14 ms·

How Musicians Make Money, Or Don’t, In 2018

123 points by bspn 8y ago

jqbx_jason 8y ago
I built JQBX (https://www.jqbx.fm https://www.jqbx.fm) so I think about streaming, money, and the law a lot. The industry is very focused on siphoning off as much cash from the musician as possible. That being said, in the age of streaming that seems like a common model (Psy got $2 mil for 2 billion views!?). I think direct sales is the most promising future for artists compensation given that there are so many new sales and social channels. Bandcamp is does good work and if you're going to buy music (and the artist is on there) you should probably do it there. I know I'm a small fish but I'm integrating on some direct to artist sales features currently to at least help the cause.
gomox 8y ago
I have a few friends that are aspiring musicians with what I consider to be a high quality product, and they both struggle to make a living out of it, bankrolling their music endeavors with side gigs or similar avenues. In the age of the Internet, it seems clear to me that from a macro economic perspective, the only scarce things a musician can provide are (a) experiences and (b) physical goods. It seems like no small/medium artist can expect to make a living out of YouTube views or Spotify plays. Is anyone here that is more knowledgeable about the industry able to comment on what tech-enabled avenues exist (or may come into existence in the short term future) for younger musicians to make a living? Crazy ideas are OK (for example, I think VR live concerts might be a thing at some point, but I don't have enough understanding of the industry to tell whether something like Ujomusic makes sense).
- Retric 8y ago
  It's highly competitive out there, but let's say you are in the top 5% of musicians which have real talent but can't make money. Ultra specialization is one option. It's easier to make it as a Christian Rocker than a regular Rocker, but the rabbit hole goes really deep here. Become part of someone else's content creation process. From video game soundtracks to a song writers demo tapes, many people want to turn a written song into music and while you generally don't get residuals you can still make decent money this way.
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  >for younger musicians to make a living I don't have any stats, but even 30 years ago it was hard to stand out/make a living as a young musician. Why should today be easier, especially when there's several orders of magnitude more choices to contend with (additionally with albums/concerts being relatively cheap due to downward pressure from the Internet)? One could argue that streaming payouts aren't as fair as they should be, but that's an extension of album royalties from yester-decade.
  - gomox 8y ago
    Not saying it should be easy, just asking for ideas that could provide monetization choices for talented yet mostly unknown musicians.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  > a musician can provide...experiences This is how my dad made a living his whole life, playing upscale weddings in a string quartet. The barrier to entry is fairly high, though. Violins and such require a decade or 2 of practice. And unless you run the group, there's not enough work for a regular, full time income.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  > it seems clear to me that from a macro economic perspective, the only scarce things a musician can provide are (a) experiences and (b) physical goods As someone who is close to people in the industry: this is very true. If you aren't a top act, money is made through merchandise and gigs like writing and recording music for video content, events like weddings and if you're lucky enough to get your act to the point that businesses will pay you to play at their venue, shows and touring. There are businesses who approach musicians with the 'free shows at our venue for exposure' or 'perform at our venue and possibly collect on ticket sales' angle. Inexperienced or desperate acts will fall for these. > Is anyone here that is more knowledgeable about the industry able to comment on what tech-enabled avenues exist (or may come into existence in the short term future) for younger musicians to make a living By necessity, musicians need to look at these tech platforms not as sources of revenue, but as marketing platforms.
  - jv22222 8y ago
    > By necessity, musicians need to look at these tech platforms ... as marketing platforms. Yes, that's exactly the way to look at it. But, even to get noticed on those platforms you'll need to do marketing. So, now there's two layers of marketing!
  - gomox 8y ago
    Thanks for your input. One takeaway from talking to my friends is that the "play for free for exposure" also happens at some very high profile venues that I wouldn't have guessed did that kind of thing.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Consider a dancer. Being any good takes years of training. But even the very good ones struggle to make any sort of living from it. (Take a look at the dancers in the background of any music video. Do you think they get paid much?) Why should musicians be different from other artists?
  - gomox 8y ago
    I actually know a girl that does that and she gets paid just fine. She also has her own dance studio. The musicians I talk about are much more notable than the dancer in their own field, as far as I can discern. But the dancer does not work for an industry nearly as intricate. She dances, and she gets paid for dancing. Finally, I don't expect musicians to have it easy. Just asking for ideas.
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      If you're really good, you can charge $50/hr for private dance lessons. Subtract the cost of the dance studio, and it's not much. If you're at the top, you might get a gig for a couple years at the ballet. Might.
      - ataturk 8y ago
        My daughter's clarinet and sax private lessons cost $120 a month, I think they are 4-1hr. sessions per month. The teachers we know have all the work they can stand.
      - rohitb91 8y ago
        Or group lessons in a studio.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > If you're really good, you can charge $50/hr for private dance lessons That seems a little low for even a minimally qualified instructor, IME (though I suspect the form of dance has a big effect on the potential market.) > Subtract the cost of the dance studio, and it's not much. That, on the other hand, seems spot on.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- test6554 8y ago
  Which is why parents tend to steer their children away from becoming/dating a professional musician.
- joveian 8y ago
  I'm not a musician but have had a bit more interest in the industry than the average person, so I'll give my crazy ideas on the off chance it might be helpful. Both Bandcamp and CD Baby seem popular with independent musicians as a way to make some money selling music, although I'm not sure if anyone makes a living from them. They can at least provide non trivial income in some cases. One thing I like about Bandcamp is when musicians offer a discounted "buy everything from this musician" option and at least personally I will spend more money more easily when that is an affordable option vs. needing to try to find music I like best to actually purchase. Soundcloud is popular for discovery. I'm sure your friends are already some of the amazing musicians on these platforms that somehow can't get a wider audience for no obvious reason. I didn't like this article that much, but I think one thing that seems right to me is how important film is in turning excellent musicians into popular musicians. Computer games should be the same, but for some reason the industry accepts a half dozen 30 second loops as being acceptable music for games that take tens of hours to play. Hopefully this situation will improve, but meanwhile there are occiasional games that have the explicit goal of promoting music and a few that just happen to use better music. Three I can think of are Beat Buddy, Symphony, and Braid. The creaters of Beat Buddy explicitly had the goal of promoting music and I'm fairly sure they worked directly with the musicians. I'm fairly sure Symphony also had music promotion as a goal but I'm not sure if they worked directly with the musicians or not. Braid just used music from Magna Tune, but the musicians got exposure from the game. I'm not sure if any of these cases necessarily translated to income, although I suspect it did in some cases at least (maybe you could ask some of them or see if they have talked about it publicly if you wanted to look into this further). There is also a risk in working with game developers, since the music industry likes to categorize musicians in strange but limiting ways and almost no one wants to be categorized as a game musician (same, to a somewhat lesser extent, with film). Also, the route to gaining popularity via games would likely involve indie games and it can be hard to figure out if a particular developer a) will actually be able to produce a game that meets even the low technical standards of the game industry, b) that the game is fun in some way, and c) that more than a tiny number of people actually buy the game. Even better funded game projects often don't work out for various reasons. So a lot of risk but also a lot of opportunity since good music (not typical game music) can really improve the experince of a game. Unfortunately, both game and film producers seem to often want music to be bland and annoying so there is an extra challenge in finding someone who appreciates the value good music can add to a project. To be fair, sometimes other audio need to take priority, particularly in film, but IMO most games would do better making good music the focus of the audio experience. In film there as at least usually the credits music for arbitrary music that matches the mood of the film. I think with indie film makers it would likely be easier to evalute the ability of the producer to complete the project, although still no guarantee that many people will ever see and hear the result. If working with independent film or game makers they will not be able to pay much of anything up front, so it would potentially still be a lot of work for a tiny chance of more exposure, although both films and games often get music from a number of sources which can lower the amount of work for each musician involved. To the extent that they are already doing a lot of work for a tiny chance of more exposure it might be something to consider, making choices with some idea of where they would like their income to come from in the future. I'm not sure how a musician would go about trying to find such a collaboration, but I would guess there are online forums where it might be possible. For that matter there are professional musician forums; I don't know particular ones to recommend, but if your friends haven't looked at them yet they might find better advice there.
cm2012 8y ago
An example of live performance making money - my friend and I busked the summer after high school and made $15 an hour or so, 6 hours a day before our voices gave out. So we were each able to make around $4k for college over two months. Annualized, $24k a year is not great, but it was a lot to us, and we also got about a gig offer per week which we declined. If we had wanted to be full time musicians we probably could have had a decent career in short order.
- privacypoller 8y ago
  plus that's tax-free cash!
  - lisper 8y ago
    No, it isn't. It's easier to get away with cheating on your taxes if you're paid in cash, but cash is still taxable income. And if they do catch you, you can go to prison (as Robert Manafort is currently learning the hard way).
    - cm2012 8y ago
      *Paul Manafort
- spunker540 8y ago
  I was in a busking trio playing mostly covers of oldies -- when we were 15/16 years old we had a good novelty factor and could make around 45 an hour combined street performing. Eventually we started playing bars in a touristy part of Wisconsin and we'd make $200-300 per 3 hr set. Hourly it's alright, but there's not many options in terms of daytime gigs during the week. Incidentally, I put this on my resume back in college when my resume was mostly empty, and think it played a part in me getting rejected from a Microsoft internship. At one point an interviewer asked me point blank "would you rather be a professional musician or a computer programmer" and I didn't answer correctly!
  - vkou 8y ago
probably_wrong 8y ago
I thought the article would focus a bit more on the "or don't" part. I think Courtney Love's article on the economics of being a new musician would have added an interesting perspective to the (already complex) issue: https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ Edit: note that the article is from 2000, and the landscape has changed a bit since then.
pmoriarty 8y ago
Forget money. As a musician I struggle to even get people to listen to my music for free. There's an absolute glut of content out there, due to two things: 1 - The increasing ease of making music. It used to be that you had to invest time in acquiring some skill, some relatively expensive instruments, and some in-person relationships with other musicians to make music that was palatable to a significant number of listeners. Today all you need is some free software on a phone or computer you probably already have, and it all but makes the music for you. 2 - The ease of distributing music. You used to have to get contracts with record labels, make other connections with the music industry, or spend a lot of money to get much of an audience. Now we've mostly cut out the middle men, and distribution is virtually free. As a result there's vastly more content and much more competition between artists for an audience. No longer are consumers limited to a dozen radio stations or having to read music reviews, physically go down to the record store, listen to and buy records. The consumer has virtually the world's entire musical output at their fingertips and far more free content than they even have time to listen to.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 21 8y ago
  I think this is a good thing. Only the strongest content will push through. Before, if someone signed you, you were pretty much guaranteed some form of success. I don't think that virality being required is a problem, all the songs I still listen from 20 years ago, and which are still played, I loved the first second I've heard and I would have shared them back then.
  - tjoff 8y ago
    > Only the strongest content will push through. I think it has surprisingly little about content but with marketing and connections. I feel it is especially apparent on youtube where crappy content can thrive and excellent content can be buried where only a handful will see it. Not terribly different from the old days.
matchagaucho 8y ago
Music throughout the centuries has always been subsidized by benefactors. It wasn't until 19th century that the breadth of career options opened up for Musicians. The struggle for "Pop" artists is that the definition of Pop changes every 5 years... and even then, Artists underestimate just how much promotion goes into driving streaming traffic. But career options for scoring video games, multimedia, EDM, DJ, live bands, and teaching have never been better.
- sreyaNotfilc 8y ago
  And that what it boils down to, promotion. Can you out promote the next guy? And, if you're likable or not. If so, you get (at least) a listen to. Can you promote and make quality work? Doesn't have to be high quality, but good enough that you'd listen to it a lot and share it with your friends. Ed Sheeran is not the best singer/musician in the world. But, he and his music is constantly in rotation. Not everyone has the backing of Warner Music. However, I'm guessing he and his music is likable and talented enough to hold people's attention.
jv22222 8y ago
I think we need a platform that is a cross between Spotify and Patreon. Then, artists can aim to bring in subscribers who pay them something like $2-5/month to support them as a patron. You can already do this on patreon but I think a specialized platform would have more sway. The platform could also sell bands enhanced band pages for a small subscription fee too. Basically, a platform to fully connect artists with fans where the fans WANT to buy the music in order to support the band.
- edkennedy 8y ago
  You can do that on bandcamp https://aristake.com/post/turn-your-fans-into-paying-subscribers-with-this-platform https://aristake.com/post/turn-your-fans-into-paying-subscri...
- jongold 8y ago
  this is a realllllly good idea.
digi_owl 8y ago
Old man Zappa comes to mind... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0
WalterBright 8y ago
The era of a musician making a $100m is over. The same thing has happened to books and software. I'm a little surprised that movies can still make so much money. There's an explosion of video being made.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Video is a few years behind in this process because it got started later, but it’s trending in the same direction: YouTube used to have a diverse set of personalities among its famous producers, but they’re gradually disappearing and the all new YouTube stars are minor variations of the same archetype: the annoying, loud-mouthed jackass. And it’s for the same reason: with so much content out there, you’ve gotta stand out, and the easy hack to do that is by being an attention-seeking sociopath. Give it another five years or so, and every YouTuber will be Logan Paul.
- vkou 8y ago
  The difference in production quality between a Clerks-style mockumentary, and a AAA teledrama is huge. The latter is a money pit, where you can sink millions of dollars into. Technology has made video-production much more accessible, but there's almost no ceiling to money->production quality in that space. With music, technology has made audio-production much more accessible, and while there is a difference between someone recording music in their garage, and Justin Beiber working in a gold-plated studio, it's not a big one. I may not like the latest Avenger's take on the DC universe, but watching an unlicensed spin-off made by four kids over a summer isn't an acceptable substitute. If I don't like Beiber's new album, there's a mountain of indie bands that... Sound just as good.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Part of it is that the cameras you can get from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars have gotten dramatically better than the Super8 or even VHS days--and the editing process is also cheaper and easier--but there's so much more in the budget for that AAA teledrama or even a relatively low budget movie. The actors of course but also sets, lighting and sound design, etc. Some types of films can be produced on the cheap under some circumstances but not most mainstream films, especially the popular ones.
WalterBright 8y ago
> “When you end up tracing all the dollars, around 10 percent of it gets captured by the artist. “That’s amazingly low,” Actually, that's pretty good. Compare it to the profit margin of most any business.
- ska 8y ago
  Isn't it talking about revenue, not profit margin?
scarecrowbob 8y ago
I'm a semi pro musician. The market makes plenty of sense if you adopt the idea that: a) any commodity will eventually be priced at its cost of producution b) recorded art is a commodity, at least at the level of record labels and national acts I make more playing piano by myself for 30 people at a winery in the Texas hill country than I could playing in a really hopping stage band in Austin... one experience is costing the folks engaged in it a lot more, and there is a lot less competition. The only reason I sell merch is because rich people would rather buy something than tip a service worker.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >a) any commodity will eventually be priced at its cost of [production] // The problem with this idea for the arts is that people are prepared to create music/art without a wage, so they absorb a primary cost of production (wages) themselves. Indeed they'll pay for everything, because it's enjoyable to create music. We could have no professional musicians and we'd still have more music created than anyone could ever listen to. Also, "cost of production" should include wages, but what level of wage is right. Capitalism values people by their scarcity, but almost any musician could be replaced -- even top bands have replaced members -- meaning that for most music production capitalism will value the people making the music at around zero. So, you then need fashion (merch)/lifestyle/live shows to boost value. It strikes me that stars are made to increase the value of the music (selling a lifestyle) rather than because of the value of the music.
  - scarecrowbob 8y ago
    "they absorb a primary cost of production (wages) themselves" I think that you are correct in this point. Your point doesn't undercut my point however-- in fact, if you look at the history of labor, the reason production gets draconian is because as the margins for commodities get smaller the owning classes have to force the laboring classes to absorb more of the cost of reproduction. Hence people driving for Uber. Or the undervaluing of domestic, unpaid labor in the cost of production. We hide a lot of those costs of production in the US. And the answer to how long and how that gig economy will last has to do exactly that issue. The issue isn't how to fairly compensate people (what "level of wage is right") and I don't really agree that scarcity is what drives price... I still think that assuming that multiple people can get into a market price will always move towards the cost of production. But that's just my own idea... not everyone believes that the price for a commodity will sink to that level. At some point, labor can no longer afford to reproduce itself no matter how many parts of it are externalized, and folks can't afford to go to a field and pick strawberries. Or play jazz. It's really bad if we wanted to keep things like having live music all over the place... all the professionals have to get day jobs, and so the really good, smart musicians are all doing other things because they can't make ends meet. Those folks are often still playing, but you're not gonna get great unless you're playing all the time, really. But that has little to do with recorded music as a commodity, and a lot to do with all kinds of things from drunk driving laws to netflix. You're also more or less correct in your assessment of "stars", insofar as they disrupt a commodity by creating a false sense of scarcity. As you note, "almost any musician could be replaced", and that's true about "stars" at a certain point. So those are temporary disruptions, not a workable situation for an industry. Still, though, there are points in production that cost a lot to make: live shows, quality merch, music lessons, etc... those things have a real cost in time regardless of how much supply there is. That doesn't boost the value of recorded music, but people still want those things, even if they are scarce/ have a higher cost of production.
canadianwriter 8y ago
I wrote a somewhat related article a few years back that I think is very relevant to this: https://kolemcrae.com/the-internet-killed-the-rock-star-and-why-thats-okay/ https://kolemcrae.com/the-internet-killed-the-rock-star-and-... The days a massive rock stars is over - it's not too bad though...
- tommymachine 8y ago
  I’m not sure that the “rockstar” concept is dead. The top spaces are just being shared among fewer performers. And more of the business is trickling towards them than the smaller acts than yesterday, and the same will be true tomorrow. It’s been going that way since they started printing sheet music. As distribution (of pretty much any product) becomes more efficient, it’s easier for the most marketable acts to become well known outside of their original region, and when that happens they’ll take over a lot of market share from the local guys in other regions. Music is the type of field where everyone and their brother gives it a go, and so the market is very, very deep. But most of it lacks the mass appeal needed to cause viralality. Today more than ever, it’s possible for marketable acts to catch on in a big way. And the big acts do really, really well. But that’s always been the case. In music as in other similarly competitive fields (professional sports, acting, startups, writing novels) being average means that you basically aren’t making a living, whereas the top people are really raking it in. It’s a well-studied market dynamic. (May have been mentioned in Freakonomics, although I can’t recall exactly). Point being, in such fields average is almost always broke, and if you’re making it, you’re likely to be really, really making it. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but it is exacerbated as technology continues to enable more efficient marketing / distribution for the most popular acts.
joewrong 8y ago
> "with many analysts and experts expecting that the business will streamline itself" Seems like wishful thinking
jplayer01 8y ago
ITT A bunch of music snobs who think music is dead and they just don't make great music anymore and it all sounds the same.

123 points by bspn 8y ago

I built JQBX (https://www.jqbx.fm https://www.jqbx.fm) so I think about streaming, money, and the law a lot. The industry is very focused on siphoning off as much cash from the musician as possible. That being said, in the age of streaming that seems like a common model (Psy got $2 mil for 2 billion views!?). I think direct sales is the most promising future for artists compensation given that there are so many new sales and social channels. Bandcamp is does good work and if you're going to buy music (and the artist is on there) you should probably do it there. I know I'm a small fish but I'm integrating on some direct to artist sales features currently to at least help the cause.

gomox 8y ago

I have a few friends that are aspiring musicians with what I consider to be a high quality product, and they both struggle to make a living out of it, bankrolling their music endeavors with side gigs or similar avenues. In the age of the Internet, it seems clear to me that from a macro economic perspective, the only scarce things a musician can provide are (a) experiences and (b) physical goods. It seems like no small/medium artist can expect to make a living out of YouTube views or Spotify plays. Is anyone here that is more knowledgeable about the industry able to comment on what tech-enabled avenues exist (or may come into existence in the short term future) for younger musicians to make a living? Crazy ideas are OK (for example, I think VR live concerts might be a thing at some point, but I don't have enough understanding of the industry to tell whether something like Ujomusic makes sense).

Retric 8y ago
It's highly competitive out there, but let's say you are in the top 5% of musicians which have real talent but can't make money. Ultra specialization is one option. It's easier to make it as a Christian Rocker than a regular Rocker, but the rabbit hole goes really deep here. Become part of someone else's content creation process. From video game soundtracks to a song writers demo tapes, many people want to turn a written song into music and while you generally don't get residuals you can still make decent money this way.
Dirlewanger 8y ago
>for younger musicians to make a living I don't have any stats, but even 30 years ago it was hard to stand out/make a living as a young musician. Why should today be easier, especially when there's several orders of magnitude more choices to contend with (additionally with albums/concerts being relatively cheap due to downward pressure from the Internet)? One could argue that streaming payouts aren't as fair as they should be, but that's an extension of album royalties from yester-decade.
- gomox 8y ago
  Not saying it should be easy, just asking for ideas that could provide monetization choices for talented yet mostly unknown musicians.
mikec3010 8y ago
> a musician can provide...experiences This is how my dad made a living his whole life, playing upscale weddings in a string quartet. The barrier to entry is fairly high, though. Violins and such require a decade or 2 of practice. And unless you run the group, there's not enough work for a regular, full time income.
darpa_escapee 8y ago
> it seems clear to me that from a macro economic perspective, the only scarce things a musician can provide are (a) experiences and (b) physical goods As someone who is close to people in the industry: this is very true. If you aren't a top act, money is made through merchandise and gigs like writing and recording music for video content, events like weddings and if you're lucky enough to get your act to the point that businesses will pay you to play at their venue, shows and touring. There are businesses who approach musicians with the 'free shows at our venue for exposure' or 'perform at our venue and possibly collect on ticket sales' angle. Inexperienced or desperate acts will fall for these. > Is anyone here that is more knowledgeable about the industry able to comment on what tech-enabled avenues exist (or may come into existence in the short term future) for younger musicians to make a living By necessity, musicians need to look at these tech platforms not as sources of revenue, but as marketing platforms.
- jv22222 8y ago
  > By necessity, musicians need to look at these tech platforms ... as marketing platforms. Yes, that's exactly the way to look at it. But, even to get noticed on those platforms you'll need to do marketing. So, now there's two layers of marketing!
- gomox 8y ago
  Thanks for your input. One takeaway from talking to my friends is that the "play for free for exposure" also happens at some very high profile venues that I wouldn't have guessed did that kind of thing.
WalterBright 8y ago
Consider a dancer. Being any good takes years of training. But even the very good ones struggle to make any sort of living from it. (Take a look at the dancers in the background of any music video. Do you think they get paid much?) Why should musicians be different from other artists?
- gomox 8y ago
  I actually know a girl that does that and she gets paid just fine. She also has her own dance studio. The musicians I talk about are much more notable than the dancer in their own field, as far as I can discern. But the dancer does not work for an industry nearly as intricate. She dances, and she gets paid for dancing. Finally, I don't expect musicians to have it easy. Just asking for ideas.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    If you're really good, you can charge $50/hr for private dance lessons. Subtract the cost of the dance studio, and it's not much. If you're at the top, you might get a gig for a couple years at the ballet. Might.
    - ataturk 8y ago
      My daughter's clarinet and sax private lessons cost $120 a month, I think they are 4-1hr. sessions per month. The teachers we know have all the work they can stand.
    - rohitb91 8y ago
      Or group lessons in a studio.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > If you're really good, you can charge $50/hr for private dance lessons That seems a little low for even a minimally qualified instructor, IME (though I suspect the form of dance has a big effect on the potential market.) > Subtract the cost of the dance studio, and it's not much. That, on the other hand, seems spot on.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
test6554 8y ago
Which is why parents tend to steer their children away from becoming/dating a professional musician.
joveian 8y ago
I'm not a musician but have had a bit more interest in the industry than the average person, so I'll give my crazy ideas on the off chance it might be helpful. Both Bandcamp and CD Baby seem popular with independent musicians as a way to make some money selling music, although I'm not sure if anyone makes a living from them. They can at least provide non trivial income in some cases. One thing I like about Bandcamp is when musicians offer a discounted "buy everything from this musician" option and at least personally I will spend more money more easily when that is an affordable option vs. needing to try to find music I like best to actually purchase. Soundcloud is popular for discovery. I'm sure your friends are already some of the amazing musicians on these platforms that somehow can't get a wider audience for no obvious reason. I didn't like this article that much, but I think one thing that seems right to me is how important film is in turning excellent musicians into popular musicians. Computer games should be the same, but for some reason the industry accepts a half dozen 30 second loops as being acceptable music for games that take tens of hours to play. Hopefully this situation will improve, but meanwhile there are occiasional games that have the explicit goal of promoting music and a few that just happen to use better music. Three I can think of are Beat Buddy, Symphony, and Braid. The creaters of Beat Buddy explicitly had the goal of promoting music and I'm fairly sure they worked directly with the musicians. I'm fairly sure Symphony also had music promotion as a goal but I'm not sure if they worked directly with the musicians or not. Braid just used music from Magna Tune, but the musicians got exposure from the game. I'm not sure if any of these cases necessarily translated to income, although I suspect it did in some cases at least (maybe you could ask some of them or see if they have talked about it publicly if you wanted to look into this further). There is also a risk in working with game developers, since the music industry likes to categorize musicians in strange but limiting ways and almost no one wants to be categorized as a game musician (same, to a somewhat lesser extent, with film). Also, the route to gaining popularity via games would likely involve indie games and it can be hard to figure out if a particular developer a) will actually be able to produce a game that meets even the low technical standards of the game industry, b) that the game is fun in some way, and c) that more than a tiny number of people actually buy the game. Even better funded game projects often don't work out for various reasons. So a lot of risk but also a lot of opportunity since good music (not typical game music) can really improve the experince of a game. Unfortunately, both game and film producers seem to often want music to be bland and annoying so there is an extra challenge in finding someone who appreciates the value good music can add to a project. To be fair, sometimes other audio need to take priority, particularly in film, but IMO most games would do better making good music the focus of the audio experience. In film there as at least usually the credits music for arbitrary music that matches the mood of the film. I think with indie film makers it would likely be easier to evalute the ability of the producer to complete the project, although still no guarantee that many people will ever see and hear the result. If working with independent film or game makers they will not be able to pay much of anything up front, so it would potentially still be a lot of work for a tiny chance of more exposure, although both films and games often get music from a number of sources which can lower the amount of work for each musician involved. To the extent that they are already doing a lot of work for a tiny chance of more exposure it might be something to consider, making choices with some idea of where they would like their income to come from in the future. I'm not sure how a musician would go about trying to find such a collaboration, but I would guess there are online forums where it might be possible. For that matter there are professional musician forums; I don't know particular ones to recommend, but if your friends haven't looked at them yet they might find better advice there.

cm2012 8y ago

An example of live performance making money - my friend and I busked the summer after high school and made $15 an hour or so, 6 hours a day before our voices gave out. So we were each able to make around $4k for college over two months. Annualized, $24k a year is not great, but it was a lot to us, and we also got about a gig offer per week which we declined. If we had wanted to be full time musicians we probably could have had a decent career in short order.

privacypoller 8y ago
plus that's tax-free cash!
- lisper 8y ago
  No, it isn't. It's easier to get away with cheating on your taxes if you're paid in cash, but cash is still taxable income. And if they do catch you, you can go to prison (as Robert Manafort is currently learning the hard way).
  - cm2012 8y ago
    *Paul Manafort
spunker540 8y ago
I was in a busking trio playing mostly covers of oldies -- when we were 15/16 years old we had a good novelty factor and could make around 45 an hour combined street performing. Eventually we started playing bars in a touristy part of Wisconsin and we'd make $200-300 per 3 hr set. Hourly it's alright, but there's not many options in terms of daytime gigs during the week. Incidentally, I put this on my resume back in college when my resume was mostly empty, and think it played a part in me getting rejected from a Microsoft internship. At one point an interviewer asked me point blank "would you rather be a professional musician or a computer programmer" and I didn't answer correctly!
- vkou 8y ago

probably_wrong 8y ago

I thought the article would focus a bit more on the "or don't" part. I think Courtney Love's article on the economics of being a new musician would have added an interesting perspective to the (already complex) issue: https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ Edit: note that the article is from 2000, and the landscape has changed a bit since then.

pmoriarty 8y ago

Forget money. As a musician I struggle to even get people to listen to my music for free. There's an absolute glut of content out there, due to two things: 1 - The increasing ease of making music. It used to be that you had to invest time in acquiring some skill, some relatively expensive instruments, and some in-person relationships with other musicians to make music that was palatable to a significant number of listeners. Today all you need is some free software on a phone or computer you probably already have, and it all but makes the music for you. 2 - The ease of distributing music. You used to have to get contracts with record labels, make other connections with the music industry, or spend a lot of money to get much of an audience. Now we've mostly cut out the middle men, and distribution is virtually free. As a result there's vastly more content and much more competition between artists for an audience. No longer are consumers limited to a dozen radio stations or having to read music reviews, physically go down to the record store, listen to and buy records. The consumer has virtually the world's entire musical output at their fingertips and far more free content than they even have time to listen to.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
21 8y ago
I think this is a good thing. Only the strongest content will push through. Before, if someone signed you, you were pretty much guaranteed some form of success. I don't think that virality being required is a problem, all the songs I still listen from 20 years ago, and which are still played, I loved the first second I've heard and I would have shared them back then.
- tjoff 8y ago
  > Only the strongest content will push through. I think it has surprisingly little about content but with marketing and connections. I feel it is especially apparent on youtube where crappy content can thrive and excellent content can be buried where only a handful will see it. Not terribly different from the old days.

matchagaucho 8y ago

Music throughout the centuries has always been subsidized by benefactors. It wasn't until 19th century that the breadth of career options opened up for Musicians. The struggle for "Pop" artists is that the definition of Pop changes every 5 years... and even then, Artists underestimate just how much promotion goes into driving streaming traffic. But career options for scoring video games, multimedia, EDM, DJ, live bands, and teaching have never been better.

sreyaNotfilc 8y ago
And that what it boils down to, promotion. Can you out promote the next guy? And, if you're likable or not. If so, you get (at least) a listen to. Can you promote and make quality work? Doesn't have to be high quality, but good enough that you'd listen to it a lot and share it with your friends. Ed Sheeran is not the best singer/musician in the world. But, he and his music is constantly in rotation. Not everyone has the backing of Warner Music. However, I'm guessing he and his music is likable and talented enough to hold people's attention.

jv22222 8y ago

I think we need a platform that is a cross between Spotify and Patreon. Then, artists can aim to bring in subscribers who pay them something like $2-5/month to support them as a patron. You can already do this on patreon but I think a specialized platform would have more sway. The platform could also sell bands enhanced band pages for a small subscription fee too. Basically, a platform to fully connect artists with fans where the fans WANT to buy the music in order to support the band.

edkennedy 8y ago
You can do that on bandcamp https://aristake.com/post/turn-your-fans-into-paying-subscribers-with-this-platform https://aristake.com/post/turn-your-fans-into-paying-subscri...
jongold 8y ago
this is a realllllly good idea.

digi_owl 8y ago

Old man Zappa comes to mind... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0

WalterBright 8y ago

The era of a musician making a $100m is over. The same thing has happened to books and software. I'm a little surprised that movies can still make so much money. There's an explosion of video being made.

Analemma_ 8y ago
Video is a few years behind in this process because it got started later, but it’s trending in the same direction: YouTube used to have a diverse set of personalities among its famous producers, but they’re gradually disappearing and the all new YouTube stars are minor variations of the same archetype: the annoying, loud-mouthed jackass. And it’s for the same reason: with so much content out there, you’ve gotta stand out, and the easy hack to do that is by being an attention-seeking sociopath. Give it another five years or so, and every YouTuber will be Logan Paul.
vkou 8y ago
The difference in production quality between a Clerks-style mockumentary, and a AAA teledrama is huge. The latter is a money pit, where you can sink millions of dollars into. Technology has made video-production much more accessible, but there's almost no ceiling to money->production quality in that space. With music, technology has made audio-production much more accessible, and while there is a difference between someone recording music in their garage, and Justin Beiber working in a gold-plated studio, it's not a big one. I may not like the latest Avenger's take on the DC universe, but watching an unlicensed spin-off made by four kids over a summer isn't an acceptable substitute. If I don't like Beiber's new album, there's a mountain of indie bands that... Sound just as good.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Part of it is that the cameras you can get from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars have gotten dramatically better than the Super8 or even VHS days--and the editing process is also cheaper and easier--but there's so much more in the budget for that AAA teledrama or even a relatively low budget movie. The actors of course but also sets, lighting and sound design, etc. Some types of films can be produced on the cheap under some circumstances but not most mainstream films, especially the popular ones.

WalterBright 8y ago

> “When you end up tracing all the dollars, around 10 percent of it gets captured by the artist. “That’s amazingly low,” Actually, that's pretty good. Compare it to the profit margin of most any business.

ska 8y ago
Isn't it talking about revenue, not profit margin?

scarecrowbob 8y ago

I'm a semi pro musician. The market makes plenty of sense if you adopt the idea that: a) any commodity will eventually be priced at its cost of producution b) recorded art is a commodity, at least at the level of record labels and national acts I make more playing piano by myself for 30 people at a winery in the Texas hill country than I could playing in a really hopping stage band in Austin... one experience is costing the folks engaged in it a lot more, and there is a lot less competition. The only reason I sell merch is because rich people would rather buy something than tip a service worker.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>a) any commodity will eventually be priced at its cost of [production] // The problem with this idea for the arts is that people are prepared to create music/art without a wage, so they absorb a primary cost of production (wages) themselves. Indeed they'll pay for everything, because it's enjoyable to create music. We could have no professional musicians and we'd still have more music created than anyone could ever listen to. Also, "cost of production" should include wages, but what level of wage is right. Capitalism values people by their scarcity, but almost any musician could be replaced -- even top bands have replaced members -- meaning that for most music production capitalism will value the people making the music at around zero. So, you then need fashion (merch)/lifestyle/live shows to boost value. It strikes me that stars are made to increase the value of the music (selling a lifestyle) rather than because of the value of the music.
- scarecrowbob 8y ago
  "they absorb a primary cost of production (wages) themselves" I think that you are correct in this point. Your point doesn't undercut my point however-- in fact, if you look at the history of labor, the reason production gets draconian is because as the margins for commodities get smaller the owning classes have to force the laboring classes to absorb more of the cost of reproduction. Hence people driving for Uber. Or the undervaluing of domestic, unpaid labor in the cost of production. We hide a lot of those costs of production in the US. And the answer to how long and how that gig economy will last has to do exactly that issue. The issue isn't how to fairly compensate people (what "level of wage is right") and I don't really agree that scarcity is what drives price... I still think that assuming that multiple people can get into a market price will always move towards the cost of production. But that's just my own idea... not everyone believes that the price for a commodity will sink to that level. At some point, labor can no longer afford to reproduce itself no matter how many parts of it are externalized, and folks can't afford to go to a field and pick strawberries. Or play jazz. It's really bad if we wanted to keep things like having live music all over the place... all the professionals have to get day jobs, and so the really good, smart musicians are all doing other things because they can't make ends meet. Those folks are often still playing, but you're not gonna get great unless you're playing all the time, really. But that has little to do with recorded music as a commodity, and a lot to do with all kinds of things from drunk driving laws to netflix. You're also more or less correct in your assessment of "stars", insofar as they disrupt a commodity by creating a false sense of scarcity. As you note, "almost any musician could be replaced", and that's true about "stars" at a certain point. So those are temporary disruptions, not a workable situation for an industry. Still, though, there are points in production that cost a lot to make: live shows, quality merch, music lessons, etc... those things have a real cost in time regardless of how much supply there is. That doesn't boost the value of recorded music, but people still want those things, even if they are scarce/ have a higher cost of production.

canadianwriter 8y ago

I wrote a somewhat related article a few years back that I think is very relevant to this: https://kolemcrae.com/the-internet-killed-the-rock-star-and-why-thats-okay/ https://kolemcrae.com/the-internet-killed-the-rock-star-and-... The days a massive rock stars is over - it's not too bad though...

tommymachine 8y ago
I’m not sure that the “rockstar” concept is dead. The top spaces are just being shared among fewer performers. And more of the business is trickling towards them than the smaller acts than yesterday, and the same will be true tomorrow. It’s been going that way since they started printing sheet music. As distribution (of pretty much any product) becomes more efficient, it’s easier for the most marketable acts to become well known outside of their original region, and when that happens they’ll take over a lot of market share from the local guys in other regions. Music is the type of field where everyone and their brother gives it a go, and so the market is very, very deep. But most of it lacks the mass appeal needed to cause viralality. Today more than ever, it’s possible for marketable acts to catch on in a big way. And the big acts do really, really well. But that’s always been the case. In music as in other similarly competitive fields (professional sports, acting, startups, writing novels) being average means that you basically aren’t making a living, whereas the top people are really raking it in. It’s a well-studied market dynamic. (May have been mentioned in Freakonomics, although I can’t recall exactly). Point being, in such fields average is almost always broke, and if you’re making it, you’re likely to be really, really making it. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but it is exacerbated as technology continues to enable more efficient marketing / distribution for the most popular acts.

joewrong 8y ago

> "with many analysts and experts expecting that the business will streamline itself" Seems like wishful thinking

jplayer01 8y ago

ITT A bunch of music snobs who think music is dead and they just don't make great music anymore and it all sounds the same.