An Excellent New Read: "A Brief History Of Why Artists Are No Longer Making A Living..."

But that landscape you describe keeps right on changing. EDM is booming now, in the living parts of the big cities, anyway. And as far you can see in reference to the names of performers you mention, when those people of that generation die out, do you see that there are others waiting in the wings to replace them...to replace them in the same style of music?...or something substantially different. I mean, I can see what you’re saying I think, but however it may start, you still must end up with "the musician". I’m not trying to limit the discussion on what influences the creation of an artist here, I’m just trying to uncover the pathways they may be taking (or may even be prevented from taking), now, or in the foreseeable future, within the industry in order for them to make a Living at it.

First and foremost, this forum should stick to all things concerning turntable set up, or similar subject, because people here have no idea of what's going on outside of their on little "ballywick" meaning the big world outside of audio.

Has anyone noticed that almost all of the major cities in this country that were thriving metropolises not long ago are now urban slums. Those were places where musicians began their careers by playing the bars, nightclubs, and lounges that hired musicians; that's where musicians who are now household names began.

I'll name some that I saw in small clubs that no longer exist: Chuck Berry, Ike and Tina Turner, plus Albert King began in small clubs in St. Louis. I saw Aretha in Detroit at a night club; hundreds of those types of clubs no longer exist. How is a musician suppose to even start to becoming a paid performer?

So many things begin with the great big picture, "the economy" that affect the little tiny picture; small clubs that entertain people which no longer exist; that's where it starts.

The answer to the question posed, goes far beyond the musicians.

 

@n80
If your experience is that touring is sustainably vigorous then I’m inclined to take that as a reassuring sign, I think. But what I was talking about was not just that more bands are touring (which is true), but that, where 40 yrs ago they would’ve had the benefit of merchandise and album sales as well, many bands may now only have touring and possibly some merchandise...that the profits margins from new discs have all but evaporated these days...making them more vulnerable than they might have been had they been operating back then.

If your son is a musician, then your opinion might be more valid than mine since you have a window into it that I don't. No one in my family is a practicing musician. 

"Will they pay for it or only want it if it's free?"

I don't know. I mean there's no way (for me) to know what the public reaction will be to paying for a band, that I'm not familiar with, anyway. Just might depend on how much demand there is for their music...no other way to know, I think. If the band can set up such a page with minimal investment, or even by themselves - if that's even possible yet - then maybe there's a chance someone might pay something for a download...?? It's not all that clear to me at that level, sorry for my not being much help on that.

@ivan_nosnibor : What you are describing seems to me the same as it has been for the last 40 years. Bands were given money up front, but they had to earn it back and they were forced to tour in order to do that. So I don't see the touring grind as anything new. It comes with the territory. And for smaller bands the touring is where the money is.

In the British band I mentioned above they had the opposite experience. They could not generate interest at home or on the continent. So they came to the US. Toured like crazy and built up a fan base. They are based in L.A. now. Their success here has allowed them to return to Europe recently with great success.

As far as being able to see lots of bands on tour, well, this is a new thing for me. Used to go to concerts when I was young but nothing in the last 20 years or so. Now I'm going again and there is no shortage of bands to see live. Virtually all of the bands I want to see who aren't major pop names come to venues in my area with some regularity.

Maybe the exceptions prove the rule as laid out in the article. But as a fan I don't see it. I see lots of new and exciting acts making great music, touring where I can easily see them and making a good living at it too. 

I think as someone on the outside looking in my opinion isn't really valid.My son is a professional musician(currently serving in the military)gigging whenever and wherever possible nights and weekends.I have friends in the business and from what I know of their lives it's rather difficult to practice their craft and make a living at it.
They develop a network of as many people in the 'biz' as possible and pick up small gigs here and there - radio commercials,subing in bands when someone needs a night off,studio work,giving private lessons,doing free gigs which gets them more exposure,etc.I have no idea how important websites and Facebook pages are where a fan can download music.Will they pay for it or only want it if it's free?

@n80
I do see these days that more and more bands are having to rely on touring in order to make their money. There just aren't all that many bands at any given time touring in the US though. Most groups, including American bands, seem to be perpetually touring Europe and Asia. Evidently those fans support them much more better than we do here. I'm not entirely sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe good for the bands, bad for us. Or maybe we fans here share the blame for not showing up or paying enough?? I dunno. But, I think it is increasingly resulting in being more and more difficult to find their more recent music...on disc, anyway...and that this trend may continue to grow...not because formats are going obsolete, but because mainstream artists who are not top tier are being squeezed out...or would be, if it were not for touring and merchandise.

You can have your views whatever they may be, I'm not here to take any of that away from you or anyone else. I was just looking for the opinions from people who had read it just so I might still be able to reign in the thread if it got too far afield...I mean, what's the point of opening a thread on an article if nobody who posts actually read it??, is all. 

But, your contributions here are all valid. Thanks for your input.

Just finished the second half. And not to be obstinate for the sake of being obstinate it did not change my opinion. He sets specific time periods as being good or great, he posits that analog is superior to digital, etc without supporting those claims. He also suggests that things are somehow bad now. I disagree. Some things are bad. But some things are great. In general I see lots of new and talented artists out there making music I like, touring and making a good living at it. 

I'll go back if I have time.

But, asking someone to read an article that the author of the article himself admits is "long" is one thing. Expecting us to read the whole thing even when the premise and initial supporting opinion seems flawed is another thing. All okay.

Yet, I don't think there should be an expectation that the conversation is necessarily invalid if we disagree with the cited article or even some of its premises.

If he sews it up all neatly in the second half of the article then my bad. But his bad too. Getting to the point is as important as making one.

n80 keep reading - the last half is really interesting!

Yes! Good to hear from someone who read it...not that everything posted up to now was unwanted, but I was hoping to discuss mostly about what the article either said or might have implied...or might have failed to imply, FTM. Thanks.

I read it.I have a better understanding now of how rapidly the industry is  changing and the struggle just to keep up and stay on top of things.It's changing day by day as opposed to era by era.

The author is a Canadian musician of 45 years in the craft. I thought his perspective to be at the same time both objective and relevant to today. Not many journalists or industry insiders have been able to present the topic with such a clear-eyed and clear-headed approach as this fellow has, IMO, and I imagine we may not get another such glimpse into it for some time.

Ok...a legit response, I guess...but, wow!

Or maybe it just didn't ring true...... 

Ha Ha Ha!! Maybe I’m wrong to post this here...my bad if it is. Maybe the influence of MTV was worse on society than I’d given it credit for, Lol.

I got about halfway through it.

I hate to interject into the furious debate here, but has anyone here bothered to actually Read the freakin' article???

Very few musicians create and survive because of the industry, they do so in spite of it. 
Some of the great "record men" like Mo Ostin, Ahmet Ertegun and Chris Blackwell, to name three, were able to run a business that fostered some great music.
Today, I'm sure there are others who people can identify as producers or small label owners that are cultivating and helping to commercialize music. 
But the market is so fragmented, music is not even a commodity most people are wiling to pay for, and the make up-- on the road, touring, is a hard way to live.
Songwriters tend to do better, particularly if they can compose for film or other niche business to business markets.
I don't lament the death of music as an art form, but the days of record labels handing out 1/2 million dollar advances on spec to no name artists are long gone.
Every once in a while, there's a surprise. And in my experience, that was as true when the business was humming along swimmingly- the business of music isn't really about music. That's just a coincidence of talent and the right things happening. If someone knew how to predict taste, they'd be swinging. And I think that was always so. 
I do like a lot of eras from the 20th century, though. 

and Elvis didn't place an emphasis on looks and theatrics and sexuality instead of quality music?  Did he not rip off black people's music for the most part and monetize their craft at a level they could never have dreamed of?

I think we are being a bit too simplistic here.  It's never been easy separating form from function.  Things are no different today than they ever have been. You think it's ever been easy making money from music????

Not sure MTV was he boogey man. Several excellent bands, in my opinion, thrived during those years. REM, Dire Straits, U2.

I'm also not sure I agree with the premise that artists can't make a living. I don't think anything has changed substantially in that regard in centuries. It takes tons of talent but it also takes being in the right place at the right time with the right people to do anything with that talent. Some make it some don't.

I've been following a glam/pop band from England for about a year. They've been at it in their current configuration for about 5 or 6 years.  They've been on late night TV, they've opened for big bands in big arenas. And still, most people have never heard of them. And yet, as far as I can tell they are making money and a fair amount of it. Even in the age of streaming, ear buds and three second attention spans they are making it. And according to them it isn't just the writing and playing and talent. That's all there but they will tell you its about hard work and perseverance. I saw them last October and I'll see them again in May. And all you have to do is look at their tour schedule and you'll see a big part of their formula for success. Work, work, work, work. I don't know how they do it.

I think another critical aspect about them is that they get along with each others, they don't seem overtly into drugs and despite the swagger of the lead singer they don't seem to take themselves too seriously.

That's how they're making it.

One of the author’s points was that MTV reclassified music videos as "advertising" for the music industry and the artists and in fact were "pay-to-play" for the artists - money that had to be counted against royalties.

I also think the quality of music has diminished starting with mtv. Emphasis was placed in looks and theatrics and sexualityinstead of quality music. The Beatles lps were looked forward to and all the songs were devoured because they meant something wetr quality and continuously evolved.
There aren't many bands today who could just stand and play and hold your attention like they did.
Sad to say Springsteen may have been the last of the breed

I for sure wouldn't say that it's been perfected, just that all that continues to be a moving target, just like the desire to create.

Let me guess: corporate greed and malfeasance that's been perfected over several decades.