[analogika]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Don't get caught up in some romanticized crap about how everyone has a right to make a living. If you want to make a living, go to college. If you want to be a rock star, be willing to take the risk.

BTW, why does everybody always throw out this "rock star" bullcrap?

Do you tell people who want to go into business to forget about how everybody has a right to make a living doing what they're good at?
How, if you want to be the CEO of a large megacorp, you have to be willing to take the risk and expect to make absolutely NO money for 18-hour work days until you get the big break?
How they have to expect to work in a day job until the corporate bigwigs give them the big shot at management?

There's millions of grunts working for P&G who simply go to work every day and make a decent living.
Do you not understand that many people desire to simply MAKE A LIVING off the one thing they do best?

Who's romanticising?

Your thinking - that it's either destitution or millions (somehow paid by the music megacorps who peddle crap by the trainload to idiots: a model which simply doesn't work that way) - is part of the problem the music industry, and musicians, face.

[Kevin]

Making a decent living as a musician usually takes the same amount of talent and preperation, and desperation as making it as a "rock stahh" so I see the connection.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Concur. There's a certain je ne say quois also required. You can spot it a mile off if you know what to look for.

And those that don't have it, always seem to blame "The man"

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Do you not understand that many people desire to simply MAKE A LIVING off the one thing they do best?

Who's romanticising?

Your thinking - that it's either destitution or millions (somehow paid by the music megacorps who peddle crap by the trainload to idiots: a model which simply doesn't work that way) - is part of the problem the music industry, and musicians, face.

Yeah, who is romanticising things?

From my vantage point (again, as someone who has little musical talent to speak of, and is on the outside looking in), that mentality is 100% correct. There's simply less money chasing musicians than there is chasing (for instance) corporate middle managers. Even an incompetent middle manager in a multinational company (who manages to be competent enough to not get fired) is pulling six figures, easy. Probably more like 200K or 250K, depending on where they live. Probably more than your average guy playing out in bars every week. And although the middle manager might have worked hard to get to that point, he is just as likely to have simply impressed the right people.

It's not unique to musicians, either. Teachers in many areas barely make enough to live on. I know someone who is a social worker, and really loved his job, but had to change career paths because he simply wasn't making enough money to support his family. (He went back to school for nursing, and figures to make much more even after paying the student loans). Some jobs simply aren't compensated adequately for the amount of time you put in, both in terms of time on the job and education to get there. People who stay in those jobs aren't doing it for the compensation, they're doing it for some other reason. Most likely, they simply love their job and wouldn't want to work at a job they hated for more money.

[BadKosh]

Perhaps the record company execs could work on a percentage basis, and pay for their own drugs after the band got their bucks? Maybe a few cheaper lawyers?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Yeah, who is romanticising things?

wallibnl for one, Kevin for another - basically anybody who thinks working as a musician somehow means being or wanting to be a rock star.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

wallibnl for one, Kevin for another -

Huh? I am not romanticizing anything. Romanticizing would be thinking that anyone that wanted to get into the music biz and make a profitable living to the point of doing well can just by wanting to. That is more like fairy tales. It simply isn't that way. And it's not cause "the man" is holding them back. I am just stating facts, and pointing out the history of it all. Nothing romantic about it at all.

basically anybody who thinks working as a musician somehow means being or wanting to be a rock star.

I've given many other examples of musicians working without being a rock star. But for some reason, those posts keep getting ignored.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Yeah, who is romanticising things?

Certainly not those being accused of doing so.

Some jobs simply aren't compensated adequately for the amount of time you put in, both in terms of time on the job and education to get there. People who stay in those jobs aren't doing it for the compensation, they're doing it for some other reason. Most likely, they simply love their job and wouldn't want to work at a job they hated for more money.

Agreed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Yeah, who is romanticising things?

From my vantage point (again, as someone who has little musical talent to speak of, and is on the outside looking in), that mentality is 100% correct. There's simply less money chasing musicians than there is chasing (for instance) corporate middle managers. Even an incompetent middle manager in a multinational company (who manages to be competent enough to not get fired) is pulling six figures, easy. Probably more like 200K or 250K, depending on where they live. Probably more than your average guy playing out in bars every week. And although the middle manager might have worked hard to get to that point, he is just as likely to have simply impressed the right people.

It's not unique to musicians, either. Teachers in many areas barely make enough to live on. I know someone who is a social worker, and really loved his job, but had to change career paths because he simply wasn't making enough money to support his family. (He went back to school for nursing, and figures to make much more even after paying the student loans). Some jobs simply aren't compensated adequately for the amount of time you put in, both in terms of time on the job and education to get there. People who stay in those jobs aren't doing it for the compensation, they're doing it for some other reason. Most likely, they simply love their job and wouldn't want to work at a job they hated for more money.

I agree...

To clarify the stuff I was saying earlier in case this was in question, all I'm saying is that there is no magic bullet for a musician to make a living in consideration of what you have described here as far as how the market values musicians. MySpace, the interweb, low cost recording... none of it is enough for your average musician to make a living selling their records, especially while many of their fans want things both ways out of their own ignorance (i.e. simultaneously not wanting to buy their CDs or go to their concerts).

My main purpose for starting this thread was to:

- dispel romantic notions about how your average musician is doing well financially despite your not buying their CD or attending their concerts

- to point out what we can collectively do to help top 40 from taking over - and that is empathizing with exactly how many musicians make money and what they depend on so that we don't help steer (or continue to steer) the business into exactly what it is that we don't want


Recipe to piss besson3c off: fileshare some Indy's music without even giving it a second thought (music that the artist does not wish to be in the public domain)

[besson3c]

So how do professional freelance musicians earn a living in music?

I have had the privilege to work and converse with several (I was also dead set on making music my living myself for a significant period of my life)... All of them have some sort of supplementary job - even Juno award winning musicians (the Juno is Canada's equivalent to the Grammy). Here are some common sources of supplementary income:

- Teaching at a university/college (these gigs are in high demand, and if you want to be a full-time professor many institutions require that you have a PhD... Otherwise, you can teach as a private lesson instructor if you are really good, but the level of pay varies depending on the resources and demand of the university/college your gig is with)

- Doing private clinics/masterclasses

- Teaching private lessons

- Developing a line of musical merchandise (equipment, method books, etc.)

- Being a paid endorser of a line of equipment can help subsidize some events via corporate sponsorship

- Grants are awarded for some musical projects, depending on the government and the state of organizations such as the NEA (in the US)

- Studio sessions can be a source of income, but not every locale offers heavy or steady studio work. There is no limitless well of studio work out there (even in Hollywood), and competition is extremely high - studio time is expensive, so virtuosity is a must

- Some musicians go on to become high school or middle school music teachers (although usually this crowd of people are more committed as music educators than they are performers)

- Get a gig: premiere military bands, orchestra, cruise ship, broadway show... each of these vary in their level of availability, pay, job duration, level of competition, etc.


Very few musicians that I know of can rely on one single angle here, they need to stitch together several and keep them in perfect balance to survive as a freelance musician.

The premiere military bands accept a certain age group, and many require the musician goes through basic training. This means that the musician must be fit and compatible with life in the military working on a military base.

There are only a few orchestras left that are full-time gigs - Chicago, New York (Philharmonic and Symphony), not too many other cities. Everybody and their dog wants these gigs. When the principal trumpet player retired from the Chicago Symphony, there were literally over 600 applicants for his position! Again, virtuosity is obviously a requirement here

Cruise ships are nauseating gigs, musicians generally try to get in and out of them as quickly as they can (I've done several myself), and broadway gigs come and go, often on a limited budget and often not hiring live musicians


My point is this: the music scene is extremely bleak, make no mistake here. Dispel your romantic notions

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by analogika 

wallibnl for one, Kevin for another - basically anybody who thinks working as a musician somehow means being or wanting to be a rock star.

Ahh, I misunderstood your point, then. Thanks!

[SeSawaya]

not that I have much time to write here, or even read every post (2 tiny kids run my life!)

but....

I'm a musician who makes ALL of my money from music. I make a above average living doing what I love. I know very few people who can say that. I havent always made a good living, I struggled for quite a while, but I didnt mind. No biggie. I dont have time for 'job' he he!

Now should authors make a living JUST writing books? Should athletes make a great living JUST playing a game? Let alone selling crap on TV and well.....everywhere.

$10 for a CD? Wow, that's 2 gallons of gas. DVDs, they are $20 and you'll probably only watch it twice. CDs I've listened to hundreds of times. Seems like a better leasier investment to me.

So when I was "coming up", a semi large record company offered to sign my band. Which let me break this down for you. We would probably sell (in their words) 200,000 units for them annually, Touring 100 dates a year, and by only doing that we would each be in debt about $50,000. Now if we could sell 500,000 units, we'd break even.

great life huh? Thats being a rock star folks. The people you are talking about about represent about 100 bands. Thats it. Everyone else is there for 1 cd, then goine and replaced by 2 others. Then they are bankrupt and broke up. That is the music industry today. Well, the big commercial industry that is....

So, I am independent. I sell about 2000 CDs a year and play about 150 gigs. iTunes is nice too.
I'd rather do this. I love my life. I have tons of time at home and do something few people are capable of. At least I followed my dream. Few little kids dream of growing up being life insuranace salesman or whatnot. (no offense if you are one)

I think there are MANY other people who make WAY more than they are worth in other businesses.

sorry for the typos, but I'm sure you can deal with them.

[BigBadWolf]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

-There are only a few orchestras left that are full-time gigs - Chicago, New York (Philharmonic and Symphony), not too many other cities.

Sorry but this is wrong. While the big five orchestras do pay reasonably well (over 6 figures), there are many orchestras that provide a reasonable salary. Many of these are full time gigs. I am a freelance musician and am in several regional orchestras in my area and sub in the large local orchestra. If I were to quit all of my other work (teaching, studio work, quintet work), I could still live comfortably. The myth that there is no work for classical musicians is just that, a myth. Freelancing in a major market can easily put you in the 6 figure range if you do things right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BigBadWolf 

Sorry but this is wrong. While the big five orchestras do pay reasonably well (over 6 figures), there are many orchestras that provide a reasonable salary. Many of these are full time gigs. I am a freelance musician and am in several regional orchestras in my area and sub in the large local orchestra. If I were to quit all of my other work (teaching, studio work, quintet work), I could still live comfortably. The myth that there is no work for classical musicians is just that, a myth. Freelancing in a major market can easily put you in the 6 figure range if you do things right.

Which orchestras do you feel offer full-time jobs with salaries you can live off of, just out of curiosity?

Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking? LA?

[BigBadWolf]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which orchestras do you feel offer full-time jobs with salaries you can live off of, just out of curiosity?

Boston, NY, LA, Chicago, Phily, Atlanta, National, San Fran, Cleveland, San Diego, Dallas, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minnesota, Detroit, Oregon, Seattle, Cincinnatti, among others. Also, there are a number of opera orchestras like the Met, Boston Lyric, and Kennedy Center. These salaries range from $50k to $200k (unless you are a concertmaster, I think the NYphil guy gets ~$500k {but Phil Smith is making over $300k}). If you really want to get paid become a conductor, they have sports star type contracts.

Then, there are many orchestras that make between $30k and $50k is the smaller markets. Then of course are the small markets at under $30K, but usually less that $10K. Granted these are usually per service part time gigs.

Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking? LA?

Yes, I live in LA, I recently moved here from Boston.

[greenG4]

besson3c, I think you're pretty much correct: musicians generally must be willing to do other jobs besides music to support themselves and/or not focus on one stream of musical revenue. My wife and I are musicians (both with degrees), but I also have another degree in Management of Health Informatics with a future Masters in Healthcare Administration. Why? I like to eat and feed my children. :-)

[L'enfanTerrible]

The best response I could think of for this thread is the simplest: Musicians should be paid for performing music. In studio and sold as hard copies, in live concert and through profit sharing with distribution sources like radio, television performances and the internet.

Since Napster, I have not heard of any record companies or even record stores (chains or independent) go out of business.

However, I have heard about 3 thousand one hit wonders that have offended my ears. I've also read a few articles and interviews saying artists get a small cut of the profits of the distribution.

Why are so many people defending the machine that churns out the same crap you complain about?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by L'enfanTerrible 

Since Napster, I have not heard of any record companies or even record stores (chains or independent) go out of business.

However, I have heard about 3 thousand one hit wonders that have offended my ears.

I suggest you turn off the radio and start reading the news.

A *bunch* of record labels simply no longer exist. Many of these are smaller sub-labels owned by large corps who've simply closed down the offices and fired everybody who worked there. Acquaintances of mine were on Columbia. Second album recorded and prepped for release. They found out it wasn't going to happen when the phone simply wasn't answered one day, because the office was empty.

And a fairly prominent indie label from Hamburg came dangerously close to going under last year, when one of the bigger releases they'd banked on to finance the company for a while (expecting a couple of thousand sold) was leaked onto the internet a few weeks early. Luckily, they discovered it before more than a few hundred had downloaded it (on a website, not P2P).

As for record stores:
Tower Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I'm asking is how do you know that there are less of these opportunities for athletes than there are for musicians?

Just a hunch.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Let's compare pro teams to major orchestras... How many orchestras in this country are there that you think people can make a living off of? I'll give you a hint - you can count them on one hand. Seriously. And, of course, once a musician has attained these elite positions, the pay is much less anyway... however, I guess that's a different argument altogether.

Wouldn't you have to include all the acts signed to major labels too?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SeSawaya 

I'm a musician who makes ALL of my money from music. I make a above average living doing what I love. I know very few people who can say that. I havent always made a good living, I struggled for quite a while, but I didnt mind. No biggie. I dont have time for 'job' he he!

You payed your dues. Not everyone is willing to go through that. Some want success RIGHT NOW. You have to throw your whole self into it. You can't have a second job. And you have to learn to live within your means. Even if that means sacrificing say your internet connection, or living on Vienna Sausages. Some people aren't willing to do this. Some people think they should just get hired by how good THEY think they are. That they don't need to build up a reputation first. Not one musician that I know now that has made a living in the music biz got there easily. There are so many people wanting it, and not enough jobs out there for everyone that wants it. So only the people that want it bad enough, and have the right talents and appeal get it.

Now should authors make a living JUST writing books? Should athletes make a great living JUST playing a game? Let alone selling crap on TV and well.....everywhere.

In a utopian world maybe. But this is no utopia. You actually have to be good at what you do, and have a viable "product" to sell.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wouldn't you have to include all the acts signed to major labels too?

No. Almost none of those make money.

Many major deals include some kind of regular salary, but that is actually and advance, and if the labels don't recoup the money, you end up in debt, and tied to the label until you buy yourself out. Existing material generally remains with the label then.

So if you're signed and the guy that signed you falls out of favor with the management (or, as is *extremely* likely these days, just gets fired or leaves), chances are nobody will want to continue working on his pet project, promoting and seeing to it that money spent on production and salaries is recovered. In that case, if you have an exclusive contract, you literally end up in major debt AND unable to work (since you can't just switch to a different label that might be happy to record and promote a record).

This is normal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by analogika 

No. Almost none of those make money...

This is normal.

Do you mean normal in the sense the RI has a lot of duds, or normal in the sense that the acts I would consider successful (by virtue of having heard of them) aren't as successful as I imagine?

Like, are The Hives making money?

Or, if for some reason that's a bad example, other bands in that "popular yet clearly not superstars" category?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do you mean normal in the sense the RI has a lot of duds, or normal in the sense that the acts I would consider successful (by virtue of having heard of them) aren't as successful as I imagine?

Both.

Joe Cocker was an international star for twenty years before he started making any money.

Originally Posted by subego 

Like, are The Hives making money?

No idea. Who are The Hives?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Joe Cocker was an international star for twenty years before he started making any money.

And how many people here would be willing to do that? And weren't most of his hits cover tunes during that twenty years?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And how many people here would be willing to do that? And weren't most of his hits cover tunes during that twenty years?

The distinction is not really relevant: Most pop productions pull songs from a pool of writers.

Frank Sinatra never wrote a single song himself, and I don't think Tom Jones or Paul Anka ever have, either. Nor, AFAIK, Belafonte.

They're performing artists, just like the musicians in their bands, or musicians in any pop/rock band that don't actually share the writing credits (as in most bands - Ringo and George only ever had a handful of the Beatles songs).

And we're talking about how *musicians* should make money. Most songs are only ever written by one, maybe two guys, and performed by three, or eight, or twelve, or twenty-five people, so royalties rarely enter into the equation.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The distinction is not really relevant: Most pop productions pull songs from a pool of writers.

True that.

Just look at Stock, Aitken & Waterman in the 80s: over 60 UK Top Ten singles, for artists like Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Rick Astley and Bananarama.

But many have never heard of them.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BigBadWolf 

Boston, NY, LA, Chicago, Phily, Atlanta, National, San Fran, Cleveland, San Diego, Dallas, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minnesota, Detroit, Oregon, Seattle, Cincinnatti, among others. Also, there are a number of opera orchestras like the Met, Boston Lyric, and Kennedy Center. These salaries range from $50k to $200k (unless you are a concertmaster, I think the NYphil guy gets ~$500k {but Phil Smith is making over $300k}). If you really want to get paid become a conductor, they have sports star type contracts.

Then, there are many orchestras that make between $30k and $50k is the smaller markets. Then of course are the small markets at under $30K, but usually less that $10K. Granted these are usually per service part time gigs.



Yes, I live in LA, I recently moved here from Boston.

BigBadWolf: thanks for this. I'm a commercial/jazz musician, but I live in a town that is home to one of the biggest and most respected music schools in the country, so I sort of hear things from people during various hangs and social functions. However, I must admit I was just parroting what I've heard, I haven't personally researched orchestra gig salaries.

However, my basic message still holds true, I think, and that is that the supply and competition greatly outstrips the demand. Being a freelance musician is far from easy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by analogika 

No idea. Who are The Hives?

Well, they're a popular band, but clearly not superstars, cause you ain't heard of 'em.

I'm not a fan or anything, they were just the second band to pop into my head after the White Stripes, who I feel are a little to "hot" right now to be a good example of the type of act I'm talking about

Well, let me rephrase my initial statement. You could probably include a thousand or so people signed to major labels to those who are in orchestras, to get a more or less fair comparison between pro musicians and pro athletes.

[- - e r i k - -]

The Hives are definitely making money. They had a long road before they did so though.

Bands are investments from a label point of view. Like with movies, one successful act finances the next ten which won't make money.

Successful bands that are not superstars (my own fiance's one being my example here), do make money, but it gets reinvested (mostly into marketing) to make them bigger. It all depends on where in the career of a band they are, and the ultimate goals of where they want to be. Especially at the early stages of a band, touring is basically loss leaders. Pure marketing. As well as videos, promos, showcases and recording itself. They expect to lose money, sometime for a long while before recuperating the cost.

Some bands are lucky, some bands aren't and will never make their money back. Fortunately for band members, the label themselves take on the debt, but other than that they are **** out of luck.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The distinction is not really relevant: Most pop productions pull songs from a pool of writers.

I would call these people entertainers. Most musicians make money off the music they write. They get a piece of that. If you don't write your own music, that chunk is gone. Most of the people who worked this way during the time he was popular didn't make much. Well they made above average money, but not superstar money.

I am not saying that if you play music other people have written you aren't a musician BTW.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Just look at Stock, Aitken & Waterman in the 80s: over 60 UK Top Ten singles, for artists like Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Rick Astley and Bananarama.
But many have never heard of them.
-t

I've heard of all the people you've listed. I'd consider Kylie Minogue and Bananarama as entertainers more so than musicians. Just like Madonna and Britney Spears are more entertainers than musicians.