are going to lose money. Artists should be getting out on the road to tour, sell merch, and earn their fans loyalty. No one ever said being a career musician was an easy way to make money. It has always been a very difficult lifestyle.
It reminds me of Ralph Stanley’s semi-auto-biography in which he chronicles the very tough years of becoming well known. He and his band (which was a constantly changing line-up) spent years driving around the Southern US and beyond to play radio segments, fests, and shows. If playing a certain radio program wasn’t making them money, they stopped doing it and toured somewhere else. They were taken advantage of plenty of times, but they learned from it and found new ways to be heard and make money.
I see streaming music service as a problem for some artists that rely on that income to make a living, but there are other ways to make money as a musician. Sometimes it involves doing things you don’t want to do like playing covers at a wedding or playing a fest that doesn’t necessarily fit your style. Hell, I do things at my 9-5 that I don’t necessarily love, but I suck it up and do my job so I can put food on the table.
August 26, 2014 @ 2:40 pm
I don’t feel one bit sorry for commercially-focused musical artists or labels or “the industry.” Every other sector of the economy is dealing with these issues, only these poor music “artistes” complain so much.
An example: there was a time when comedians could make hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars putting out comedy records and playing comedy clubs. The comedy boom. That went away. But you know what, every comedian I know and love today does a free podcast (fantastic stuff, usually) appears on late night, does mildly lucrative Comedy Central or Hulu shows, goes on the road and makes the door, etc. etc. until they get a breakthrough via a film, TV work, etc. Literally every good comic of the past half decade has blazed this path. Talent wins — like always.
Why couldn’t music artists do the same? Truth is, many do. They have to tour more than they might have to otherwise, but guess what that involves *playing music for fans*. Sounds terrible.
Finally, using the Super Bowl as your example of the “right” way for the music world to work is beyond ludicrous.
Finally, finally: Free music has been an inalienable right for as long as I’ve been alive: it’s called radio. And guess what, giant corporations make money off of it, and artists have built careers off it.
August 26, 2014 @ 2:53 pm
“Finally, using the Super Bowl as your example of the “right” way for the music world to work is beyond ludicrous.”
I have no idea what this means. Never said anything like that, and never really said the opposite of that to where it could have been misunderstood.
“Free music has been an inalienable right for as long as I”™ve been alive: it”™s called radio.”
Obviously there are fundamental differences between how music is consumed on radio (limited choices dictated by playlists picked out by others), and on-demand streaming.
But I guess everyone saying that free music is an inalienable right is just proving my point. It still won’t put dollars back into the system to help create a sustainable future for music. And yes, now let’s get angry at artists for wanting to get paid.
August 26, 2014 @ 2:54 pm
Wow! This is some of your best work yet, Trigger. It’s truly devastating to see where the music industry is heading. When I first read about the NFL asking artists to pay to play, I fully thought it was a joke or a false rumor.
I like to believe that most of the people who frequent this site actually pay for most of their music library. It seems that fans of good, real music like Jason Isbell, Cory Branan or Sturgill Simpson will quickly shell out the money to buy an album or single to support the talent that they respect. And I think these kind of people are becoming even more eager to support good music due to the lack of alternatives on mainstream radio. We WANT these artists to receive money for the music they pour their heart and soul into.
On the other hand, I think the mainstream radio crowd is moving in the complete opposite direction. This is going to cause (already causing) mainstream music to become even more watered down, as you mentioned. And I think this will cause indie artists to become even more creative with indie artists’ fans becoming even more eager to help their favorites succeed.
It’s a strange, backwards world we live in and I think it’s only going to get worse before things get better.
August 26, 2014 @ 3:15 pm
One of the reasons we’re seeing older artists, and artists like Sturgill Simpson do well on album charts when they have a new release is because their fan bases actually monetarily support the artists. Moving forward, I totally anticipate artists like Sturgill and Isbell getting #1 albums, because the independent fan base are the only ones left buying actual albums.
And for the record, I’m not necessarily against Spotify, Pandora, or any other streaming service. They can be very useful for both consumers to find new artists, and artists to connect with new consumers. But at some point, money has to change hands, or these artists who give so much to us will go away in search for a more sustainable living.
August 26, 2014 @ 4:24 pm
“Moving forward, I totally anticipate artists like Sturgill and Isbell getting #1 albums, because the independent fan base are the only ones left buying actual albums.”
And the independent fan base seems to be growing as more people seek alternatives to Top 40 playlists. However, for the all the folks migrating towards indie music, there’s just as many Top 40 fans gravitating towards mainstream country radio as it becomes more Pop-friendly.
August 26, 2014 @ 5:55 pm
I couldn’t agree more that artists like Simpson, Isbell, et al, with strong fan bases will see #1 albums in the near future. But the sad part is, it means absolutely nothing.
In another genre, but still relevant to this discussion, bands like Black Sabbath and Judas Priest will have albums debut at #1 with all of their hardcore and/or longtime fans snatching up the new release. Three weeks later it’s completely fallen off the charts. Sales just aren’t sustainable in today’s environment.
August 26, 2014 @ 7:38 pm
I don’t think it means nothing. I think it means these artists are more economically viable than their counterparts. If you can deliver physical sales, that means more money for the artist and their label. And even though mainstream artists don’t buy as many albums, the independent artists are still competing with them on a level playing field. And recently, we haven’t been seeing those sharp spikes ion sales only to fall off. Usually these artists now have a little more sustainable stay on the charts for the same reasons the crest them at the debut.
August 26, 2014 @ 3:01 pm
Artists and record companies must adapt or die. The profits are still there, but to think that you can make an album and mail in 30 tour stops a year are over. Now, you need to have great shows, merch, social media, and develop a strong fan base. Not to mention you need to be a self promotion machine. If an artist can’t commit to that, no problem. Just don’t think you’re gonna make any money.
20 years ago you couldn’t go to an artists web site and buy shirts and “exclusives”. The money the average artists loses on CD sales due to piracy can be made up in other ways, too. Do more shows. Do BETTER shows. Sell cool merch. But most importantly – be good at what you do!
Me personally – I don’t buy an artist’s album I’ve never heard of. I have myself a free listen. If the artist really did a good job, I buy the digital album (or LP if available) and maybe a shirt. If they’re outstanding, I’ll catch their show too. My favorite artists I always buy their new releases until they make a dud. Then they get put back into the new artist rotation. Not saying this is correct, or fair, or legal. I am a big consumer of music and quite frankly, not everyone is deserving of my money. Little 30 second samples on my laptop from Amazon does not give me a feel of the quality of music they’re wanting me to buy. I have to have myself a few sitdowns with it first.
When I bought CDs and had a 300+ collection, most of it sucked. And if it sucked, you couldn’t take the record back to the store and get your money back. You opened it, its yours. Record companies didn’t care they put out crap. So now I’m supposed to care about them? Ha – what goes around comes around.
August 26, 2014 @ 4:50 pm
This entire article saddens and enrages me as a music fan. I just cannot get my head wrapped around the fact that there are people out there who think they’re entitled to something for nothing, or something for less than a price that would allow that something’s creator to keep, well, creating. It’s devaluing of music, and it sucks. It’s the free market at work and I can accept that much, but what do you want to bet that all these entitled little shits are going to be the ones shrieking the loudest when the music finally stops for good? And I daresay all this “what goes around comes around” and “musicians need to adapt” bullshit isn’t helping matters any. If they’re playing 340 nights out of the year and get burned out because of it, then we’re right back to no more music, perhaps even faster than we would have originally thought would happen.
Oh, and you know what other method of music consumption allows you not to have to worry about data overages, or data connections, for that matter? Buying the music and having it directly on the device itself, that’s what. I have 2,234 songs on my iPod classic. A good 150-plus complete albums. That I can listen to anywhere, any time, without having to worry about a damn data connection. Yeah, I bought all that music. But I’ve gotten my money’s worth and then some out of it. Somebody needs to ask those aforementioned entitled little shits why they even bother with music if it’s not worth it to them to pay what it takes to keep their favorite artists making music for them.
August 26, 2014 @ 9:39 pm
Valid points. But have you considered what value comes from free music? Think of what the internet did for consumers of music like yourself and I. Think Sturgill Simpson would be making the rounds opening for Chase Rice? Think he’d be signed to a five record deal? The sad fact is, he wouldn’t exist in the world we know him.
Countless artists rely on getting by WITHOUT record companies backing them. There are plenty of artists that want to give there music away for free. Remember the Napster fiasco? Artists came out and supported it. Why? Exposure means money in the long run. They saw the writing on the wall. Brick and mortar CD stores were done. Digital is here. They believed in adaptation, not the simple minded argument that the physical media is where the money is at.
The money to be made is up to the artist. The ones that want to protect their songs and craft at all costs are certainly welcome to pursue it. I don’t blame them. They see it as their blood and guts printed to media. I would like to see artists get their fair shake. But the fact remains, if they want to make money, they have to go a different route then artists from earlier eras. Just because it was done one way for years, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.
And to be clear – I am not in support of free music. I make sure the artists I support get my money as directly as I can give it to them. Massive record companies – those are the ones that truly deserve your angst. But that argument is for another day.
August 26, 2014 @ 11:37 pm
Without question free music can help promote artists and projects, and without question, the drive of the individual artist, their talent, and their willingness to sacrifice all go into how successful they can become. But both of these things go without saying.
The issue here is not free music on its own, it is the mindset that is pervading both consumers and certain entities that music has no intrinsic value, and shouldn’t have to be paid for. Of course using free music to promote an album can lead to bigger sales for example. But if nobody is going to buy the album anyway, than free music as a marketing tool is completely ineffective.
“Think of what the internet did for consumers of music like yourself and I. Think Sturgill Simpson would be making the rounds opening for Chase Rice?”
Am I criticizing independent music or the internet, or the internet’s capabilities in helping expose artists? I’m not sure where you’re going here. But that is a double edged sword in itself. Sure the internet helps certain artists, but it buries others because now anyone can make an album and vie for national exposure and it has led to an unbelievable music glut. The music glut goes just as far to keeping worthy artists obscure as major labels do with their practices. The internet is not synonymous with free music. The free music I’m concerned about is being accessed through smartphones mostly. Interaction with the internet is simply as a data portal. As for Sturgill Simpson and Chase Rice, they are both on the exact same label, Thirty Tigers. It’s actually not unreasonable to think they could go out on tour together. I don’t think free music was any more of a player in the rise of Sturgill Simpson as anything else. Even before the internet, there were minor labels and independent artists. Look at Chris LeDoux.
August 27, 2014 @ 7:06 am
I was only mentioning Sturgill because I remember recently reading a story about his rejection from labels and how he did it himself. Record companies and distribution controlled music 20 years ago, he couldn’t put out a CD himself back then.
As for Chase Rice, I had the anti-pleasure of seeing his show Saturday. He played with about six other “entertainers” at a campground here in Missouri. Have to say, I don’t see what makes him country at all. Sounds like a polished crappy bar band that throws out “tailgate”, “beer”, “truck” in every song. Then he spends 10 minutes half way into the show to see what side of the crowd is the loudest.
August 27, 2014 @ 8:53 am
“The issue here is not free music on its own, it is the mindset that is pervading both consumers and certain entities that music has no intrinsic value, and shouldn”™t have to be paid for. ”
Shouldn’t we be replacing “consumers” with “music companies”? The music companies and artists control the content. Guilt should not be heaped upon the consumers.
August 27, 2014 @ 9:51 am
No, we shouldn’t.
How mean and evil music companies are is a completely different issue, and for too long consumers saying this is the reason they shouldn’t pay for music has lead to this self-righteous mindset of entitlement to free music. Just because major labels are evil does not somehow absolve the guilt of the average consumer who will do anything to circumvent paying even a miniscule $5 a month for access to music.
Evil or not, the music industry has been completely bled dry over the last few years, and one of the few ways they have stayed afloat is because of live performances, and labels demanding more of this share from their artists. That is why the Super Bowl demanding they get paid for the performance is such a slippery slope.
August 28, 2014 @ 10:59 am
Well, I’ve come to the conclusion people want everything for free. The reasons for that are many. People are jaded about big business, people are poor, etc. And I certainly the quality of mainstream music is down because of this attitude and VERY trend focused. I also think certain sectors of the population are just too poor to buy proper albums, their isn’t the disposable income so “free music” is their only choice to keep up with an artist they like. What boggles my mind is that people are satisfied with Pandora! It has a VERY limited playlist, worse than most radio stations (Slacker is better IMO).
But this is more or less true across many art forms. I remember once a landscape photographer told me digital cameras killed his business as an artist.
1. People didn’t want to pay what the work the worth, especially when they could take a similar picture with their own camera
2. They didn’t want artistically crafted picture of the Stonehenge, they wanted THEIR picture of Stonehenge no matter how blurry, off center and out of focus because THEY took it.
3. Anyone can now basically print a picture from the internet and since picture quality is on the low end of peoples priorities (instagram anyone) people can just print ANY picture and hang it on the wall.
He said the only area that still survives is portrait photography but even that has a HUGE glut because digital cameras and PS make it so easy for anyone to fix a bad photo and make it at least passable. This is not EXACTLY the same as music but technology has changed how everything is done and led to a worldwide epidemic that people want stuff/art for free. And you get what you pay for.
The only reason YouTube is exists at all is because it is free. If they start a monthly fee YouTube is dead because teens (who get a lot of there music and entertainment there) will not be able to use it since they can’t pay to play. Cat videos will become history. This is why YouTube has yet to get into the music streaming things or even have a monthly fee at all teens make up their largest user base. This is also why 99.9% of youtube content is utter junk because you get what you pay for. It’s the old saying “When you’re good to mama…” or better yet to steal a line from the Chicago musical:
“When they pass that basket folk contribute too,
You put in for mama she’ll put out for you…”
August 27, 2014 @ 2:03 pm
sure, musicians have too much money as it is right?
musicians, that make their entire living from playing writing and performing music, are right at the bottom of the heap of how much people earn. the very bottom.
the last thing they need is people stealing their output.
first of all, as mentioned in scm, lots of musicians had deals with record companies, records that sold, and got no money from it.
Lyle Lovett for instance. I think Jamey Johnston. There are all kinds of them. record companies have never been friend of musicians. They shaft them every chance they get.
second, other than selling albums how are musicians supposed to make money?
lots of them actually have to pay venues, to play there. this is now very common in most big centres.
and the ones that do get paid, haven’t had a raise since the seventies. I played years ago, and I still play, and I get the same or less as I got in the past. so forget performance as a source of money.
most musicians have to have ordinary jobs, or they can’t pay the rent. teaching, painting houses, delivering pizzas. those are some of the jobs friends of mine have.
even the players that do tours as band members for big acts, don’t make much money. Ask Trig.
Musicians may not have any choice about their music being stolen, that doesn’t mean they like it. Exposure. big deal.
having thousands, even millions of view of your tune on youtube, has been shown to do next to nothing for the band’s finances, and prospects. It’s free, so peole think it’s worthless.
the other day I looked on youtube for a band “mastodon” Probably one of the best bands around.
They just released an album.
The day it was released, somebody had posted the entire album on youtube. How much do you think that cost them?
If you think they like that, your mistaken. And they do not need “exposure” They get millions of views of their videos.
Shafting musicians is a time honoured tradition, which is going strong today, maybe stronger than ever.
That includes thinking music should be free.
August 27, 2014 @ 6:56 pm
markf, you’re circling around back to the point that the music itself is the only source of income. I’ve stated my point on that already, I won’t rehash it.
Artists cried foul when double cassette decks came around. “Who’s going to buy my album when they can just copy their buddies?”. They cried foul about Napster. Then file sharing. The fact is the cream always rises to the top.
As for an artist not making a decent wage, well that sucks. It sucks to think about all the other artists that the world missed out on because a decent job came available and they had to make the difficult decision to feed the family or risk it all and they chose feed the family.
August 26, 2014 @ 4:52 pm
I actually agree that free music is an inalienable right, as well as everything else. Are there any constructions workers here? Good. Get your whining asses over here and build me a house for free – no complaining. I have a chair I need welded. Where are all the free welders here. Hello? Anyone? Shit, all this typing is making me hungry. Someone here who waits tables for a living, bring me some free food – and just smile and do it because you love it. MAYBE after I eat a few plates, if I like it, I’ll tell my friends about it and you can serve them some free food too.
August 26, 2014 @ 5:15 pm
I think that a big part of the problem here is the corruption and greed that is infiltrating large sports organizations, whether it’s the NFL in the US or FIFA in Europe and the rest of the world. And these implications of corruption affect far beyond the sports themselves, affecting the economic development of countries, and the infestation of the monoculture through music and other media.
August 26, 2014 @ 5:43 pm
Trig, I believe I read something on here some time ago about you being against crowd funding for new music. I don’t recall the specific reasons for the opposition cited in the article. I also think it was about two years ago.
Going forward, have you reconsidered your stance at all on that? I mean, it may be the only way non-mainstream artists can even record new music.
It’s a bit beyond my scope of understanding of the entire music industry, but I know that some artists are doing it, including Uncle Lucius right now.
August 26, 2014 @ 7:42 pm
I do not condone crowd funding and do not promote crowd funding campaigns because I don’t believe it sets a healthy precedent for music for many reasons. Sure, fans should want to support artists, but that doesn’t mean they should have to pay for something before it is even made, or they’ve even heard a sample. I still support crowd funded albums once they’re released if they’re any good.
August 27, 2014 @ 8:13 am
Trigger, I’m not sure I understand your stance here. I’m an avid kickstarter user, having funded more than a handful of projects in the last year and a half (since I first discovered it). Crowd funding an album is no different than anything else, you have an idea of what you’re getting into before you commit your money to it. One might not know exactly how the final project will turn out, but most campaigns give you a good enough idea to let you decide if it’s worth your money. And, sometimes, I’ll back a project simply to show support for the idea. As I’m sure you know, almost 700 people with a mindset like mine recently helped fund Whitey Morgan’s next album. I’m fairly confident I won’t be disappointed in that choice.
And on a completely different note, I saw Kacey Musgraves and Katy Perry this weekend. The show was excellent and despite most people only knowing one or two of her songs, the crowd was very supportive of Kacey Musgraves. Their performances fit surprisingly well together.
Going to see Granger Smith tomorrow, it’ll be interesting to see whether his set caters more to the mainstream his last album was clearly aimed at, or at real music fans who actually know that he has music that isn’t about trucks or drinking (six albums worth).
August 26, 2014 @ 7:35 pm
When exactly is the cutoff for “modern history”? Shania Twain headlined the halftime show with No Doubt and Sting in 2003, that doesn’t seem all that long ago.
August 26, 2014 @ 7:46 pm
Cheap Seats, my husband and I are actually budgeting in some dough for the Uncle Lucius crowdfunding effort out of Friday’s paycheck!
I think crowdfunding, whether anyone likes it or not, is going to be a reality for many artists and we are going to see it more and more. I don’t see any other way around it. Many of these campaigns will offer fans who donate a copy of the album or a T-shirt or something when it’s finished. I personally don’t have a huge problem with it. It seems like it’s just the fans funding on the front end–because we want new music–instead of the back end.
For anyone who is saying they don’t feel sorry for the artists…yes, it’s hard to feel sorry for Katy Perry or Metallica. But I’ve seen several pieces really breaking down what touring, signed (as in–can’t supplement with a day job) bands are making on the road and it is far less than what I would consider a comfortable living. Yes, they get to play music as a JOB–that’s the dream…but for the moments of pure joy, relief from life, whatever they give us, they deserve to be making more than just enough to get by. (or not)
There are so many factors to this. It’s a HUGE issue, and there isn’t an easy resolution. I think it’s a bit scary, but I hope the artists will find a way to make it work in this rapidly changing industry. Several people have said it–but those of us who get that we need to buy albums and merch and go to shows, and maybe slip someone a little gas money? We’re the only ones paying attention to this stuff. The people whose attitudes are part of the problem don’t seem to care. I hope I’m wrong.
Excellent article, Trigger. Thank you for writing about issues like this!
August 26, 2014 @ 8:18 pm
Good article Trig! The entitlement attitude is awful. Question: What about artists who have died? Do you think the same argument would apply? Like greatest hits, re releases or even new unreleased music from an artist who has died?
August 26, 2014 @ 8:32 pm
“The underlying problem is that free music is quickly becoming seen as an inalienable right for all Americans,..”
Well written piece with great insight. Is it any wonder Americans see more & more products/services as inalienable rights?? We’ve had recent national elections where politicians promised ‘free’ birth control as their primary platform. ‘Free’ Healthcare, ‘Free’ cell phones, ‘Free’ Wi-Fi, etc.. Why not free music?? Why work when you can get it free? Yet every ‘free’ thing I just mentioned is made by someone — who doesn’t work for free. Recall the rabid hatred for Lars Ulrich when he fought Napster? Here’s a quote from Lars; “If I wanna give my shit away for free, I’ll give it away for free. That choice was taken away from me”. Lars was labeled a miserly arrogant tool who did not want to work for free. Wow – what an asshole. Now here we are. Artists may soon be begging to release their music for free. That’s a bargain compared to paying for people to listen!! Never fear music industry.., sure the politicians can fix this. They love passing laws to make voters pay for shit they currently get for free
August 26, 2014 @ 8:37 pm
I am a musician who works with a a handful of different ensembles and does studio work when called for, so feel free to call me biased in my following thoughts. I also came off of a long work day and a three hour rehearsal, so this probably won’t be as eloquent as I would hope:
I was discussing with a fellow musician the importance of serious musicians making a buck off of what they do, even if it is modest or comparable to the average working person (which for a lot it is).
I feel when musicians cannot make a living off of their work, they cannot possibly focus as much energy as possible in to what they do. They must work full-time jobs to fund their craft, as opposed to having that 40+ hours a week they use at a job to focus on their work.. refining their craft, mastering their instrument, learning the latest production methods, etc. I can only foresee this as having the effect of a lesser product. Yes, daily everyday turmoils of the working man can inspire songwriting and can fuel the outlet of playing music. I understand a lot of songwriters wrote music based off of these very experiences before they became full-time musicians. Hell, half of the legends discussed on this very site did just that. But I cannot help but feel this growing trend of “Give us what you do for free because you love it!” will eventually lead to a generation of music that will regress in quality because it will become secondary or a hobby and not a main emphasis in the lives of those creating it.
I work a tiring and stressful day job when I am not playing out, rehearsing, recording, or practicing/writing on my own time. I cannot count how many times I have had to cut a rehearsal short or decline an out of town gig because it fell on a late slot during the work week. These are just my experiences, of course.. maybe others have more energy and time than I do.
I fear for a day where people cannot be full-time musicians.. I feel like we will all lose out. As I always say: I would love to be wrong about this.
August 27, 2014 @ 1:43 am
[i]”while players receive no compensation aside from free tuition”[/i]
I know this is a side note, but can’t tuition fees in America run into the $100,000s (I’m not American)?. I’m not being funny but I’d play American football for a few years in order to save the cost of a small house, quite happy to receive no compensation otherwise.
August 27, 2014 @ 5:06 am
Very much so, especially when the student in question is from out of state. It is also worth noting that not every player in the athletics programs are getting a full free ride, or any scholarship money at all.
August 27, 2014 @ 5:54 am
Yes, the cost of tuition has sky rocketed beyond anything else and the quality of education has gone down. It’s political. Keeping tenured professors in their high paid jobs even though many of them couldn’t hold a job in the real world. They are there to indoctrinate. I am a college educated person and it started in the 60’s and 70’s requiring people to take classes like “Values Clarification.” Yup, Jonny, NFL players are paid ridiculously high salaries, but we have to look at the total pop culture; so many no-talents making millions. It’s only what the culture will absorb and allow. I have to blush at the idea that to many foreigners, all American must look like the Kardashians, totally void of substance.
August 27, 2014 @ 7:38 am
So being a teacher isn’t a job in the ‘real world’? The fact is their salaries have gone up at about the rate of inflation, while tuition has skyrocketed beyond it. There are numerous studies pointing to the increase of ‘administrators’ as being the culprit, not tenured teachers. Combined with decreased state funding, you get where we are now.
Don’t believe it? Here’s a snip from the link below it. Let a search engine be your friend!
But a turning point arrived around 1970, Thelin says. With double-digit inflation, an oil embargo and a sputtering economy, a perfect storm began to build. College tuition and fees climbed as much or more than the inflation rate. Private loans, heavily subsidized by the federal government, gradually replaced federal grants as the main source of money for both poor and middle-class college students.
As family income fell, borrowing to pay for college took off, while public investment in higher education dropped. Sandy Baum of the Urban Institute says that drop has been the single biggest reason for the increase in college costs.
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/290868013/how-the-cost-of-college-went-from-affordable-to-sky-high
August 27, 2014 @ 8:34 am
Greg, that was my point, that tuition has sky rocketed and you are right, administrative costs are the real culprit. (Of course teaching is a real job). People are always putting words into mouths. However, teaching in general, is not the culprit. K – 12 teachers are underpaid in most cases. I had several college professors who couldn’t relate to using what I learned in class to my profession. It’s not “in general” but many fall back on “I’m tenured now” and maybe publish a newsletter or two and just glide through and not worry about teaching too much. Many people are kept in place because they fit the political agenda. Adjuncts are terribly underpaid, while often they do most of the real work.
August 29, 2014 @ 5:32 pm
Well, American universities are still ranked as the best in the world. Even medium-ranking public universities are generally in the world’s top 100, according to multiple news organizations.
The fact that so many students from around the world vote with their feet to come to America to attend university speaks volumes.
August 27, 2014 @ 6:22 am
The problem is that the premier football players receive “tuition,” but they do not receive “education.” It is a three-headed monster of:
Individuals being unqualified academically relative to their peers but being admitted to a university based on athletic performance. They get tuition, but they are unprepared to take advantage of it.
Players not being encouraged to pursue difficult and time-consuming career-building courses of study so as not to lose focus on the sport. They get tuition, but they are not able to take advantage of it.
A pathological personal and institutional willingness to ignore glaring issues because so much money is being made. They get tuition, so therefore they can be taken advantage of.
August 27, 2014 @ 6:18 pm
Yeah Jonny, the idea that college football players should be paid is a joke. In addition to a full-ride scholarship, they also get all their meals for free, all their healthcare for free, and they receive gifts and are treated like kings.
August 27, 2014 @ 7:21 am
I still buy albums, physical copies, actually, but to be completely honest, I firmly believe I should have a right to know what I’m buying. So if I stream an album on Youtube or Spotify–that generally means I’m interested in buying the record. If it sucks, I don’t buy it (and a lot of new records suck, these days). Plain and simple. I have a right to choose to not buy music, that’s for damn sure.
August 27, 2014 @ 1:21 pm
Remember in the old days, before the internet, when you’d buy an album based on hearing one or two songs on the radio, then the rest of the album was complete horseshit? It always made me feel cheated.
Personally, I don’t buy music unless the entire album is good. Sure, I’ve got a few albums that have a song or two I don’t like, but I hate having to skip through crappy songs to get to the “good ones”. I like to be able to push play without worrying about all the other buttons, except the volume =)
August 27, 2014 @ 7:22 pm
Nobody is questioning your right to preview an album before purchasing. All that is being highlighted here is the growing consumer mindset that music should be free to them, meaning they never have to pay for it at any point in the process.
August 28, 2014 @ 7:35 am
My last comment was more of a nostalgic reflection of a better time in music (just my opinion) and less of an argument for or against your stance.
August 27, 2014 @ 7:35 am
I like streaming music. I think streaming music should promote music or artists rather than radio since I never bought album CDs nowadays. I’ll take Vimeo, YouTube, Spotify, Music Choice, and Vevo over mainstream radio any day. With streaming music in the rise, this will allow Taylor Swift, not country music in general, to play her country music on pop music streaming non-stop. Why? Because I want Taylor Swift’s country music on pop stations. It needs to happen. This can also save medium of major artists who are still struggling like Avril Lavigne. Trust me, I want streaming music dominating the entire music industry. I want to see more Carrie Underwood and Demi Lovato on mainstream pop streaming service. By the way, cool article Trigger. I hope you enjoy reading my comments.
August 27, 2014 @ 8:40 am
“So why is it imperative on the musicians to play the subordinate role and pay the NFL?”
Perhaps the audience simply doesn’t value the halftime show? I’d be happy if they eliminated because then I might get to bed earlier on Super Bowl night.
August 27, 2014 @ 9:56 am
Okay? Well it’s been found that a many as half of the people that watch the Super Bowl actually do it for the commercials and the Halftime Show, so clearly the halftime performer is a significant draw, and they should be compensated for that.
August 27, 2014 @ 11:52 am
Shouldn’t it be up to the performer to decide whether or not they are to be compensated for the halftime show?
I get your argument about people thinking that listening to free music is a basic human right (though I don’t agree), but it’s not like there are starving artists bidding for the 15 minute halftime show slot. And, even if there were, they would see a huge return on their investment.
Before there were records, tape reels, and CD’s musicians had to rely on performing to earn a living. Performing is still the top income earner for musicians. I just don’t see what your beef is with streaming companies other than the fact that they’re making money without giving a huge chunk of their profits to the artist. They are providing a service that many people are willing to pay for.
I think the fault lies upon the lazy, convenience loving masses that have formed this idea of “free” music all on their own. Just because a service exists doesn’t mean you have to use it.
For example, I’ve never used any streaming service, yet I’m turned on to new music by attending shows, listening to podcasts, the internet, and word of mouth. Call me crazy, but no matter how technologically advanced the music industry gets, I believe the live show will always be it’s bread and butter.
August 27, 2014 @ 7:25 pm
Shouldn”™t it be up to the performer to decide whether or not they are to be compensated for the halftime show?
As explained in the article above, and in many other articles specifically on this Super Bowl Halftime issue from many other outlets, the problem with asking performer to pay for the right to play the Super Bowl sets a powerful precedent that could impact the entire music industry, and the use of “scale” to pay performers and musicians throughout the industry based on fair wages.
August 27, 2014 @ 1:25 pm
Before the internet was what it is today, radio stations would sometimes play a new album in its entirety the day of its release (or, at least near the release date).
Now, a lot of albums are streamed on websites such as NPR for a week or more during the release to get a buzz going. This is one way that streaming can be very good for artists. They give the listener a “free” listen to entice them to buy the full album.
August 27, 2014 @ 2:54 pm
(Climbs out of her Wayback Machine…)
Or you went to the record store, where they’d happily spin the album you asked about! I’ve even heard that stores had little booths you could enter, put on a headset, and listen away to your heart’s content!
Albums (digital music, CDs) cost much less nowadays. Buy the dang record. Some of the stuff you don’t like initially can resonate in a whole new way later.
August 27, 2014 @ 7:21 pm
The point of this article was not to criticize or question free music as a marketing tool, it was to highlight the growing mindset of the music consumer and certain entities that music should be free, backed up by specific cases where this theory is being presented. Saving Country Music has offered albums and songs up for free streaming before their release many times. The point is at some point, consumers must help support the art form, or it will continue to have quality issue, or it may disappear altogether as a commercial enterprise for artists.
August 27, 2014 @ 5:37 pm
I dont understand what the problem is with the whole streaming thing. The songwriters, publishers, and artists all get pad royalties foe streaming music. They are paid out through the BMI and ASCAP, whichever you are affiliated. I am an independent country artists and I get royalties from my sales on iTunes and royalties paid out through the BMI for plays on spotify, pandora, etc. The only problem I can see is that people may stop buying albums, but then again, with the digital age allowing single song downloads, only true fans will buy an album anyway. I do have a problem with having to pay to perform, there are some clubs that I have run into that offer this to up and coming musicians…I just laugh at them and find somewhere else to play…if you are any good, a club would never ask you to do this.
August 28, 2014 @ 4:32 am
You must be doing better than Rosanne Cash, then. She seems to be barely scraping by.
Look forward to hearing about you someday.
http://news.yahoo.com/rosanne-cash-us-congress-streaming-killing-music-165519664.html
August 28, 2014 @ 6:20 am
Hell, you don’t have to wait to hear about me…check out my website http://www.briankayemusic.com. I’ll be playing with Montgomery Gentry in a few weeks and I am excited to announce that I have a gig opening for one of my favorites, STURGILL SIMPSON in November. Check me out and let me know what you think. I’d be glad to send you some music for free if you like.
August 28, 2014 @ 7:58 am
I stand by my original stance. Career musicians will just have to keep evolving their tactics and striving to find new ways to generate revenue. If you can’t make it work on a commercial level, and you need the money to keep being productive then you’re probably in the wrong line of work.
Music will never been seen wholly as a commodity such as breathing air or drinking water that is free and a basic human right. I just don’t buy that argument at all, and there is nothing that can change that. And, if it does become that, I want no part of it. You’ll see me in a backyard pickin’ circle in North Texas surrounded by family and friends.
The best music I’ve ever heard in my life has been free, on a back porch, around a camp fire, in my great uncle’s living room, at a Texas fiddle competition, and so on. And, the people making that music weren’t doing it cause they had to make a living with it, they make their music cause it’s in their soul fighting to get out.
August 28, 2014 @ 10:09 am
Well timed post. News today (8/28) from Billboard. Not good..
“The market for albums continues to recede, following a (now) long-standing trend that has been accelerated by streaming’s success.”
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6236365/album-sales-hit-a-new-low-2014
August 28, 2014 @ 10:52 am
Since streaming audio is becoming the preferred way for the majority of listeners to get their music fix, I would think that the sales teams at labels large and small will be negotiating better terms, if not for their musicians then for themselves.
If the labels are losing money because of streaming services paying too little, then the labels will stand up and fight for their share of the income that streaming is generating.
August 29, 2014 @ 2:16 pm
The record labels have no one but themselves to blame. Back in the 1950s when TV really took off, plenty of radio stars dismissed it as a gimmick, then cried the blues about how unfair it all was but hey, technology changes. Back when the MP3 first became viable, the music industry should have been all over it but know what they were busy with at the time? Soundtrack albums containing one “new track” from a monster-selling band at $15 a pop. They were asleep at the switch. Once broadband became commonplace they were as good as doomed. And they did nothing. Then they called the lawyers and attempted to terrify music downloaders into stopping. Didn’t work. Now they’re desperately trying to scramble and survive. Serves them right, too. Their plastic disc monopoly came to an end, now it’s up to them to either adapt or die, simple as that.
August 29, 2014 @ 6:36 pm
In a sense, this trend essentially represents music returning to its roots, back to a time when troubadours would travel from village to village and play songs for free.
I predict that the music profession will eventually take the shape similar to that of the priesthood: a highly respected profession, but one where the practitioners must live off of donations.
Also, just as many priests often work as religious teachers to gain a steady income, many musicians might also increasingly rely on giving private music lessons to those aspiring to the profession.
The one positive side effect of all of this would be that record labels will no longer have a place.
December 29, 2014 @ 2:23 pm
Am I the only freakin one who still buys CDs?
December 29, 2014 @ 2:33 pm
No, I myself still do. I even had a professor in college playfully chide me about that when I got him one for a present as a joke (he claimed that he didn’t even have a way to play it anymore). Personally, I like holding the item in my hands, no matter how digital retailers like iTunes and Amazon try to sway consumers with all of their “digital booklet” stuff. I like to see the album on my shelf next to my other music, and also so people that visit me can see most of what I listen to. I say “most” because in this day and age there are inevitably some albums that are exclusively digital or just hard to find in print (and ridiculously priced to boot). I rip uncompressed files from my CDs into my iPod and then typically enjoy those files instead of whipping out the disc every time I want to listen to it.
Speaking of discs, the main thing that keeps me from considering digital as my primary means of procuring music is the inelasticity of prices. This problem has been hinted at with digital movie and video game retailers as well, but it’s perhaps most distinct in the music realm. At a place like Hastings, you can find a fair amount of CDs for under $3.99, with many only $0.97 (depending on the release). Load up iTunes and said album will be the standard price of $9.99, and for a copy that is of lesser quality and without all of the frills of the case and booklet. Screw that. I’ll ride the physical product ship until it breaks in half and sits at the bottom of the consumer ocean.
In other news, I hear that Wolverine and Captain America had an argument about this the other day as well 😉