Musicians don't deserve money, they earn it

I've been invited by Sonicbids CEO Panos Panay to speak on a panel at SXSW later this month entitled "Artist as Entrepreneur," and as I've been thinking about the subject, my attention was drawn to this recent post on CD Baby's bulletin boards (it was first posted elsewhere). Katie Taylor, the artistic director of Opera Theater Oregon, is worried about the rising perception that art--particularly music--should be available for a very low price or free.

(Credit: CD Baby)

To change this perception, she argues, artists need to convince the general public that there's a fundamental difference between a casual hobby, like a basement-band jam session, and actual art. As she explains, putting on a high quality show for the public is more like planning a wedding. It takes tons of time, talent, and preparation. This kind of art can't continue unless the people putting it on can earn a living wage. And the only way for them to earn a living wage is for consumers to be willing to pay, either through taxes and public funding or directly out of their pocket. If the general public continues to view art as a low-value option that should be available for free, then all art will descend to the level of basement-band jams, and society will be the worse for it.

I've been in both basement bands and "real" bands that are trying to sell recordings and charge for gigs, and there is a hundredfold difference in the amount of effort musicians put into each kind of band. Unfortunately, most listeners are completely unaware of the difference. (It's probably the same for all kinds of art.)

In the case of music, there's a core audience--I'll be generous and say it's around 1%--who understand and care deeply about music, who use their ears more than their other senses, and who couldn't live without it. The other 99% attend shows and buy CDs for other reasons--to fit into a peer group, to stave off the boredom of another evening at home watching TV, to attract a mate, and so on. This isn't conjecture--a Columbia University study I've cited several times strongly suggests that a particular song's popularity is influenced primarily by the opinions of others, and has no relationship to its objective quality (as measured by a control group where listeners voted without being able to see how their peers were voting).

Art's not food. It's a luxury, not a necessity. Which means that the only way for an artist to make money is to draw some of that 99% who feel they don't need it. Somehow, you have to convince them that your art is different, and is worth paying for. And the only way to reach that tipping point is--here's an evil word--marketing.

There are many ways to market your music, including some that seem more organic or "honest" to some artists because they rely primarily on word of mouth. The Internet and the rise of digital music has made it easier than ever to get the word out--MySpace and CD Baby are the bare-bones minimum for starting bands, and there are dozens of other online services that help accomplish specific tasks, from licensing your music for commercial use in film and TV to helping you get gigs.

Or, if you're still too lazy or pure to market yourself, there are plenty of organizations that will help you. Just the other day, I talked to a new company called The Republic Project that will create a digital marketing and distribution plan for semi-established bands in exchange for a cut of pre-release sales. The highlight: they're giving artists handheld digital video cameras so they can create videos of their recording sessions. Then Republic will post these videos online in hopes of building fan anticipation for a new album. It may not work, but making this kind of marketing effort is vital.

My point: the inherent value of art to the creator is very high--I value the experiences I've had playing music more than many other things in my life. But the inherent value of art to the consumer is almost zero. This is jarring to a lot of artists, but must be acknowledged if you expect to make money with your art in this cold commercial world.

If you build it, they won't come. If you build and market it, you have a chance.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

[Sourdust]

"the inherent value of art to the consumer is almost zero" - I've wondered about this for a long time now and I don't think it's true. People spend thousands of dollars traveling to Europe and Asia to see art in person (architecture, paintings, sculpture.) They don't need to do this as a simple search can give you thousands of photos and videos of each location for free. The problem is that these images can't capture the scale of these works of art. You enjoy them more if you see them in person. Music is totally different. You get the same experience from a free copy of the song as you do if you pay for the CD. Also, it's very easy to copy, store and share music. Many other forms of art are impossible to replicate accurately at the same scale so you have to pay to experience them fully. Technology has made it easy to take music for granted.

[MattRosoff]

I think people travel for a lot of reasons, and art is one small part of the equation. Except for huge art fans--the 1%--most people don't go to Paris for the Louvre, but they go to the Louvre when they're in Paris. But yes, technology has made it easier to copy music with very little or no quality degradation. You can't copy the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

[Sourdust]

If you exclude art from a vacation, and I consider architecture to be art, then people go to Paris to be around French people, pay in a different currency and shop in different stores. Americans can do that in Canada or Mexico for a lot less money. My point is just that people are willing to pay to experience art and that technology has made it so that people don't have to pay much (or anything) to experience music. Movies are also facing this problem.

[letitout]

Hi Matt.

I agree, musicians need to consider marketing, not just art. I also suspect that this conversation is already old hat to many musicians, whether or not they are making a living with their music.

But rather than considering it a necessary evil that artists have to participate in in order to reach the uncultured 99 percent of the music purchasers, how about recognizing that marketing IS an art and, like music, it's a vital form of communication?

Only when we have sufficiently blurred the distinction between music, marketing, and communication, can a more creative balance be struck.

I have heard plenty of authentic messages come through marketing and even more inauthentic messages come through "art."

Once brought into the market, every word, sound, image, photo, and song title is a form of marketing just every slogan, advertisement, bar code, or email has the potential to be a work of art--if we apply the same power of emotion and care that we would to our music.

Thanks for bringing up this basic point of confusion that too many artists still suffer from.

Joshua Pearl
www.soulofsongwriting.com

[songseeds2]

Marketing, yes, and therein lies the unleveling of the playing field as I have discovered. It still takes big money to do it well. The internet and technology have revolutionized music production and distribution but marketing remains that big expensive hole in the middle.

My experience has been that those who are settled in entrenched positions in the fields of music journalism and radio programming won't deal with people who are new to the game. We couldn't get an album review to save our soul! It seems to me to be a clique - if you aren't someone who already has a track record, who is already known as a who's who in those areas, you simply are shut out. You have to be able to afford to hire the gatekeepers just to get in the door.

I'd be curious to know if others have experienced this too. Maybe we were just really unlucky?

Rick Clingman
www.songseeds.com

[letitout]

Hi Rick.

I can certainly identify with that feeling of being shut out of a clique--celebrity worship and big budget marketing seem to carry a lot of weight in our world and the traditional media outlets seem pretty set in their ways or are slow to change.

Your point about marketing not being as level a playing field as production and distribution is a good one.

But the story isn't over.

Marketing, as I have come to understand it, is more art than science.

Here's the advice I give myself: Choose your heroes wisely. I'll follow Bob Dylan, Seth Godin, and Philip Petit (Man On Wire)--all expert marketers (aside from the size of their budgets)--over Nike or The Jonas Brothers any day.

As for the various gatekeepers...it's not that they won't give newcomers a chance. Like most people, they're just too busy with life to have to do the extra work. Most would sooner go with the tested and successful subjects than hunt for (or take a chance on) the unknown.

That's where a good publicist comes in...or an association with a known entity, be it a person, an organization, or a cause.

No matter how you look at it, though, it remains up to the artists to compel their audience to buy in to their vision--whether the audience is your fans, the gatekeepers, or the ones who will represent you to the gatekeepers.

In lieu of a track record (an interesting term for musicians), you can leverage your credibility by associating with, collaborating with, or hiring like-minded people.

Also, every artist would do well to know people who are, by their nature, patrons of the arts.

Luck plays a part, but a smaller piece than we've been trained to believe.

Joshua Pearl
Musical Mentor, Holistic Music Career Coach, and Director of The Whole Musician Workshop

wholemusicianworkshop.com
soulofsongwriting.com

[kbreuner]

Matt,

I agree 100%! Artist always see their art at a much higher importance level than the average person. They want people to take them seriously and treat them as pro's just because they are there creating. That's not how the real world works. Artists don't seem to understand the idea of going out and creating a demand for what you do, which many times, doesn't even depend on the quality of the product you are producing.

I wrote my own blog post in response to Katie here -> http://kevinbreuner.com

Kevin

[barefootceo]

Hey Matt - I totally agree about having to promote your own music to get ahead. This no only goes for beginning bands/artists but also for venues and promoters of music. We build Champion Sound as a simple tool to help people promote their music through email, sms, social media...etc.

www.championsound.com