Important read for every artist struggling with a digital economy that lavishly rewards distributors at the expense of creators. This is actually the way those who have no real understanding of the creative process talk about artists and their work. Or, more likely, have another agenda.
Spotify, for example, is a leading music streaming service with no experience in the music business.
Yes, there are many more people who can use technology to make home recordings or home movies. But there is no longer real money for people with talent who could grow into greatness.
The creative apocalypse the NYT writer speaks of celebrates mediocrity at the expense of greatness.
And yes, art in American is sinking faster than most realize.
Spotify, for example, is a leading music streaming service with no experience in the music business.
Yes, there are many more people who can use technology to make home recordings or home movies. But there is no longer real money for people with talent who could grow into greatness.
The creative apocalypse the NYT writer speaks of celebrates mediocrity at the expense of greatness.
And yes, art in American is sinking faster than most realize.
4
One of the major points this unrealistic article misses is how the hollowing out of so many creative industries (publishing, news media, music business including record stores, etc, illustration, photography, animation and film, etc.) has destroyed the infrastructure that used to support and encourage and help train so many creatives in so many fields. People used to be able to have real careers and make real livings working in these fields even as they tried, hoped and sometimes did 'make it' as fully realized 'artists'. Most of these sustaining jobs are gone or no longer pay anything like predictable, living wages. The brave new digital world is not replacing them with anything comparable. Everyone is just one click away from fame and fortune... But more realistically from obscurity and a pleasant, unpaid creative hobby.
3
A great article which has generated equally insightful comments.
Yesterday I came across a box of old cuttings and fanzines I wrote for from my punk past. Just flicking through one copy there were about 25 different local groups featured. The punk ethos meant some of them were able to beat the music industry stranglehold and release their own records. (Those going on about the golden age ignore what an impregnable fortress the industry became.) One group, The Undertones, even became famous and had an indie film made about them (‘Good Vibrations’). As for the rest, they probably never made a penny. Neither did I from writing. But that wasn’t the motivation. Most musicians and writers end up doing something else. Few ever made a long term living.
However it is interesting that nobody has mentioned the impact of the The Long Tail. For years I have had a love of drone music, clearly a love that dare not speak its name. It was music that was never played on the radio and I encountered it usually by chance. Now I have access to hundreds of drone artists, happy to pay them and find more. I doubt if many drone artists make more than pin money from it. But like the punks, that isn’t why the do it. But at least now they have recognition and an audience. And yes I do go to see them live and there can be quite large audiences of fellow sufferers. Unthinkable 15 years ago.
Yesterday I came across a box of old cuttings and fanzines I wrote for from my punk past. Just flicking through one copy there were about 25 different local groups featured. The punk ethos meant some of them were able to beat the music industry stranglehold and release their own records. (Those going on about the golden age ignore what an impregnable fortress the industry became.) One group, The Undertones, even became famous and had an indie film made about them (‘Good Vibrations’). As for the rest, they probably never made a penny. Neither did I from writing. But that wasn’t the motivation. Most musicians and writers end up doing something else. Few ever made a long term living.
However it is interesting that nobody has mentioned the impact of the The Long Tail. For years I have had a love of drone music, clearly a love that dare not speak its name. It was music that was never played on the radio and I encountered it usually by chance. Now I have access to hundreds of drone artists, happy to pay them and find more. I doubt if many drone artists make more than pin money from it. But like the punks, that isn’t why the do it. But at least now they have recognition and an audience. And yes I do go to see them live and there can be quite large audiences of fellow sufferers. Unthinkable 15 years ago.
The problems with the data in this article are sufficiently pointed out here: http://www.futureofmusic.org/blog/2015/08/21/data-journalism-wasnt
I wish to comment on the author's suggestion that those of us who think musicians are suffering in the digital age are making an argument that "has been based largely on anecdote, on depressing stories about moderately successful bands that are still sharing an apartment or filmmakers who can’t get their pictures made because they refuse to pander to a teenage sensibility."
Rarely have I read anything more condescending and insulting from someone who obviously isn't a musician and wouldn't know one if he were hit in the head with a guitar. As a professional musician, I know first hand - not by anecdote - how difficult musicians are now. This is true even for "successful" musicians! The money from "live streams" you mention is a total fabrication, given how expensive touring is. It really is only the 1% who make money from it. Yes you can make your own albums at home but labels don't pay for you to master them (could cost $1000 or so) and indie labels now split the cost of pressing and sometimes publicity! You need to take your "data", shove it where the sun don't shine, and talk to some actual musicians - successful ones - to find out how tough things are!
I wish to comment on the author's suggestion that those of us who think musicians are suffering in the digital age are making an argument that "has been based largely on anecdote, on depressing stories about moderately successful bands that are still sharing an apartment or filmmakers who can’t get their pictures made because they refuse to pander to a teenage sensibility."
Rarely have I read anything more condescending and insulting from someone who obviously isn't a musician and wouldn't know one if he were hit in the head with a guitar. As a professional musician, I know first hand - not by anecdote - how difficult musicians are now. This is true even for "successful" musicians! The money from "live streams" you mention is a total fabrication, given how expensive touring is. It really is only the 1% who make money from it. Yes you can make your own albums at home but labels don't pay for you to master them (could cost $1000 or so) and indie labels now split the cost of pressing and sometimes publicity! You need to take your "data", shove it where the sun don't shine, and talk to some actual musicians - successful ones - to find out how tough things are!
8
An issue not discussed is the lack of quality music being produced. One still hears music from the 60s and 70s frequently but what has taken its place? Happy? The music cartel shut down creativity and to some degree they are paying for it. I find interesting performances on You Tube like Postmodern Jukebox, but to listen to the radio, one hears noise. Yes, that is my opinion, but i can't tell one song from another and i do have some appreciation for the art. What we need are artists like the Beetles or the Doors, or places like old Nashville where musicians would gather and create and make their way to the air waves. Now, the traditional distribution is locked up and only very few make it. Thats the problem. Free the artist!
I distribute my films on the internet. One movie has 700,000 fans on Facebook. They watch the movie trailer on YouTube and buy it on my website using PayPal. I have no billing to do, just shipping. The money goes directly into my bank account. I don't have to wait for a distributor's quarterly report to see how I'm doing. I know how I'm doing. One film did almost $50,000 dollars last year. I could not have done this even ten years ago, there were no means to do this. The author should have talked to me. I've done it both ways; this way is best for me. So long movie studios.
2
Interesting coincidence that the directors of the highest rated midbudget films of 1999 are nearly identical to the 2013 list
David O. Russell directed “Three Kings” (1999) and “American Hustle” (2013)
Spike Jonze directed ‘‘Being John Malkovich (1993) and "Her" (2013)
Alexander Payne directed “Election” (1999) and “Nebraska” (2013)
David O. Russell directed “Three Kings” (1999) and “American Hustle” (2013)
Spike Jonze directed ‘‘Being John Malkovich (1993) and "Her" (2013)
Alexander Payne directed “Election” (1999) and “Nebraska” (2013)
2
I feel lucky i got out of the Photography business in the late 80s. Technology destroyed making a living as a photographer. It used to be a craft and now any one with a smart phone camera and photoshop can do it. Just look at the picture Editor of the NY Times not only is she an art director but a photographer who gets her work shown because of her position. As a photographer how do you compete with that. I know Photographers who have had their day rates of 15K slashed to 3K. Agencies just buy stock photos for a few hundred and run them through Photoshop instead of hiring a photographer. I could go on but its just a sad state of being in the creative world.
1
This article is so far off base that I don't know where to begin.
Maybe it's best that I suggest that if the author really wants to understand what it's like to try to survive as an "artist" (a definition that is itself being redefined by technology), he set out to do the equivalent in the world of creative workers what Barbara Ehrenrich did years ago in the world of low wage workers for her book "Nickle and Dimed": go undercover for a year and try to make a living for himself anywhere in the creative industry.
In the meantime, this article skims the surface, and worse, does so in an utterly misleading way.
Full disclosure: I am an artist. My stepdaughter had a number one music video hit in Spain with 6 million hits, cover story in El Pais Sunday Magazine and a global following and still struggles to pay the rent.
Another avenue to explore: It's possible to use technology to make people pay for art as much as it was possible to make it free: there is no political will to make it happen. Ask Adobe: interesting that the Adobe Creative Suite is not "free" even though it is digital, isn't it?
Maybe it's best that I suggest that if the author really wants to understand what it's like to try to survive as an "artist" (a definition that is itself being redefined by technology), he set out to do the equivalent in the world of creative workers what Barbara Ehrenrich did years ago in the world of low wage workers for her book "Nickle and Dimed": go undercover for a year and try to make a living for himself anywhere in the creative industry.
In the meantime, this article skims the surface, and worse, does so in an utterly misleading way.
Full disclosure: I am an artist. My stepdaughter had a number one music video hit in Spain with 6 million hits, cover story in El Pais Sunday Magazine and a global following and still struggles to pay the rent.
Another avenue to explore: It's possible to use technology to make people pay for art as much as it was possible to make it free: there is no political will to make it happen. Ask Adobe: interesting that the Adobe Creative Suite is not "free" even though it is digital, isn't it?
9
The author reaches misleading conclusions in his "data mining." In writing of the the growth of "jobs" for musicians (etc), he makes a comparison to the growth in the overall number of jobs "That’s a rise of 15 percent, compared with overall job-market growth during that period of about 6 percent." This is a false comparison. That people self-identify as this type of "creative" does not mean that they are actually earning a living in their field, and furthermore, the apt comparison would be that with the growth in population, not jobs. Every year conservatories and universities turn out thousands of fine new orchestral instrumentalists, but there are fewer jobs available as orchestral musicians every year. The film industry has sent post production music jobs overseas. Recordings for televisions, cable, and advertising use sampled sounds instead of musicians. Producers of such media often look to copyright-free libraries for their music needs, as they do for "stock" photographs. For almost 60 years, a working professional freelance musician in NYC could earn a very decent upper middle class living (there were 400-600 full time studio musicians in NYC). Now the number is less than 50. The numbers the author has employed are not indicative of the current situation, and are grossly misleading. This is a real disservice to those of us who really care about and depend upon these lines of work for our livelihoods.
5
As a former musician, erstwhile novelist, and professor who teaches young writers and filmmakers, I have to disagree with the headline here. The author's focus is top-down; he assess the health of publishing by counting 'serious' good books and their sucess; ditto for Hollywood films. Live music -- our savior! -- it would seem by this account. But in fact young talented people in all of these fields are facing a much tougher battle, if what we mean by the 'health' of an 'industry' is that people working in it can make a living. The digital economy has turned what used to be remunerative work (short stories, recorded songs, indie films) into "loss leaders" -- everyone puts these things out for the "exposure," and somewhere down the line it's supposed to build up a career. Except that it doesn't -- and "exposure" doesn't pay the bills. Meanwhile, publishing has become the domain of a tiny handful of mega-conglomerates; there's no pavement to pound for an aspiring writer, and the slush pile is a thing of the past. The only thing I'd agree with is that music, yes, has been a harbinger -- of tougher times to come.
4
A very interesting read. It seems to me, what we are learning, is that creativity is such a deeply rooted human activity it is the definition of a highly resilient system.
Creatives will create. You can *not* stop them.
The upheaval of the digital revolution has sent seismic shifts through the old established patterns but the diversity, fluidity and compunction of creativity finds a way. If you are 'a creative', you are 'a creative' and you don't have a lot of choice about it. It may be hard but it is precisely the most creative of us that are best equipped to deal with this sort of upheaval.
As a 55 year old father of two college students heading into the creative fields I know it is my nostalgia of the old ways of browsing bookstores and record stores that is battered and bleeding. They see the world as one of an endless variety of distribution channels to explore: scripts for video games, short films edited to high quality on laptops for online advertiser supported viewing.
Yes there is junk. There *always* was (seriously, go watch some of the old TV fare like Land of the Giants or My Mother the Car then get back to me on the supposed drop in quality)
Indeed there will be things lost as this evolution continues, there were once buggy whip makers after all. But as a musician-composer wannabe I would have traded the 'stability' and profits of the 60s and 70s for the 'recording studio on my lap' without a second thought.
Interesting, and creative, times ...
Creatives will create. You can *not* stop them.
The upheaval of the digital revolution has sent seismic shifts through the old established patterns but the diversity, fluidity and compunction of creativity finds a way. If you are 'a creative', you are 'a creative' and you don't have a lot of choice about it. It may be hard but it is precisely the most creative of us that are best equipped to deal with this sort of upheaval.
As a 55 year old father of two college students heading into the creative fields I know it is my nostalgia of the old ways of browsing bookstores and record stores that is battered and bleeding. They see the world as one of an endless variety of distribution channels to explore: scripts for video games, short films edited to high quality on laptops for online advertiser supported viewing.
Yes there is junk. There *always* was (seriously, go watch some of the old TV fare like Land of the Giants or My Mother the Car then get back to me on the supposed drop in quality)
Indeed there will be things lost as this evolution continues, there were once buggy whip makers after all. But as a musician-composer wannabe I would have traded the 'stability' and profits of the 60s and 70s for the 'recording studio on my lap' without a second thought.
Interesting, and creative, times ...
1
Copyright infringement on the internet is rampant. In reality, the length of copyright protection has been shortened to the moment that either the author/creator or someone else posts the original creative work on the internet. At that moment, the author, creator (or other rights holder) loses any control over the use, display and copying of the work and any ability to make money from it.
Just because the technology exists that enables people to do things with creative works that was unimaginable when copyright law was first codified doesn’t mean that the concepts of authors/creators rights is outdated and all digital uses should be free. It’s just another medium. The methods and mediums of creation and distribution have changed with the advent of digital technologies. This change necessitates a change in distribution business models, not the reduction of copyright protection, both as a property right and a moral right.
Just because the technology exists that enables people to do things with creative works that was unimaginable when copyright law was first codified doesn’t mean that the concepts of authors/creators rights is outdated and all digital uses should be free. It’s just another medium. The methods and mediums of creation and distribution have changed with the advent of digital technologies. This change necessitates a change in distribution business models, not the reduction of copyright protection, both as a property right and a moral right.
1
lots of discussion here about the economic future for musicians..... i propose that:
1. the term artists has been degraded over the decades by the people that profited the most under the old system.
2. music is now an even more disposable item. people listen to the abysmal sound quality of the mp3 and don't seem to mind that is has been squished to perhaps 20% of the original fidelity. no wonder it is throw away art.
3. more musicians does not mean better musicians. the newer music i hear sounds more and more like songs written by people that do not understand harmony or melody and performed with a lot of help from expensive software.
4. when i lived in chicago and went to an open mic? anybody that got on stage that couldn't hack it? was quickly removed by the players that could.....
maybe when musicians start setting higher standards the public will rediscover their art.
1. the term artists has been degraded over the decades by the people that profited the most under the old system.
2. music is now an even more disposable item. people listen to the abysmal sound quality of the mp3 and don't seem to mind that is has been squished to perhaps 20% of the original fidelity. no wonder it is throw away art.
3. more musicians does not mean better musicians. the newer music i hear sounds more and more like songs written by people that do not understand harmony or melody and performed with a lot of help from expensive software.
4. when i lived in chicago and went to an open mic? anybody that got on stage that couldn't hack it? was quickly removed by the players that could.....
maybe when musicians start setting higher standards the public will rediscover their art.
2
An artist does not set out on their career path anticipating that they will make a living at it. Now in my 60's. I still reflect upon the first responsible decision I ever made. I was 18 considering my path as a professional musician. Was I willing to risk the possibility that I would be playing (drums) in a Holiday Inn lounge when I was 35? No way. I became an electronics engineer and worked in commercial recording, broadcast and sound reinforcement in the 70's and 80's. I salute and celebrate those who had the calling and the guts to play on. Shame on those who steal it. It costs a boatload to record and broadcast music. It is a high risk industry. All those 'spec' artists who slaved away on recordings during studio grave yard shifts (for discount rates) while their music for the most part still sits in storage un-heard in studios all over the world. Only a very few ever see the light of day and become commercially viable. It was the corporate rockers like Kiss who booked studios for months on end along with the jingle trade that kept studios afloat. When that income stream came undone, studios, individuals and small businesses galore suffered immensely. Whatever became of the generations of music publishers of Tin-Pan Alley? What if movies could be viewed for free? Recording studios have vanished like mom and pop bodegas. There will always be lots of starving artists. How likely is it that they are going to make a 'responsible decision' for themselves at some point?
1
This article is fascinating- it also severely taxes the bounds of credibility. Some of the arguments presented to support the author's case are simply illogical- like using IRS data (which isn't even presented in the article) to explain that there are more individuals referring to themselves on their tax returns as musicians and therefore, music creation must be thriving. But it's Sunday and I'm fresh out of lengthy ripostes, so for that, I will leave a link to another article that does the job for me. https://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/why-is-the-new-york-tim...
1
@MB: "[The author uses] IRS data (which isn't even presented in the article) ..."
Where does the author use "IRS data"?
Where does the author use "IRS data"?
What a great article! Finally some facts, not just anecdotes. Metallica is a classical anecdote of disruption: "hey, we were doing pretty well in the old system; we hate this disruption."
Music is back to the future, isn't it? One hundred years ago, all music was live music. If you liked some violinist, it meant you like his live performance.
Bravo to the author!
Music is back to the future, isn't it? One hundred years ago, all music was live music. If you liked some violinist, it meant you like his live performance.
Bravo to the author!
1
This paragraph, buried near the bottom of the piece, is the problem. 'The new environment may well select for artists who are particularly adept at inventing new career paths rather than single-mindedly focusing on their craft.' If you are rewarded for your ability to self-promote rather than the quality and depth of your work, then the Taylor Swifts' of the world win. How is that not a lose/lose scenario?
1
This is way too generalized an overview and perspective, particularly as it pertains to books. If readers will no only pay for books priced at $9 or even as low as $99 cents thanks to Amazon Prime and the actual cost to produce the book--including the two-three years it takes the average novelist to write one (longer if like most writers, he or she are doing it on the side while working a full-time job to feed themselves and pay their rent), copyediting, proofreading, designing the book (yes, even e-books need to be designed to some extent,) and promoting it, and given the literally thousands of self-published books flooding the market these days thanks to Amazon--most of which sell less than 500 copies, a book must be promoted and reviewed to even stand of a chance of being "discovered," the writer makes even less than she did before. Advances are smaller, and because books are priced lower, royalties are lower too -- the argument that people will buy more books because they cost less has not proven valid, according to ABA stats. In general, people read far less books than they did 10 years ago, particularly young men, Over the course of the past 25 years, I have published short stories, essays and an award-winning memoir in reputable magazines , anthologies and indie presses and all told perhaps have made $5,000 from my writing. I can point you to dozens of my fellow writers who will tell you the exact same story.
7
Thank you. As a member of the Authors Guild, which has been trying to make this case for years, I can say without hesitation that if publishers are making more money, it's not trickling down to the authors.
1
"...far FEWER books..."
(as any good writer would say)
(as any good writer would say)
1
Oddly enough, this could have been easily predicted by anyone in the animation industry, especially anime. The airspace for most cartoons is fairly worthless when it comes to ad revenue, with anime specifically being aired late at night in blocks purchased by the studios as infomercials with next to no advertisements (and the majority of those ads being for the anime's DVD's and merch). The real money in the industry is in derivative products, be it figurines, t-shirts, live stage shows, official sound tracks sung by the voice actors, and incredibly expensive DVD's packed with bonus materials (including tchotchkes) while the primary product is nothing but a commercial. Overall, this model has been incredibly successful and profitable, but has had some issues due to the system leading to the cancelation of critical and superfan darlings (particularly those shows popular outside the target demographic) being canceled in favor of more toyetic/merchandisable material (which is also often more popular with the target demo).
1
“According to the O.E.S., in 1999 there were nearly 53,000 Americans who considered their primary occupation to be that of a musician, a music director or a composer; in 2014, more than 60,000 people were employed writing, singing or playing music.”
so more people than ever like to say they are musicians?
Rachel Donezal says she’s African-American and Kanye West says he’s a genius, but that doesn’t make it so.
IRS figures would be more compelling. real professionals will always claim their deductions .
so more people than ever like to say they are musicians?
Rachel Donezal says she’s African-American and Kanye West says he’s a genius, but that doesn’t make it so.
IRS figures would be more compelling. real professionals will always claim their deductions .
4
@SMH: "so more people than ever like to say they are musicians?"
The sentence that you quoted from the article is wrong. The OES is survey of *employers*, although the BLS uses different terminology:
"The OES survey is a semi-annual mail survey of non-farm establishments."
"An _establishment_ is the physical location of a certain economic activity, for example, a factory, mine, store, or office."
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm
The Times should publish a correction, since that sentence has confused more than one commenter.
The sentence that you quoted from the article is wrong. The OES is survey of *employers*, although the BLS uses different terminology:
"The OES survey is a semi-annual mail survey of non-farm establishments."
"An _establishment_ is the physical location of a certain economic activity, for example, a factory, mine, store, or office."
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm
The Times should publish a correction, since that sentence has confused more than one commenter.
Gordon Mumma (Sonic Arts Group, et.al) once remarked that looking at the music business over the last 2000 years, there has been a 100 year anomaly wherein the recording industry became a huge player. Before and after the anomaly was performance. We can thank the recording industry for making all the world's previous music available to us at once, but now we can do it ourselves, thank you very much.
3
How big a player has digital technology been for the last 2000 years?
1
About a year ago, a remark was made that there are no more Chekhov's or Tolstoy's in Russia. The article concludes that money is to be made with an unspecified alliance of new technologies with little indication about to do it.
1
We can't read the article without knowing where to find it. Please post an exact citation -- author, title, publisher, date.
I believe he is talking about this specific article.
"Panem et circuses" (bread and circuses), we will always need our entertainment. In my opinion, it's up to the artists to make their art interesting enough for me to pay for it."
We have football, car racing and building ice castles (in the winter in Scandinavia) as our "Panem et ciruses."
Why do we need art to entertain us?
Art is supposed to make us think, to question the world around us, to question our own values, to question our own existence.
Art that doesn't do any of these is not worth looking at, much less buying.
We have football, car racing and building ice castles (in the winter in Scandinavia) as our "Panem et ciruses."
Why do we need art to entertain us?
Art is supposed to make us think, to question the world around us, to question our own values, to question our own existence.
Art that doesn't do any of these is not worth looking at, much less buying.
2
You are right.
It is hard to sell something that educates, that makes the reader/watcher question their choices, their behavior, their cultural mores.
www.defaulttogoodness.com
It is hard to sell something that educates, that makes the reader/watcher question their choices, their behavior, their cultural mores.
www.defaulttogoodness.com
This is a fascinating and important article. I can understand the downbeat comments: possibly most people are 'emotive' rather than 'analytical'. I fall somewhere in between, being a book reviewer and music consumer and collector of original art. I also have been a public policy analyst whose creative task was to find sources and numbers and analyses to shed light on important issues. In retirement, for me culture is a very important issue...and this is a fresh take on cultural reportage.
Times articles don't get better than this! Thank you to the editor who decided to run this and to the reporter who undertook a novel assignment and sold it to management.
Times articles don't get better than this! Thank you to the editor who decided to run this and to the reporter who undertook a novel assignment and sold it to management.
5
In what sense is Megan Ellison an "independent producer"? Her money comes from the same billionaire dad who's now bankrolling Marco Rubio.
And this is the new vanguard of quality and innovation? And on whom "artists" are supposed to depend?
Consumers may rejoice in "free content", but not the people who go to the trouble of making it.
And this is the new vanguard of quality and innovation? And on whom "artists" are supposed to depend?
Consumers may rejoice in "free content", but not the people who go to the trouble of making it.
11
@jrd: 'In what sense is Megan Ellison an "independent producer"?'
The article answers your question: "... independent production companies [are] often financed by wealthy individuals from outside the traditional studio system."
The defining phrase is "outside the traditional studio system". All production companies require money, although some may have more than others.
"And this is the new vanguard of quality and innovation?"
If you really believe that Ms. Ellison's productions lack "quality and innovation", please make your case instead of asking fuzzy questions.
'And on whom "artists" are supposed to depend?'
Ms. Ellison's productions support "writers, producers, directors and stars". See:
Silicon Valley Scion Tackles Hollywood
By MICHAEL CIEPLY and BROOKS BARNES
AUG. 28, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/business/media/megan-ellison-and-annap...
The article answers your question: "... independent production companies [are] often financed by wealthy individuals from outside the traditional studio system."
The defining phrase is "outside the traditional studio system". All production companies require money, although some may have more than others.
"And this is the new vanguard of quality and innovation?"
If you really believe that Ms. Ellison's productions lack "quality and innovation", please make your case instead of asking fuzzy questions.
'And on whom "artists" are supposed to depend?'
Ms. Ellison's productions support "writers, producers, directors and stars". See:
Silicon Valley Scion Tackles Hollywood
By MICHAEL CIEPLY and BROOKS BARNES
AUG. 28, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/business/media/megan-ellison-and-annap...
While this is an interesting read I disagree strongly with the central premise of this article.
I do agree that the recorded music industry is in a long term state of upheaval. The music companies did make several grave errors, the most obvious being pumping out millions of unprotected digital masters onto the market just prior to the advent of digital services ability to cheaply copy files and provide free data for their platforms. The industry could not anticipate this and the profits made from the CD were too great to ignore.
To me there are two things missing from this article: any discussion of copyright with the legalities of the so-called 'sharing economy', and the rise of lobbying firms funded by big tech and their academic enablers. These groups actively work to weaken and change current law to further benefit the growth of the digital plantation.
I personally choose to fight on behalf of the creative community and to disrupt the disruptors.
I do agree that the recorded music industry is in a long term state of upheaval. The music companies did make several grave errors, the most obvious being pumping out millions of unprotected digital masters onto the market just prior to the advent of digital services ability to cheaply copy files and provide free data for their platforms. The industry could not anticipate this and the profits made from the CD were too great to ignore.
To me there are two things missing from this article: any discussion of copyright with the legalities of the so-called 'sharing economy', and the rise of lobbying firms funded by big tech and their academic enablers. These groups actively work to weaken and change current law to further benefit the growth of the digital plantation.
I personally choose to fight on behalf of the creative community and to disrupt the disruptors.
13
"Panem et circuses" (bread and circuses), we will always need our entertainment. In my opinion, it's up to the artists to make their art interesting enough for me to pay for it.
The music business missed the boat when they tried to kill the first Mp3-player, and didn't see the potential digital distribution offers.
But, on the other hand, their blindness offered new business possibilities for ambitious entrepreneurs. One could argue that we are better for it.
The music business missed the boat when they tried to kill the first Mp3-player, and didn't see the potential digital distribution offers.
But, on the other hand, their blindness offered new business possibilities for ambitious entrepreneurs. One could argue that we are better for it.
1
If you obtain it, and regularly listen to it, then it's interesting enough for you to pay for it. Most people though aren't willing to shell out a buck for something they got for free.
3
Journalists are constantly being told to learn 'data mining' - this article shows exactly what is wrong with that approach. Maybe the writer will finally get the message when the NYT cuts the magazine - like the Chicago Tribune did. In the 1980's and '90's I had a number of cover stories - 5 - full-length features with photo essays that I worked on over the course of a year - in the Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine. I self-financed those in-depth pieces by my ability to earn a living as a freelance photojournalist doing assignments and selling stock. Today I cannot earn enough money as a freelance journalist/photojournalist/designer to support myself, much less do any in-depth work, unless I can get grants, which thanks to all the layoffs in the media business, have become super-ultra competitive. Individual voices are being lost. This article is in the same class as climate change deniers.
31
Agree. This reporter also fails to observe that many self-employed people who self-report as artist, writer, or other creative class worker on their taxes does not mean that that is how they make their primary living. It's the work they identify with, but may primarily support themselves through a variety of gigs like Uber, Task Rabbit, bar tending, etc. I know many such people. However, the one big thing that may make a difference: Obama's healthcare changes. I know many creative freelancers who had to take 'normal' jobs for health insurance in the past, and now, with (more) affordable access to health insurance, that pressure may be reduced.
9
Thanks for your agreement and thoughts, JL. We still need an affordable single-payer health insurance system - access has not meant affordable - unless you op for Medicaid, you are still faced with high premiums and high deductibles.
5
The article does not cover journalism, which despite many similarities is a different beast than the "creative arts" - especially economically. Your scenario (similar to those of most of my journalist friends) isn't really relevant here.
Reading the comments is interesting. Many people simply deny that anything reported in the article is, or can be true: technology must be killing the arts, regardless of what data may say. It's simply impossible that artists could be earning a living, and it's impossible that the arts themselves could be thriving.
Most of the critique is based on misunderstandings, many of which are dissected in the article itself. One is the misconception that "the music industry" or any other industry devoted to reproducing and distributing art, is the same as the music or the art itself. They are different. The second is the idea that because some musicians or artists made good money in the past, all of them did; in fact, some were always poor, and some *always* supported themselves giving music lessons, or working side jobs. The third is equating the money made by the industry to the money made by the artists-- these are different things. In boom times, the industries often made money at the expense of the artists.
"You don't understand anything;" "have you ever met an artist;" "no one makes money in music anymore;" "I know artists who are broke;" "I am a broke artist;" "the arts are dead." These statements are anecdote-- no substitute for data. While it is difficult for people to overcome the preconceptions of a lifetime lived among prior technologies, the new technologies are here, the world is different, and your preconceptions are inappropriate.
Most of the critique is based on misunderstandings, many of which are dissected in the article itself. One is the misconception that "the music industry" or any other industry devoted to reproducing and distributing art, is the same as the music or the art itself. They are different. The second is the idea that because some musicians or artists made good money in the past, all of them did; in fact, some were always poor, and some *always* supported themselves giving music lessons, or working side jobs. The third is equating the money made by the industry to the money made by the artists-- these are different things. In boom times, the industries often made money at the expense of the artists.
"You don't understand anything;" "have you ever met an artist;" "no one makes money in music anymore;" "I know artists who are broke;" "I am a broke artist;" "the arts are dead." These statements are anecdote-- no substitute for data. While it is difficult for people to overcome the preconceptions of a lifetime lived among prior technologies, the new technologies are here, the world is different, and your preconceptions are inappropriate.
8
I read the data, the author and you, apparently, do not understand that the data is misrepresented and misinterpreted. There is real data, this is junk "mining" presented as legitimate.
Absolutely, and while those statements may indeed be just anecdotes...I've been hearing and reading them in and around the "music industry/business" for decades before the word Napster even appeared.
1
My other point is that music survived on venture capital - not just the record labels but also people who wanted to be involved with it and also make some money. In actuality, even in its heyday, huge profits were not found in record sales despite the perception of riches. But there was always money floating around. Now it's the tech industry. Not a lot of profitable companies but they are all rolling in dough nonetheless.
1
No, statistically the recording industry had a working business model and did make a lot of money.
It is not remotely the same as pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into tech companies and hoping that later someone will find a way to make them profitable.
It is not remotely the same as pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into tech companies and hoping that later someone will find a way to make them profitable.
1
I'm a freelance journalist and editor. I have no complaints. Zero. Worked on traditional newspapers and magazines and also in publishing houses, and I also freelance in a variety of areas. And soon to be a published author. (Yes, actually.) The Internet is the great disrupter -- and like all disrupters (think of fire, the spear, the steam engine, the combustible engine, transistors, printed circuit boards) -- it brings advantages with its disadvantages. You have to pick your spots. And then work them. Nobody gets handed anything on a plate. You work it.
2
The Times need not look further than its own struggles to decide how the arts are faring in the digital age. As for me, my career ended when my last client decided that, while they liked my work, they no longer had to pay me for it. I insisted on getting paid, and did eventually receive a check, at which point they predictably no longer used my services.
6
Is there really anything "creative" enough so as to actually be worth paying for in the first place even being made anymore?
Maybe the only reason all the "free stuff" is out there as free is not so much because the internet makes it free, but because it was worthless in the first to begin with. So nobody's losing money on something there would never have been any reason to pay for to begin with.
Maybe the only reason all the "free stuff" is out there as free is not so much because the internet makes it free, but because it was worthless in the first to begin with. So nobody's losing money on something there would never have been any reason to pay for to begin with.
1
Show business: you show something, and you charge for the show.
The show part is about creativity, a non-quantifiable ability, or set of abilities, that "creates" something out of one's experiences which speaks to others in a more universal manner. A pop song may be about a broken romance, but the best ones speak to everybody's search for love and about their failing to find it.
What the personal technology revolution of the past 40 years has done is:
a) removed much of the money-making ability from the "business" part of "show business",
b) changed who gets the money that is still in the game, and
c) changed how people receive what artists create.
But it has mostly done all these things on the lower rungs of the creativity ladder in society. In the artistic stratosphere, the game is, in many respects, still the same as it was 5 decades ago. An elite, national level of artists is marketed as broadly as it is possible so that their creative acts become mass-market phenomena, with sales in the millions. Each segment of the art partnership gets some fraction of each sale. These matters are decided by lawyers in contract negotiations.
Metallic still sells their music, but they make a lot less now than they did 30 years ago doing it. Not simply because they are less popular. There is less money in the game now. It has vanished. Thank personal tech for this magic act.
2
The author is missing the obvious fact that most of the creative fields have be DECIMATED by the internet simple because the internet pays nothing for content. Therefore logic will tell you it has become very, very hard to make a buck.
In my industry (commercial photography) jobs started disappearing when stock images became available online. So I started making stock images for the advertising market after my clients said, "We will hire you if we can't find a stock image". In the beginning there was a fair price to be paid for my work. Now I get 17 cent royalties on images that cost thousands to produce. The only people making money are the major players (companies like Apple) or rock stars in their industry. The same 1% we hear about every day in our economy. EVERYONE else is hurting or just walked away. This article is a joke and no way reflects the realities of the economics of our creative sphere.
Thomas Brummett
studio-4a
In my industry (commercial photography) jobs started disappearing when stock images became available online. So I started making stock images for the advertising market after my clients said, "We will hire you if we can't find a stock image". In the beginning there was a fair price to be paid for my work. Now I get 17 cent royalties on images that cost thousands to produce. The only people making money are the major players (companies like Apple) or rock stars in their industry. The same 1% we hear about every day in our economy. EVERYONE else is hurting or just walked away. This article is a joke and no way reflects the realities of the economics of our creative sphere.
Thomas Brummett
studio-4a
16
The technological reality in photography is that if your images cost thousands to produce with film and a darkroom that has been more than decimated by digital cameras and photoshop. The internet is the final factor that makes it more than a decimation, more than in music since photography has been tightly linked with technology from its creation. So yes, this article pointing out the new creatives making it in a digital age, how original, is a joke. How about one covering all the old creatives walking away as you point out.
2
Ulrich was not entirely wrong of course. However, where he was obviously wrong was linking it all to just the internet. E.g: ‘‘We typically employ a record producer, recording engineers, programmers, assistants and, occasionally, other musicians,’’ We rent time for months at recording studios, which are owned by small-business men who have risked their own capital to buy, maintain and constantly upgrade very expensive equipment and facilities." That used to be expensive equipment along with the specialists to use it. Now that is reduced to being affordable and available to any number of home studios due purely to the advance of technology. Photography is a similar story but with interesting differences. So the internet is just one part of the larger issue.
While I can see the point here, books and movies still make substantial money doing it the old fashioned way. Musicians on the other hand still have music practically given away. They had to find a new way to make money. That doesn't mean the old way was wrong. I myself haven't been to a concert in years, so people like me aren't part of the new financial reality
That's all fine, but please stop using "creative" as a noun just because it's trendy in tech podcasts.
1
It's amazing how non-creative and unimaginative some creative people are. As exemplified by the musicians of Metallica, just because you can conjure up wild new compositions and musical arrangements doesn't mean you can dream up new ways of using technology or structuring your business. Outside of their realms, many musicians and writers are as creative as an accountant.
The global music industry used to make almost $60 billion in annual revenue. Now it roughly makes $15 billion. The industry would pay you billions for the secret to recouping that lost $45 billion. So if your afternoon is free, I suggest you figure it out.
4
The question - not easily answered - is: How much of that lost revenue went to the supporting actors (the A&R men, technicians, publicists etc., that are mentioned briefly here) rather than the musicians? It's possible that the total money going to creative music-makers isn't much different than it once was, although differently distributed.
3
Good article. One benefit of technology that accrues to artists and the new distributors that increases revenues over vintage media is the bundling of services. When I buy a car it comes with a subscription to satellite radio which is less expensive than paying for the cellphone bandwidth to access my Pandora subscription. I need Pandora because it's cheaper than paying for another cable box to access the music in my backyard that I pay for in my bundled digital subscription from the cable company. Disruption is always tough, but I'm paying more now (granted for more access) than when I was buying CD's and schlepping them around in a black protective case.
"Earn it on the road"? Good luck getting enough touring opportunities to raise a family on without subsidy from one of the few labels left with a budget or a corporate sponsor. That leaves out all creative music. Door gigs abound; paying gigs do not.
Sure, a jazz saxophonist can give some online lessons. That obviously was't possible before the internet existed. But try to feed a family on it.
When Steve Jobs, god bless him, decided it was in Apple's best interest to charge 99 cents per song and keep half of it - a decision made without consulting those whose work he was selling - it was the death knell for recorded music made by artists.
Add to this disaster the explosion of jazz/creative music/rock blah blah colleges around the world offering degrees in everything from instrumental performance to beat programming. So instead of thousands of young musicians looking for a place to work, there are tens of thousands of young musicians clogging up every available outlet the culture can provide.
This Times article is out of touch.
Sure, a jazz saxophonist can give some online lessons. That obviously was't possible before the internet existed. But try to feed a family on it.
When Steve Jobs, god bless him, decided it was in Apple's best interest to charge 99 cents per song and keep half of it - a decision made without consulting those whose work he was selling - it was the death knell for recorded music made by artists.
Add to this disaster the explosion of jazz/creative music/rock blah blah colleges around the world offering degrees in everything from instrumental performance to beat programming. So instead of thousands of young musicians looking for a place to work, there are tens of thousands of young musicians clogging up every available outlet the culture can provide.
This Times article is out of touch.
13
I take issue with the argument that technology and a broadening market is automatically making the arts more accessible and profitable. As they say in sociology/economics, "growth does not necessarily lift all boats."
First of all, the government and universities are putting much more funding into STEM opportunities rather than the arts. If youth, especially from low-income // marginalized backgrounds don't have viable access to arts opportunities, how will they discover that as their career path, especially when people are telling them it means even more financial struggle?
Second, one cannot ignore that 'high art' is still under the grip of the white, wealthy, and privileged. You can look at the numbers on Rotten Tomatoes, but when I look through all of the works of literature being taught in my humanities classes and the faces of my creative professors, I don't see anyone who looks like me. I see a homogenous perspective, and a lot that still needs to change.
First of all, the government and universities are putting much more funding into STEM opportunities rather than the arts. If youth, especially from low-income // marginalized backgrounds don't have viable access to arts opportunities, how will they discover that as their career path, especially when people are telling them it means even more financial struggle?
Second, one cannot ignore that 'high art' is still under the grip of the white, wealthy, and privileged. You can look at the numbers on Rotten Tomatoes, but when I look through all of the works of literature being taught in my humanities classes and the faces of my creative professors, I don't see anyone who looks like me. I see a homogenous perspective, and a lot that still needs to change.
1
This is the first well-done analysis proving that music is more lucrative than ever. The cratering of revenue from recorded music doesn't matter much because musicians never made money from record sales anyway. I think the public intuitively understood this and this made it more morally acceptable to stop buying music.
1
musicians made and continue to make most of their money from publishing royalties. so streaming has actually been more damaging to their income than piracy since streaming has greatly displaced broadcast radio where most music publishing income is generated.
2
I prefer poor artists, they make the best pieces of art. It's been always like that. Rich artists are boring, its been always like that.
1
It's a good article but it's clear the writer isn't closely associated with music makers and misses some key points. Comparing someone's home recording or even low budget recording of today to any of the classic albums we all know and it is obvious they are not in the same ballpark. You can't just brush over that. And it isn't that the bands were better then. They weren't. And you don't really even need the old record label budgets…but you do need to afford a quality studio with a quality team of people to do the work. I'm sorry but the Beatles would have remained a club band if they hadn't found a great producer and had the budgets to experiment. But these days you can't make money so why bother. And worse, the venture capital is not there for it because the first question a funder asks is, "Can't people just get it for free?"
6
Musicians do not wanna hear this....
Most "artists" don't wanna hear this....
Ahh we do pay in ways called...data usage...my monthly internet cost....now I do not know what or how its all baked together...pretty sure it is....
no, your internet provider is not paying anything to musicians or other 'creatives' but it's a great concept!
1
"Uploading a music video to YouTube that you shot yourself on a smartphone" is a "career"? Gimme a break.
4
Hey all you Creative People!
Quit complaining about how hard it is to make a buck! Make your art, your music, and your little pictures on the side. That stuff's not real work.
Get a day job! I hear Amazon is always firing.
Oooops! I meant hiring!
----ducks, runs away----
Quit complaining about how hard it is to make a buck! Make your art, your music, and your little pictures on the side. That stuff's not real work.
Get a day job! I hear Amazon is always firing.
Oooops! I meant hiring!
----ducks, runs away----
6
Let me guess - you're either a lawyer or a stockbroker?
1
Here come the Philistines.
Great idea- let's get all the creative people completing uncreative tasks.
Welcome to the Idiocracy.
Great idea- let's get all the creative people completing uncreative tasks.
Welcome to the Idiocracy.
3
Yes , I well remember (back in the Dark Ages), when there were actual Paying Gigs everywhere. 1st Night in a new town in would walk the Union Man Strong arming you for the $ for the Local. I remember working my Butt off 5-6 nights a week & Without Fail someone like the Rude Previous Commentator would asked with a Snarky Smile. What do you do for a Living ? This was back when you COULD make a Living.
But that has all Changed. Those thousands of Gigs have disappeared.
This com mentor would have you believe "Amateurs, I might add, who are every bit as talented and inspired as the "pros". Yes, there are many Very Talented Individuals out there but this statement is Completely untrue for the Most Part. Many of the "Pros" (Including World Class "Famous Folk" in their Field) have quit. They are tired of competing For Free. They are tired of their Hard Work Being Stolen moments after release.
But that has all Changed. Those thousands of Gigs have disappeared.
This com mentor would have you believe "Amateurs, I might add, who are every bit as talented and inspired as the "pros". Yes, there are many Very Talented Individuals out there but this statement is Completely untrue for the Most Part. Many of the "Pros" (Including World Class "Famous Folk" in their Field) have quit. They are tired of competing For Free. They are tired of their Hard Work Being Stolen moments after release.
2
Mark Richards is quite right, my husband has also been a professional photographer for over 30 years and has seen his income from major national magazines and photo agencies (Getty and Corbis) dwindle substantially. Websites like Pinterest and Google are the Napsters of the photography business. Pinterest was recently valued at over a billion dollars based on what is essentially illegal file sharing (photography, not music.) Yes, it is true "everyone" is a photographer now, but when you search these sites you will see almost all the photography has been taken by a professional. With studio costs, and digital post production, these photographs are not cheap to produce. Good photography is like good literature- why should one be copyright protected and not the other?
28
@akelly1928: "Good photography is like good literature- why should one be copyright protected and not the other?"
Photographs are copyrighted, unless they are in the public domain.[1] Pinterest requires notice of copyright infringement from the "copyright owner" or an "authorized" representative. All this is explained on their copyright page[2], which I found by doing a web search for "Pinterest copyright".
[1] "Patent, Copyright & Trademark" by Richard Stim.
[2] https://about.pinterest.com/en/copyright
Photographs are copyrighted, unless they are in the public domain.[1] Pinterest requires notice of copyright infringement from the "copyright owner" or an "authorized" representative. All this is explained on their copyright page[2], which I found by doing a web search for "Pinterest copyright".
[1] "Patent, Copyright & Trademark" by Richard Stim.
[2] https://about.pinterest.com/en/copyright
i do not understand - are you saying it is not possible to copyright photos?
The moment Napster collapsed, I knew and voiced this truth. But some musicians still don't get it, or refuse to accept it:
There is no money to be made recording and distributing albums and singles, unless you are a multi-platinum 1%er act. Recordings serve as a marketing tool to drive ticket sales to the live shows. If you can't make money on touring, you are toast if you expect this career to be your sole income. This has been evident to me for well over a decade.
Having played for years as a local amateur musician, often for no pay at all, maybe what's really grinding the axes of the "pros" is that there are so many amateurs who are willing to work normal 9-to-5 jobs and still record music and play local shows. Pros trying to "make it" have to compete with the local "volunteer amateurs" who do it essentially for free. Amateurs, I might add, who are every bit as talented and inspired as the "pros". I can go out tonite and attend any one of a dozen or more shows by local bands who are probably not getting paid enough to cover gas money, but who are going to put on an inspired and entertaining show for pennies compared to the cost of a major-label concert ticket.
Maybe it's time the "pros" accept that they are not fundamentally any better (or more talented, or more deserving) than the growing number of devoted amateurs.
There is no money to be made recording and distributing albums and singles, unless you are a multi-platinum 1%er act. Recordings serve as a marketing tool to drive ticket sales to the live shows. If you can't make money on touring, you are toast if you expect this career to be your sole income. This has been evident to me for well over a decade.
Having played for years as a local amateur musician, often for no pay at all, maybe what's really grinding the axes of the "pros" is that there are so many amateurs who are willing to work normal 9-to-5 jobs and still record music and play local shows. Pros trying to "make it" have to compete with the local "volunteer amateurs" who do it essentially for free. Amateurs, I might add, who are every bit as talented and inspired as the "pros". I can go out tonite and attend any one of a dozen or more shows by local bands who are probably not getting paid enough to cover gas money, but who are going to put on an inspired and entertaining show for pennies compared to the cost of a major-label concert ticket.
Maybe it's time the "pros" accept that they are not fundamentally any better (or more talented, or more deserving) than the growing number of devoted amateurs.
3
What is your point?
Because you are talented and don't make money from " Art" that nobody should?
To be a professional in my experience is more then just talent, ( although that helps)
So your good, no doubt you are , but if someone is a pro that is a net positive for every one.
Mark Richards
Because you are talented and don't make money from " Art" that nobody should?
To be a professional in my experience is more then just talent, ( although that helps)
So your good, no doubt you are , but if someone is a pro that is a net positive for every one.
Mark Richards
9
This is just entirely false. In many styles of music, there is a huge difference between pros and amateurs...don't blame us if YOU cannot tell the difference.
14
"Maybe it's time the "pros" accept that they are not fundamentally any better (or more talented, or more deserving) than the growing number of devoted amateurs."
It's easy to hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
A professional musician to me is someone that has played their "axe" for decades and plays every day. Who cares how much they make as that is their business.
By the way, DJ's are not in any way shape or form professional musicians if they don't play an instrument.
It's easy to hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
A professional musician to me is someone that has played their "axe" for decades and plays every day. Who cares how much they make as that is their business.
By the way, DJ's are not in any way shape or form professional musicians if they don't play an instrument.
1
What planet does this author live on? Has he ever known any of the sorts of creative people he's talking about? Perhaps this article was written by a piece of software that did a Google search to locate a bunch of statistics, and then assembled them into an "article." I'm very disappointed that the New York Times would pay for and run such shoddy reporting.
47
And yet I'm not seeing anything that actually contradicting the evidence of conclusions, but rather a bunch of people howling that it must be wrong because it goes against their preconceived notions and anecdotes.
I'm buying more books and music than ever before.
So...yeah...I think this is all valid.
So...yeah...I think this is all valid.
2
You may be doing so. I think you are an outlier.
I have not bought a CD in 10 years. I have not bought a book in longer than that. I stopped my local newspapers. I stopped subscribing to any magazines. Why bother? it's all free online.
ALL the chain bookstores in my area are now closed and out of business. I'd have to travel 25 miles to find a Barnes & Noble. There used to be 5 within a short distance of my home (2 within walking distance).
My purchases of such items (books, magazines, CDs, DVDs) went from maybe $1000 a year down to zero a year.
Oh -- and I stopped going to the movies. It's almost $12 -- forget it! The movies are out on DVD with in a month or two, and the library gets multiple copies. I used to buy VHS tapes or DVDs of films I liked, or sets of TV series -- can't remember the last time I did this. It's all free now.
I have not bought a CD in 10 years. I have not bought a book in longer than that. I stopped my local newspapers. I stopped subscribing to any magazines. Why bother? it's all free online.
ALL the chain bookstores in my area are now closed and out of business. I'd have to travel 25 miles to find a Barnes & Noble. There used to be 5 within a short distance of my home (2 within walking distance).
My purchases of such items (books, magazines, CDs, DVDs) went from maybe $1000 a year down to zero a year.
Oh -- and I stopped going to the movies. It's almost $12 -- forget it! The movies are out on DVD with in a month or two, and the library gets multiple copies. I used to buy VHS tapes or DVDs of films I liked, or sets of TV series -- can't remember the last time I did this. It's all free now.
8
Mr. Johnson you're living in a dream world if you think musicians, writers, etc. can make money like they used to. Most people listen to music free, and most people (at least in America), don't have the attention span to read a whole book. They don't even read newspapers like they used to, they get their news from 24 hour news networks.
17
even if they had attention span (and time) to read books, what makes you think they will not read an electronic version that can easily (and illegally) be downloaded for free by passing royalty payments to the writer?
Xlibris shows up, then Lulu and I'm thinking boy this is heaven! I published at Lulu and started selling my books. I sold over 450 copies. The problem was when people buy your book they want to be your best friend. They figure they can email you anytime and if you don't respond when and how they want you find yourself having to go into anti-Fatal Attraction mode. Next thing I know the big guys, the corporations swing down in their chariots, and, well nothing's been the same since. Question is; Can some indie artist, of their own volition, craft quality saleable art and garner mass appeal with the available digital tools?
lulu.com/michaelclayton
lulu.com/michaelclayton
3
I am the author of a highly successful series of CDs which train students to speak Mandarin Chinese. The publisher is a well known British publisher. McGraw Hill published the material here but, due to zero marketing and no effort on their part to push the titles in the US, the sales here were abysmal.
However, in the UK the sales were and remain very high via Amazon. uk and British bookstores. For many years I have received very generous royalty checks as a result of this work.
I write because after my work began to appear on a multitude of online file sharing sites, my royalties plummeted. When the firm approached me to create more such material for them I refused.
As one UK Amazon reviewer wrote, The course is amazing but why would anyone pay for it when you can get it gratis on the net?
I wrote a response to this review. In my response I identified myself and said that I will no longer use any means of teaching which may be digitalized and, subsequently, pirated.
Many Amazon readers howled and wrote that all information is free and that I have a lot of nerve to try to protect my work and expect compensation.
Yes, I have heard this all before but I refuse to drink the kool aid.
I am finding new ways, ways that effectively shut out about 99% of my former students, to earn a living. But the alternative is not as attractive as you sugar coat it in this article.
That which can be stolen will be in this new, digital universe.
However, in the UK the sales were and remain very high via Amazon. uk and British bookstores. For many years I have received very generous royalty checks as a result of this work.
I write because after my work began to appear on a multitude of online file sharing sites, my royalties plummeted. When the firm approached me to create more such material for them I refused.
As one UK Amazon reviewer wrote, The course is amazing but why would anyone pay for it when you can get it gratis on the net?
I wrote a response to this review. In my response I identified myself and said that I will no longer use any means of teaching which may be digitalized and, subsequently, pirated.
Many Amazon readers howled and wrote that all information is free and that I have a lot of nerve to try to protect my work and expect compensation.
Yes, I have heard this all before but I refuse to drink the kool aid.
I am finding new ways, ways that effectively shut out about 99% of my former students, to earn a living. But the alternative is not as attractive as you sugar coat it in this article.
That which can be stolen will be in this new, digital universe.
63
exactly, like most muscicians you will (unfortunately) only be able to make a living through "live" in the flesh performances. How else will it be possible to make a living. This NY TImes does not see this though.
1
The author writes: "As a society, what we most want to ensure is that the artists can prosper — not the record labels or studios or publishing conglomerates, but the writers, musicians, directors and actors themselves." This is way too narrow of a focus and misleading. What about all the thousands of employees of those labels and studios who have also been pushed out of jobs? You'll find many in the U6 long-term unemployment numbers. Society shouldn't care about those individuals??
24
The writer doesn't understand art. A director of a movie isn't far off from a producer of an album, yet he lists one as an artist and not the other.
We care about them in the way we cared about weavers, and scriveners, and workers in the cotton gin, and clerk-typists. Technologies change: healthy societies should provide unemployment assistance, retraining, reeducation, and help finding new jobs and new careers. We don't care about those people by propping up their dying industry in perpetuity-- we help them adapt to change.
Where do I start? How about this story is wrong.
I am a photographer. I made a living for near on 30 years with the likes of Time, Newsweek....etc
So how is that going...? Ad dollars less therefore content less. Content on line mostly free, see google images , see Flickr. Getty images now gives me sales in cents per photo, as per their "subscription " services, years past in the thousands.
I was given a 5 figure advance on a photo book in 2005. Now that book would have to be self published. My photos were licensed on a per use basis for many textbooks. Now they want 10 year plus as many uses as they like, the fees the same as before. Can I tell you how many times people want to use something and "give me only a credit line"?
I am part of this problem...., do I read stuff on line rather then pick up a magazine, yes sometimes.
But don't tell me that artists have it better now
a few maybe, but the most I know no.
BTW With my photo career I bought a house in Northern Cailfornia, and put 2 kids through college , ( with help) and I was a photojournalist.
That would be very very rare now.
New York Times I have worked for you . Please do better then this poorly researched piece.
Thanks
Mark Richards
I am a photographer. I made a living for near on 30 years with the likes of Time, Newsweek....etc
So how is that going...? Ad dollars less therefore content less. Content on line mostly free, see google images , see Flickr. Getty images now gives me sales in cents per photo, as per their "subscription " services, years past in the thousands.
I was given a 5 figure advance on a photo book in 2005. Now that book would have to be self published. My photos were licensed on a per use basis for many textbooks. Now they want 10 year plus as many uses as they like, the fees the same as before. Can I tell you how many times people want to use something and "give me only a credit line"?
I am part of this problem...., do I read stuff on line rather then pick up a magazine, yes sometimes.
But don't tell me that artists have it better now
a few maybe, but the most I know no.
BTW With my photo career I bought a house in Northern Cailfornia, and put 2 kids through college , ( with help) and I was a photojournalist.
That would be very very rare now.
New York Times I have worked for you . Please do better then this poorly researched piece.
Thanks
Mark Richards
118
Thanks for your comment. What problems have you had with copyright infringement? And, assuming you have, what have you done about them?
3
@Mark Richards: feel grateful and proud for what you DID do during your photojournalism career, Mr. Richards. As for what is happening now, I think a lot of us know it is almost like a cultural catastrophe, but only people who have been there and done what you did know this for certain. I'd like to hear from more people like you about how things have changed. This would be a great book, or maybe, several of them.
1
Mark Richards, are you saying we should disavow the entire premise of the piece—one supported by statistics, analysis, trends—based on your own personal experience? An anecdote?
1
I'm stunned at the irresponsibility of this article. I've been writing, recording and performing music as an aspiring musician for 15 year. Today more people listen to our music than ever before, and I make less than ever before, and I mean less than 5 cents a day! And the clubs that used to pay $200-$600 for a show (not a living wage when divided amongst a whole band!) now want you to play for free, or "pay to play."
The writer clearly has no connection to the hundreds of great musicians that I came in contact over the last 15 years who gave up the dream, mostly because there was no way to appropriately monetize their talents. I'm sure that there will be a follow up that disproves the validity of the writer's statistics.
www.nycomusic.com
The writer clearly has no connection to the hundreds of great musicians that I came in contact over the last 15 years who gave up the dream, mostly because there was no way to appropriately monetize their talents. I'm sure that there will be a follow up that disproves the validity of the writer's statistics.
www.nycomusic.com
64
TeddyNYCO: @"... clubs ... now want you to play for free, or "pay to play."'
Do clubs actually get bands to play on those terms? Do the bands ask for tips?
Do clubs actually get bands to play on those terms? Do the bands ask for tips?
4
as an avid club goer I usually leave a tip.
Doesn't that just mean tons of people are listening to your music and determining that it isn't worth paying for? As far as I can tell, the big change is that musicians now get their money from the subsequent listenings rather than duping people into a first listen.
Thankfully, John Coltrane and Miles Davis didn't need to supplement their income by doing teaching videos for neophytes.
(No offense to the good people out there teaching people how to play instruments. Thank you!)
(No offense to the good people out there teaching people how to play instruments. Thank you!)
7
No, but they played jingles and record dates.....
When I was playing live music we usually had to play wedding or corporate gigs just to make cash to tour (where you always lost tons of money). Van rentals aren't cheap (borrow one from another band if you can). Gas isn't cheap. Motels, food, tolls, emergency van repairs, etc. It adds up quickly. We generally played venues that were kind enough to take a chance on unknown and unsigned artists with no label support. Those venues are hard to find and it's even harder to find ones willing to pay you something. Most would provide meals and maybe some beer or gas money which definitely helped. It's a tough life and even tougher if you have a family to provide for. I'd have loved to keep playing but I ran out of money and time.
Stay in college kids or learn a trade. If you do decide to go into music then get your MBA or a marketing degree first and be sure to model your sound around what labels and popular music bloggers like. If you get people to your shows then you will get noticed.
Stay in college kids or learn a trade. If you do decide to go into music then get your MBA or a marketing degree first and be sure to model your sound around what labels and popular music bloggers like. If you get people to your shows then you will get noticed.
4
The unparalleled cultural explosion of the High Renaissance in Italy (Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo and many, many others) was funded by the patronage of wealthy families such as the Borgias, the Medicis, etc. Will the patronage of the wealthiest be the best hope of creative artists in our own time? Could the Pages, Brins, Bezos, Ellisons, Gates and Zuckermans be the modern Medicis, commissioning works of art that will endure for centuries?
4
They're buying up visual art for sure all over the world.
The answer, NO, because they are saddled with the the sensibilities of a Trump, steeped exclusively in popular culture, and possessed of an historical memory that does not extend back further than their sophomore year at college. There is also no reason to believe their descendants will be any more sophisticated, because all culture flows now from the bottom up, as it's so it's easily marketable - a trend which shows no sign of changing.
Leonardo, wasn't he one of the Ninja Turtles?
Leonardo, wasn't he one of the Ninja Turtles?
excellent point. It seems that "real" artists will only be able to suceed in the future if they either perform "live" or have some time of (wealthy) benefactor. Ironic. As the saying goes, "everything that is old is new again"!
Yes, people as a whole manage to adjust to change, create new opportunities, but many are caught in the middle, fully invested, and seriously suffer - look at the rust belt (not something mentioned in the article, but a good example of the downside of change).
3
Its a huge shift. I mean the electric guitar took some getting used to before it sounded really good. And that was nothing compared with digital.
But that makes it all the more interesting. At some point it will all come together and peak as an art form. Not there yet. But it will happen.
But that makes it all the more interesting. At some point it will all come together and peak as an art form. Not there yet. But it will happen.
but how will it happen if artists cannot be compensated for their work? Who can become a full time professional artist while working full time somewhere else? Art is a skill that requires plenty of practice and experience. Usually be people able to do it "for a living", not a few hours on a weekend. Look at people like Kubrick, for example.
"The dystopian scenario, after all, isn’t about the death of the record business or Hollywood; it’s about the death of music or movies."
No sir! That is not the dystopia. Art will always be created. The question is whether its creators will be properly compensated. The dystopia are musicians, writers, and all sorts of artists being unable to obtain a decent living while being able to 100% dedicate themselves to their art and ensure a safe and solid roof over their heads, with possibility of a retirement and health benefits.
Yes, there are many new avenues for content, and yes, much more equipment and electronics accessible and there will always be winners --but there is far less of a possibility for artists to become professional, i.e. supported only by their art, as opposed to creators forced to remain amateurs while they drive Uber, cook hamburgers, or temp for lower wages in offices and retailers.
And, please, no examples from movies and TV. These are the stragglers. Let us imagine this in a few years once "free" or "near-free" spreads beyond books and tunes to encompass all television and movies. Getting a tune into a TV show or having a movie be a hit will then be as meaningful as hitting it big in Kindle Unlimited or Spotify today, i.e. much about buzz, but no money.
No sir! That is not the dystopia. Art will always be created. The question is whether its creators will be properly compensated. The dystopia are musicians, writers, and all sorts of artists being unable to obtain a decent living while being able to 100% dedicate themselves to their art and ensure a safe and solid roof over their heads, with possibility of a retirement and health benefits.
Yes, there are many new avenues for content, and yes, much more equipment and electronics accessible and there will always be winners --but there is far less of a possibility for artists to become professional, i.e. supported only by their art, as opposed to creators forced to remain amateurs while they drive Uber, cook hamburgers, or temp for lower wages in offices and retailers.
And, please, no examples from movies and TV. These are the stragglers. Let us imagine this in a few years once "free" or "near-free" spreads beyond books and tunes to encompass all television and movies. Getting a tune into a TV show or having a movie be a hit will then be as meaningful as hitting it big in Kindle Unlimited or Spotify today, i.e. much about buzz, but no money.
14
The history of many arts shows that in the past great artists did not make a living (Baudelaire, Keats), or if they did they had to please monarchs with no taste (Moliere + Louis XIV) or even the implacable (Prokofiev + Stalin). Great artists, i.e. born with a talent they cannot not use, often have had to struggle with extremely difficult conditions, and perhaps that very fact contributed to the greatness of their art.
I think this article is too narrow. Achieving success as a creative professional has always been rare. But if you had the skills it paid well. There are fewer opportunities today for highly paid artistic careers. A very good example of a creative industry that has been totally eclipsed by amateurs with digital technology is photography. Professional photography was once an art that employed talented people at many levels. Now everybody is a photographer. They may even be a good one. They're just not professional.
9
It's more than that. Now, companies refuse to pay for professional photography. They tell the company graphic design department, or web designer, or heck, the secretary -- "go take those photos for the annual report".
I kid you not. Even when I have begged off, saying "I am really NOT a professional photographer at all" -- they say I have no choice. They won't pay for a professional.
Remember there used to be steps in-between the photo shoot and the finished product. The photos had to be developed, printed, contact sheets, etc.
Today, you can SEE THE PHOTOS right on the camera. It turns everybody into a critic and art director.
Also today you have Photoshop. If the photos turn out cruddy, someone always says "oh don't worry -- we'll just fix it in Photoshop".
I kid you not. Even when I have begged off, saying "I am really NOT a professional photographer at all" -- they say I have no choice. They won't pay for a professional.
Remember there used to be steps in-between the photo shoot and the finished product. The photos had to be developed, printed, contact sheets, etc.
Today, you can SEE THE PHOTOS right on the camera. It turns everybody into a critic and art director.
Also today you have Photoshop. If the photos turn out cruddy, someone always says "oh don't worry -- we'll just fix it in Photoshop".
10
It's not just that everyone is a critic and art director now--it's that quality no longer counts for much--or for anything. When the world is over-run with MacDonald's burgers, people forget what filet mignon tastes like, if they ever even got a taste. The burger is "good enough." Same goes for fine literature, or music. The quality is drowned out in a rising tide of drek. The artist willing to hone his talents to the highest level will starve before he gets noticed. A million amateurs will get their 15 minutes of fame, and settle for that instead of a copyright and a royalty that makes a way of artistic life possible.
11
MacDonald's did not drive out filet mignon. Both Shula's and neighborhood steak joints are doing well. MacDonald's drove out lousy lunch counters.
It matters not. 50 years ago the Beatles rendered all subsequent pop music unnecessary.
3
If the music industry were as alive and well as in the 20th century, we'd have a lot more great recent music. Can you think of any?
9
Yes, I can think of a lot of great music that came out this year, from musicians that are earning a living off of their work. It's pointless mentioning specifics though, because all you're really saying is that you, personally, dislike the new music that you're hearing, which in the context of this conversation is completely meaningless.
3
I didn't come around to the reality of the Internet until early 2000. But when I saw what was going on I could see the writing on the wall and I immediately started putting my literature out there for free basically in the form of short stories, single panel comics, and poetry. Next thing you know Xlibriser Lulu came along and I sit here it is I went from ex libris to Lulu
Do you make a living, giving your work away for FREE?
5
The destruction of hierarchical value is not conducive to good art, or getting paid. The viral network is a system that does not care about quality, YouTube makes money off eyeballs and participation at the lowest common denominator. Film is still valued because there are awards, hierarchy, guilds and unions, levels of quality the make a Scorsese film highly valuable and some clown shooting a cat video just that. But on the net a cat video might make YouTube some bucks, but certainly not the fool turning his iPhone onto the cat.
Most jazz musicians in the latter half of the 20th century thrived because of the LP, a medium that channeled money into their lives and made the careers of Miles and Coltrane and hundreds of others possible. Today there is no medium that instills value and jazz is back to a tour based living for a few artists that have a following. Income from albums is nearly nil. The binary nature of web economics means there is a huge pool of "talent" and a 1% class of successful artists. This was not the case during the heyday of the LP. There was room for a variety of successful careers not just Miles or Herbie Hancock because there was a hierarchical system of valuation.
The idea of cultural valuation goes back to the theater festivals in ancient Greece that spawned and awarded enduring works by Euripides and Aristophanes. We are loath to toss valuation out. I recommend the author read "1000 Plateaus."
Most jazz musicians in the latter half of the 20th century thrived because of the LP, a medium that channeled money into their lives and made the careers of Miles and Coltrane and hundreds of others possible. Today there is no medium that instills value and jazz is back to a tour based living for a few artists that have a following. Income from albums is nearly nil. The binary nature of web economics means there is a huge pool of "talent" and a 1% class of successful artists. This was not the case during the heyday of the LP. There was room for a variety of successful careers not just Miles or Herbie Hancock because there was a hierarchical system of valuation.
The idea of cultural valuation goes back to the theater festivals in ancient Greece that spawned and awarded enduring works by Euripides and Aristophanes. We are loath to toss valuation out. I recommend the author read "1000 Plateaus."
16
From the BLS data cited by the author, as I read it, "Musicians, Singers, and Related Workers" (OCC code 27-2040) employed in "Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries" (NAICS code 71 and older SIC code 79) *fell* between 2000 and 2014:
2000 (SIC code 79) employment 38,790
2010 (NAICS 71) employment 30,610
2014 (NAICS 71) employment 26, 650
The number of self-employed musicians is tiny.
As a 12-year veteran of independent bookstores (now a librarian) I applaud the increase in the number of independents. But independents are tiny compared with Amazon, which dictates the state of the publishing industry.
2000 (SIC code 79) employment 38,790
2010 (NAICS 71) employment 30,610
2014 (NAICS 71) employment 26, 650
The number of self-employed musicians is tiny.
As a 12-year veteran of independent bookstores (now a librarian) I applaud the increase in the number of independents. But independents are tiny compared with Amazon, which dictates the state of the publishing industry.
15
@AL: "... the BLS data cited by the author ..."
Could you post a link to the data sets you are looking at? The Times should have provided exact links, but you don't seem to be looking at the OES data:
Occupational Employment Statistics
OES Data
http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm
Could you post a link to the data sets you are looking at? The Times should have provided exact links, but you don't seem to be looking at the OES data:
Occupational Employment Statistics
OES Data
http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm
@AL: "[employment] *fell* between 2000 and 2014"
After some digging, I found a way to get a graph from 1990 to 2015. It shows a general decline in employment from 2002 to 2015 for "Musical groups and artists" (NAICS Code: 71113):
Maximum: August 2002: 51.9 (x1000)
Minimum Value: July 2011: 31.5 (x1000)
Graph and data can be found here:
http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CES7071113001
(Manually change the start year to 1990. Hover your pointer over the graph to see specific data points.)
After some digging, I found a way to get a graph from 1990 to 2015. It shows a general decline in employment from 2002 to 2015 for "Musical groups and artists" (NAICS Code: 71113):
Maximum: August 2002: 51.9 (x1000)
Minimum Value: July 2011: 31.5 (x1000)
Graph and data can be found here:
http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CES7071113001
(Manually change the start year to 1990. Hover your pointer over the graph to see specific data points.)
I think the real point behind your data is that fewer and fewer people are able to do this for a living. THanks to e-formats that permit copious copying and the resulting non-payment of royalties to artists.
A great case of the "counter-intuitive" article that magazines love to promote. As a freelance writer, I'm being asked by major magazines to write more words for much less money than I was paid in 1999 and I have to throw in my copyright as well. I've fought with many magazines about selling my copyright--something I would NEVER do in the 90s and 00s. But if I ask to keep my copyright, I'm seen as a troublemaker and have been dropped as a regular contributor at several magazines. I used to make a healthy sum out of reselling articles worldwide; that is completely gone.
I know many young writers work mainly for "exposure"--that alluring but often hollow promise. But you can't live on exposure.
I know many young writers work mainly for "exposure"--that alluring but often hollow promise. But you can't live on exposure.
47
As Wimpy said, give me a hamburger today and I will gladly pay you on Tuesday. I prefer to be paid today.
6
I happen to know several writers in the romance field. They used to make some nice money selling to genre publishers. Then everything went to e-books -- they still made money, but much less.
Now even the e-publishers are not doing well, and are cutting most lines and selling the rights to e-books back to the authors.
So now those authors -- who went from making maybe $20-$50K a year in paperbacks -- to $10-$10K a year in e-books -- are now making close to ZERO trying to peddle their books on e-sites for 99 cents or less each.
Now even the e-publishers are not doing well, and are cutting most lines and selling the rights to e-books back to the authors.
So now those authors -- who went from making maybe $20-$50K a year in paperbacks -- to $10-$10K a year in e-books -- are now making close to ZERO trying to peddle their books on e-sites for 99 cents or less each.
11
Mr. Johnson's most important point is that the current economy for creative workers rewards the self-promoting personality; it does not reward the self-refining artist as much. Branding is much more important than practice.
My experience is in visual arts (that aren't film or TV). It is true that now it is easier to get a little attention from diverse sources for your work, but this has also resulted in a craving for and obsession with novelty at the expense of depth or slowly cultivated experimentation. The current climate rewards the social personality of the artist more than practice and what was once called "skill." This is not always bad; merely different than the past.
The overall trend towards novelty and self-branding is easier to see if you go all the way back to Rembrandt or Caravaggio. They were rewarded for finding a way to infuse genius into highly restricted and conventional forms. I long for more Caravaggios, but I'm sure I would have been bored to tears by the common repetition of "skillful" mediocrity. I am a product of the "novelty culture industry."
The rare artist that gets a chance to really "make it" has to spend more time networking (electronically and in person). They are encouraged to be "the flavor of the month." The upside is that there is more room than ever for personality to show through in art. The downside is that once you are no longer the hot young thing, you can easily find your once-promising career evaporate in no time.
My experience is in visual arts (that aren't film or TV). It is true that now it is easier to get a little attention from diverse sources for your work, but this has also resulted in a craving for and obsession with novelty at the expense of depth or slowly cultivated experimentation. The current climate rewards the social personality of the artist more than practice and what was once called "skill." This is not always bad; merely different than the past.
The overall trend towards novelty and self-branding is easier to see if you go all the way back to Rembrandt or Caravaggio. They were rewarded for finding a way to infuse genius into highly restricted and conventional forms. I long for more Caravaggios, but I'm sure I would have been bored to tears by the common repetition of "skillful" mediocrity. I am a product of the "novelty culture industry."
The rare artist that gets a chance to really "make it" has to spend more time networking (electronically and in person). They are encouraged to be "the flavor of the month." The upside is that there is more room than ever for personality to show through in art. The downside is that once you are no longer the hot young thing, you can easily find your once-promising career evaporate in no time.
30
True but not a product of the digital age. Look at Damien Hurst (YBA in general), Schnabel, Koons, etc.
There is no Mellotron on Strawberry fields forever. That's a tape being played backwards.
A simple web search for "Mellotron Strawberry fields forever" will refute you.
2
The pan flute intro was played by Paul on a Mellotron.
"It’s true that most of that live-music revenue is captured by superstar acts like Taylor Swift or the Rolling Stones. In 1982, the musical 1-percenters took in only 26 percent of the total revenues generated by live music; in 2003, they captured 56 percent of the market, with the top 5 percent of musicians capturing almost 90 percent of live revenues."
"Recorded music, then, becomes a kind of marketing expense for the main event of live shows."
This legs under this article makes the argument fall on it's own weight. The above are two solid quotes from the article, the second quote actually came just before the first.
Lars won't be testifying anymore. He made a billion, so he's happy. New artists, of which there must be many, many more than reported in the silly government data, are folks who call themselves artists but make their money from working at Starbucks and such.
Technology has enabled the masses to make sounds and noises without having to understand what notes and chords mean. That's not music. It's noise. Are traffic horns music?
Being in the biz a long time, and watching the pros struggle as I play the bush league just makes me sad. It concerns me that the NYT has done a fluff piece on the most important subject of our culture--music and art. Both may fall the way of our environment. We're looking down the rain barrel at a very long artistic drought. The good ones will drive themselves into the ground; the fluff will fill the airwaves. Enjoy!
"Recorded music, then, becomes a kind of marketing expense for the main event of live shows."
This legs under this article makes the argument fall on it's own weight. The above are two solid quotes from the article, the second quote actually came just before the first.
Lars won't be testifying anymore. He made a billion, so he's happy. New artists, of which there must be many, many more than reported in the silly government data, are folks who call themselves artists but make their money from working at Starbucks and such.
Technology has enabled the masses to make sounds and noises without having to understand what notes and chords mean. That's not music. It's noise. Are traffic horns music?
Being in the biz a long time, and watching the pros struggle as I play the bush league just makes me sad. It concerns me that the NYT has done a fluff piece on the most important subject of our culture--music and art. Both may fall the way of our environment. We're looking down the rain barrel at a very long artistic drought. The good ones will drive themselves into the ground; the fluff will fill the airwaves. Enjoy!
22
At least, this article doesn't mention musicians selling t-shirts instead of CDs, though selling "merch" is probably on that list of possible revenue streams for musicians.
While the author raises some encouraging points about the viability of making a living as a musician, he skirts a huge issue about the decline in income from sales of recorded music: the taking of a product that is offered for sale without paying for it is theft, full stop. The reason that sales of music recordings steeply declined is theft. Streaming has grown in popularity, but there are still many music consumers who aren't even paying the very modest fees asked by the streaming services. The streaming services are able to charge so little and pay such low royalties because their main competition is piracy--not physical CD sales and legal downloads. Their main product is convenience, not music, and it is unfortunately not shocking that relatively little of their revenue finds its way to the creators that make their service meaningful in the first place.
If it were not for (technologically enabled) theft of music recordings, musicians would be better able to make use of technology to make money specifically from their music. Maybe then they could combine that income with licensing a song to a TV show and do better than "barely enough to pay the bills."
While the author raises some encouraging points about the viability of making a living as a musician, he skirts a huge issue about the decline in income from sales of recorded music: the taking of a product that is offered for sale without paying for it is theft, full stop. The reason that sales of music recordings steeply declined is theft. Streaming has grown in popularity, but there are still many music consumers who aren't even paying the very modest fees asked by the streaming services. The streaming services are able to charge so little and pay such low royalties because their main competition is piracy--not physical CD sales and legal downloads. Their main product is convenience, not music, and it is unfortunately not shocking that relatively little of their revenue finds its way to the creators that make their service meaningful in the first place.
If it were not for (technologically enabled) theft of music recordings, musicians would be better able to make use of technology to make money specifically from their music. Maybe then they could combine that income with licensing a song to a TV show and do better than "barely enough to pay the bills."
10
"in the '60s, we feared the rise of television's "vast wasteland'"
It turns out we were right to worry. Real Housewives, anybody?
It turns out we were right to worry. Real Housewives, anybody?
13
Because before the 1960s it wall all quality? My Mother the Car, anyone?
1
That was the opinion of one egghead. He also was wrong. TV is now and has always been great. And the fact that hundreds of millions of Americans watch it every day is all the proof you need.
I find it interesting that the NYT prints this ridiculous article a few days after highlighting Lawrence Lessig and his interest in a presidential run on its front page. Lawrence Lessig in his Ted Talk ramblings wants in essence to change the definition of creativity. Per Lawrence, all “creativity” is only a remix – like a collage – of what came before. He even called the great marches of composer John Philip Sousa just pieces of others’ works. He co-created “Creative Commons” for artists to post their “remixes” for free so that anyone can access any part also for free and without any copyright restraint. He feels artistic work belongs to everyone (he needs to check on China’s identical philosophy which produces a dearth of creativity and a robust theft of other countries’ inventions) and that the profits should go to the behind-the-scenes businesses of distribution, software development for remixing, etc. He says paying money to artists or protecting their work with copyright actually stifles creativity. Beware of Steven Johnson who wrote this NYT’s article and beware of Lawrence Lessig!
45
Ancient Greek playwrights believed all plot-lines had been exhausted already, over 2000 years ago.
There is no solution but death and birth of new generations who haven't seen it before.
There is no solution but death and birth of new generations who haven't seen it before.
The author has it wrong on just about everything. The fact that there are more people in this or that industry means nothing. This world is full of dreamers. People wanting to be singers, actors or writers. Using increases in their numbers to suggest all is well is wrong.
The movie industry has fared better because storage space and Internet speeds are such that they discourage all but the most avid collectors of movies from simply downloading them online for free. However we are now seeing bigger hard drives and faster Internet speeds and it won't be long before the movie industry goes the way of the music industry.
All these platforms that artists can supposedly easily make money pay a pittance. Your song played millions of times on YouTube will get you just a few thousand dollars. With the exception of music's one percenters, most people in the music business have to do other work to pay their bills.
The apocalypse is here and it is wrecking the havoc as predicted, the author very academic take on the subject notwithstanding.
The movie industry has fared better because storage space and Internet speeds are such that they discourage all but the most avid collectors of movies from simply downloading them online for free. However we are now seeing bigger hard drives and faster Internet speeds and it won't be long before the movie industry goes the way of the music industry.
All these platforms that artists can supposedly easily make money pay a pittance. Your song played millions of times on YouTube will get you just a few thousand dollars. With the exception of music's one percenters, most people in the music business have to do other work to pay their bills.
The apocalypse is here and it is wrecking the havoc as predicted, the author very academic take on the subject notwithstanding.
36
Bob Reynolds is not selling art, he is teaching lessons. Hopefully, one of his students, if you can call them that, will turn into an artist.
No offense to Bob because he might be a talented musician in his own right.
No offense to Bob because he might be a talented musician in his own right.
6
I still buy real books and CDs, even though most of my reading is on an e-reader (not a Kindle) and I listen to my music collection on an iPod. Books can be read with no access to technology, except for light at night which can be low-tech. CDs have better quality of music than streaming or iTunes purchases, plus when I buy direct from the artist, they get the profits, not middlemen.
I make money from the live entertainment business by doing sound and lights for bands and theater, skills that are hard to replace with technology. I understand that art is important to being human; the creative juices that make mlife worth living.
I make money from the live entertainment business by doing sound and lights for bands and theater, skills that are hard to replace with technology. I understand that art is important to being human; the creative juices that make mlife worth living.
3
Technology has never destroyed Art; Art/Creativity will always find a medium because we are social animals and wish to communicate that which is incommunicable. Our need to share the songs and images of the highs and lows with others is indefatigable. And as for quality: give it time, give it time.
Somewhat ironic that this article is anchored to Lars Ulrich and Metallica--since most of the popular artists of the internet where created pre-Internet by TV (when MTV played videos), etc. even Kanye was discovered by MTV pre YouTube. Such it is with every other creative industry--there's a lot out there but it doesn't make a splash...and the good stuff is usually so niche nobody on the street knows about it. And even the good stuff there is either nostalgic or heavily branded. Even Janelle Monae is selling out and doing commercials since there is no money in making art anymore...
3
It's a little ridiculous to imply that if, instead of making enough to make a living as an actual ARTISTE, a musician can survive by giving online lessons that this equals "thriving".
26
"Then as now, if you make a small or midsize movie that rates on the Top 10 lists of most critics, you’ll average roughly $50 million at the box office." There's something called inflation! In 1999, it was notable if a film made more than $100 million. Now, many big-budget films don't even make a profit until they make $200 million. So it's a big cultural problem if good adult movies can gross only $50 million, given that cost significantly more to make than they did in the twentieth century.
This is statistical manipulation worth of a high-school debate team, not the New York Times. The whole essay was clearly not written with an open mind, but with the tactical selectivity of a spin doctor. This is not surprising, given that Johnson has made a career by reflexively applauding digital culture.
This is statistical manipulation worth of a high-school debate team, not the New York Times. The whole essay was clearly not written with an open mind, but with the tactical selectivity of a spin doctor. This is not surprising, given that Johnson has made a career by reflexively applauding digital culture.
33
This is a great point but also deceiving --it is equivalent to use numbers from a few years before Napster, and extrapolate to the future and declare a future golden age for music.
Clearly, in a few years, when all movies will be "near-free" (if movies go the way of tunes, as it seems with say, Amazon Prime and Netflix) this will change. Movies (and TV) still get most of their income from traditional pre-digital sources of income such as tickets, DVDs, and merchandise --half or even more from international sales. This is an aberration, and not a window into the future, but a fading realities as streaming conquers movies and TV.
Clearly, in a few years, when all movies will be "near-free" (if movies go the way of tunes, as it seems with say, Amazon Prime and Netflix) this will change. Movies (and TV) still get most of their income from traditional pre-digital sources of income such as tickets, DVDs, and merchandise --half or even more from international sales. This is an aberration, and not a window into the future, but a fading realities as streaming conquers movies and TV.
He mentions adjusting for inflation multiple times.
That's convenient quoting on your part. Go back one sentence: "The 30 most highly rated midbudget films of 1999 to 2001 took in $1.5 billion at the domestic box office, adjusted for inflation; the class of 2011 to 2013 took in the exact same amount."
"...adjusted for inflation" is right there for all to see.
Go back a couple more sentences: "In adjusted dollars, the class of 1999 brought in roughly $430 million at the box office. But the 2013 group took in about $20 million more."
"In adjusted dollars..." He was using inflation adjusted dollars the whole time. Your comment was clearly not written with an open mind since you attacked him for something he didn't do.
"...adjusted for inflation" is right there for all to see.
Go back a couple more sentences: "In adjusted dollars, the class of 1999 brought in roughly $430 million at the box office. But the 2013 group took in about $20 million more."
"In adjusted dollars..." He was using inflation adjusted dollars the whole time. Your comment was clearly not written with an open mind since you attacked him for something he didn't do.
This article is way off base and doesn't take into account the realities of what it takes to sell yourself as an artist in the current free-for-all environment of art making. I'm a "successful" writer for a major metropolitan newspaper who also started an LLC to produce an independent web series that got picked up by a large Internet studio. In addition, I tour and play music in an indie rock band with a publishing contract. I'm married to a Grammy-winning producer and musician. Unfortunately, we know a few things about how hard it is to be a part of the creative classes. In the 1980s my husband and I would have been a power couple, today we can barely make ends meet, no matter how creative we get when it comes to making our work available for consumption. That's not to say that the big studio systems of yore had it right, just that the indie art culture that Mr. Johnson claims is flourishing with the help of digital technology, is merely squatting online, hoping to go viral.
75
The only person whose income is mentioned in dollar amounts is the musician in the photos, whose job is actually teaching, not playing music. If the budgets to create things are smaller, the payouts to artists for works are smaller, and according to this article there are now more artist types, with less support (which means they're working more hours), how are they doing well? You can sell a book for six figures but if you worked on it for 3+ years, that might not amount to much.
Definitely more young people can be creative, or do something tangentially creative as a job. But it seems to me that the amounts being earned by these people, excepting the highest earners can not support an adult.
Be young, be foolish, be happy - The Tams
Definitely more young people can be creative, or do something tangentially creative as a job. But it seems to me that the amounts being earned by these people, excepting the highest earners can not support an adult.
Be young, be foolish, be happy - The Tams
17
This is a great point! As an artist --teaching is for many not an artistic endeavour.
Teaching is seldom collaboration, and it is usually dreadful for many an artist. Just check, for example, how terrible teaching was for Mozart. In fact, the skillset is different --many an artist was a terrible teacher, and excellent teachers (Salieri, for example) were second best artists.
Of course, Mr. Johnson, the author, seems to not know teaching from making art.
Teaching is seldom collaboration, and it is usually dreadful for many an artist. Just check, for example, how terrible teaching was for Mozart. In fact, the skillset is different --many an artist was a terrible teacher, and excellent teachers (Salieri, for example) were second best artists.
Of course, Mr. Johnson, the author, seems to not know teaching from making art.
remember, that even this teacher, once his tutorial videos and CDs start to be illegally copied, will also not be able to make a living.
Right, I studied a science discipline in college because when I was in HS (80's) I was told making a living in photography would be impossible. Though I really wanted to be a medical photographer. Fastforward, 20+ years, science hardly pays. At least I know how to decipher scientific arguments. Maybe we are entering a more enlightened period, one where we actually talk with one another (absent a widget) and discuss and appreciate each other's skills. That's when a true appreciation of art and a deeper understanding of scientific thinking takes place. Amazing things just might happen. Forget about technology making anything better.
3
I'm an artist. I sell by the internet. It's a global market. It's the widest possible net for catching your prey: customers. What argument do you have with that?
4
You sell physical product: prints. Not as easy to hang a virtual print on your walls as to play back a pirated mp3.
the argument that the internet, as well as permitting sales, reduces them by facilitating the illegal downloading of music/photos/films without compensating the copy right owner? This makes it much more difficult to make a living doing it. Probably explains why there seem to be fewer "artistists" making a living at it. 30 years ago it was not uncommon to find "pro" photographers for example. Today impossible.
Really interesting article and great job gathering data but I must say that a lot of points are missing. If musicians are supplementing their income making 'how to videos' on youtube then they are not spending the majority of their time developing their songwriting and performing skills. There is a rigid glass ceiling to how much one can really survive on creativity unless one is lucky to be in the 1%. Your time gets divided by promotions, teaching, music production, tour bookings etc, and one just doesn't have enough time to devote to pure music making. It's unsustainable. Who is making all the money on kickstarter? Mainly musicians like Amanda Palmer who had a record deal and already have a following. Who is making money touring? Mainly musicians who were once signed and are now floating on the fan base that was created with their labels. Is the quality of music worse than before? That is entirely subjective but my opinion is that the most innovative musicians, and the ones who really have something to say are not able to break through. It's more sugar pop. Are there exceptions? Of course. But look at celebrities.... more than half of them were born to other celebrity parents or are trust fund babies. There are a few who are lucky and broke through on their own, but they are few. As great as this article is at compiling data, I think it's missing how to interpret it and therefore is missing the heart of some major issues in at least the music industry.
26
This is a misleading point of view. Like the other comment mentioned, the barriers-to-entry have been lowered because nowadays anyone who can pick up a guitar would call themselves a musician, hence the 15% increase of self-identified musicians.
There are so many musicians out there who make a living by doing side jobs like waitressing. Some of them make YouTube instrument lessons like the article mentioned, but that would be equating teaching to the actual making of the art. They are two different things, and professional musicians consider the act of teaching instrument lessons on YouTube no different than waitressing or driving a taxi.
Musicians have a love-hate relationship with record label companies. While those companies take a large chunk of money from musicians, they also help them with logistics such as album cover design, marketing, advertising, etc. Nowadays musicians must find people to do all those things for them and also pay out of their own pockets. So, even if they do generate slightly higher revenue than before, they also have more expenses to cover.
There are so many musicians out there who make a living by doing side jobs like waitressing. Some of them make YouTube instrument lessons like the article mentioned, but that would be equating teaching to the actual making of the art. They are two different things, and professional musicians consider the act of teaching instrument lessons on YouTube no different than waitressing or driving a taxi.
Musicians have a love-hate relationship with record label companies. While those companies take a large chunk of money from musicians, they also help them with logistics such as album cover design, marketing, advertising, etc. Nowadays musicians must find people to do all those things for them and also pay out of their own pockets. So, even if they do generate slightly higher revenue than before, they also have more expenses to cover.
63
You are correct, however tools like Kickstarter help create opportunities that didn't exist before. I have a friend in a very obscure, indie band in NJ. Using crowd funding, they're about to travel to Europe to do a few live shows. I don't think they would have considered that before crowd funding existed. But 15 years ago they were just an obscure band, now they are one that can go to Europe.
Nice straw man argument. Conditions change making it impossible to work the old way, but (oh wow!) some people succeed in new ways.
Here's the real story:
Before: most artists starve, a few make a good living.
Now: most artists starve, a few make a good living.
You see the trend?
Here's the real story:
Before: most artists starve, a few make a good living.
Now: most artists starve, a few make a good living.
You see the trend?
29
deadulus,
you need to quantify the befores and afters. If you do I believe you will see an enormous decrease in those making a living and an increase in those starving.
you need to quantify the befores and afters. If you do I believe you will see an enormous decrease in those making a living and an increase in those starving.
1
"More people are choosing to make a career as a musician or a songwriter than they did in the glory days of Tower Records." Unless Mumsy and Daddy are keeping the boat afloat it ain't happening. This article is myth-making and statistic manipulation at its finest.
54
I wrote about all this in 1994 with Free Music Philosophy modelled after Stallman's GNU Manifesto, which was referenced in the NY Times by Lisa Napoli: http://ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/
Just because copying is easy and possible doesn't mean you can't make money. You just can't do it using copyrights or limited monopolies.
--Ram
Just because copying is easy and possible doesn't mean you can't make money. You just can't do it using copyrights or limited monopolies.
--Ram
1
but if people are not paying you for non-copyrighted or protected work how are you making a living doing it? Is that a platform for live performances? For teaching? For finding a wealthy "benefactor"?
This would've been more interesting as a dive into social media. On Instagram, everyone is a photographer. On Medium, everyone is a columnist etc.. The Internet has made us all artists in our own heads. Click and you're published!
This analytical piece that doesn't quote any actual artists, technologists building these platforms, or advertisers making them viable is just lazy.
This analytical piece that doesn't quote any actual artists, technologists building these platforms, or advertisers making them viable is just lazy.
20
With Napster and the sharing economy comes the crazy idea in people's heads that all creative output should be free. They actually get angry if you expect payment for your work. For example, Adobe just bought Fotolia, and made photography and illustration licensing available for $10, which is a ridiculously low price. But every comment I've seen on Facebook are questions about why that stock art is so "expensive." Some of that photogrphy is comparable in quality to shots we paid tens of thousands of dollars to license a couple of decades ago. Google images has made it possible for millions of images to be stolen...they're the photography Napster of 2015. Yes, there are many more people making an "income" from illustration and photography now, but that "income" is a pittance. I know...I'm in the top 1% when it comes to earnings on one of the big stock sites, and I'm making very little money...and watching prices go down while reps take bigger and bigger slices of the pie (the worst being Getty/iStock, which takes an 85% commission for every sale of an independent artist's work). The only reason people are making any money from art is the huge outcry from artists when business after business tried to rip them off.
25
Sorry, but my neighbor with her DSL and "photography business" and husband's travel budget was completely happy to sell a picture of the Sierra Madre range for $20. I used it for a background. It's not art, it's decoration. Very little of what you think is art is used as anything more than decoration.
1
john, so you are saying because they produce only "decoration" they should not have to be paid more than a pittance for it? A pittance that does not permit making a living by doing it? What impact will that have on the profession? A good one?
I have co-workers who were in bands, wrote books,painted, etc. Pre-Napster,they could release their product through record labels, publishers, or agents. Now, in California, there are hardly any bookstore chains, few record stores,etc. For a musician to survive, in L.A. is to either pay-to-play, go on reality shows, or tour constantly out of town. Authors struggle to sell books, and there are fewer agents for artists in CA. I pay for my music, my books, my newspaper, and have little regard for those people who want every thing for free..
61
Read the article! There are more independent bookstores than there were five years ago.
Yes, you can get your music out there, but that doesn't translate into dollars. It's simply a matter of supply and demand; demand remains the same, but the supply is geometrically larger. Thus the dollars are less. Venues are unwilling to hire bands that don't have huge Facebook followings, but unable to perform before audiences doesn't allow you to grow a following. And before you say you can build an audience online, that is still like winning a lottery. No, the internet is not the solution to growing talent.
12
The industry is a perfect example of the the power of internet amplification - 20% of all the artists get 80% of all the value whether it is in music, movies, or live events. The article fails to recognize properly (apart from a casual egalitarian reference) the democratization and globalization of the process. Earlier big producers and houses blessed and chose the artists who would succeed. Today artists are finding they have a direct connect with their audience often in the most unexpected places.
This global reach is important.
Twenty years ago we chose between whatever played on the radio or on TV, or if you lived in a large city, the stockpile of the nearest large store. Someone made the decision for you what media you were allowed access to. The revolution has thus been two ways - people consume a lot more medium from a more global list of sources - but each portion of that media is getting paid less and less. Certainly that means that very few people will become multimillionaires in the process. But it also means a lot of artists could earn a decent living doing what they loved.
For those who think it is good enough to make one great song or write on great book and retire - I say simply - you are an amateur (I consider myself one as well). The definition of a professional is someone who can year after year produce content and be paid for that. Time was a single one-hit wonder album could earn millions. Now people need to commit to a career as a artist.
This global reach is important.
Twenty years ago we chose between whatever played on the radio or on TV, or if you lived in a large city, the stockpile of the nearest large store. Someone made the decision for you what media you were allowed access to. The revolution has thus been two ways - people consume a lot more medium from a more global list of sources - but each portion of that media is getting paid less and less. Certainly that means that very few people will become multimillionaires in the process. But it also means a lot of artists could earn a decent living doing what they loved.
For those who think it is good enough to make one great song or write on great book and retire - I say simply - you are an amateur (I consider myself one as well). The definition of a professional is someone who can year after year produce content and be paid for that. Time was a single one-hit wonder album could earn millions. Now people need to commit to a career as a artist.
1
Untrue. There are many, many successful (dollar wise) people coasting and making a living on a one time success.
3
Absolutely true.
I live across the street from a man who eked out a living doing gigs here and there, living largely off his wife's stable job.
Then, one fine day, one of his songs was picked up and used in a successful motion picture. Then numerous other avenues opened solely based on the success of this one song.
He is now very wealthy and lives off of the royalties to the music he wrote.
One song.
I live across the street from a man who eked out a living doing gigs here and there, living largely off his wife's stable job.
Then, one fine day, one of his songs was picked up and used in a successful motion picture. Then numerous other avenues opened solely based on the success of this one song.
He is now very wealthy and lives off of the royalties to the music he wrote.
One song.
2
"Take a look at your own media consumption...Just calculate...how many things you used to pay for that now arrive free of charge: all those Spotify playlists...the countless hours of YouTube videos...online articles that once required a magazine subscription...And even when you do manage to pull out a credit card, the amounts are shrinking: $9 for an e-book that used to be a $20 hardcover..."
I'm terrible for business. I admit it.
I had a period of heavy free Spotify use, but if I like an album a lot I usually buy a used copy of the CD, so over time I use Spotify less and less.
I have an I Tunes account, but since the computer to which the account linked crashed, I haven't used I Tunes. And I almost never even use the nano I Pad my wife bought me for my birthday.
I almost never use You Tube, other than to watch Tim Minchin's nine life lessons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5RBG1PadWI
Even though many articles can be read for free online, I still have a subscription to The New Yorker (my only mag) because I prefer to read the mag in hand lying on the couch.
I only read books that can be checked out at the library or purchased used online.
I only watch free programs on PBS (usually foreign programs on the PBS international channel) or programs that are free on Hulu (watching Jon Stewart the day after an episode broadcast was just fine).
I don't use social media...other than by making COMMENTS on the NY Times web site.
I'm pathetic!
I'm terrible for business. I admit it.
I had a period of heavy free Spotify use, but if I like an album a lot I usually buy a used copy of the CD, so over time I use Spotify less and less.
I have an I Tunes account, but since the computer to which the account linked crashed, I haven't used I Tunes. And I almost never even use the nano I Pad my wife bought me for my birthday.
I almost never use You Tube, other than to watch Tim Minchin's nine life lessons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5RBG1PadWI
Even though many articles can be read for free online, I still have a subscription to The New Yorker (my only mag) because I prefer to read the mag in hand lying on the couch.
I only read books that can be checked out at the library or purchased used online.
I only watch free programs on PBS (usually foreign programs on the PBS international channel) or programs that are free on Hulu (watching Jon Stewart the day after an episode broadcast was just fine).
I don't use social media...other than by making COMMENTS on the NY Times web site.
I'm pathetic!
5
I'm a writer and producer and our son is a musician.
You're my hero!
You're my hero!
1
Oh, and I never buy, or listen to, songs.
I only listen to entire albums/CDs, and usually those created by artists who write most of their own music and who sound as good or better in concert live as they do in the studio.
And if the album/CD has a theme, like Jackson Browne's "Running on Empty", or Pink Floyd's "The Wall", so much the better.
I only listen to entire albums/CDs, and usually those created by artists who write most of their own music and who sound as good or better in concert live as they do in the studio.
And if the album/CD has a theme, like Jackson Browne's "Running on Empty", or Pink Floyd's "The Wall", so much the better.
2
jon . . . thank you . . . i am right behind you . . . i still read used print books and have no media nor want any other than n.y.t. . . .
William Wilson dallas texas
William Wilson dallas texas
From the article it sounds like the O.E.S. data is based on self-reporting and what individuals "considered their primary occupation". I am not sure if that data is aspirational or truly accurate.
Music, I would actually say recording, which other readers have commented on, is one example of a creative field where barriers to entry are dramatically lower.
Photography is another example. Because of the LCD on the back of digital cameras much of the alchemy needed to be confident the right image was on the film is gone. As a consequence pretty much anyone with a camera can call themselves a photographer and many people are willing to work for free just so they can. Stock photography prices have plummeted in recent years. Photography blogs are filled with stories of photographers with clients that regularly ask them to work for nothing.
Movies and television are still highly unionized industries. Books seem to be targeted for piracy in the same way music has been.
Perhaps this apocalypse has both the elect and the damned.
Music, I would actually say recording, which other readers have commented on, is one example of a creative field where barriers to entry are dramatically lower.
Photography is another example. Because of the LCD on the back of digital cameras much of the alchemy needed to be confident the right image was on the film is gone. As a consequence pretty much anyone with a camera can call themselves a photographer and many people are willing to work for free just so they can. Stock photography prices have plummeted in recent years. Photography blogs are filled with stories of photographers with clients that regularly ask them to work for nothing.
Movies and television are still highly unionized industries. Books seem to be targeted for piracy in the same way music has been.
Perhaps this apocalypse has both the elect and the damned.
13
@SLR: 'From the article it sounds like the O.E.S. data is based on self-reporting and what individuals "considered their primary occupation".'
From the OES FAQ: "The OES survey is a semi-annual mail survey of non-farm establishments."[1]
What that means is:
1. Establishments, not individuals, are surveyed.
2. The survey *samples* establishments -- it is not exhaustive.
So the article is wrong when it refers to what people "considered their primary occupation".[2] The "estimates are calculated with data collected from employers".[3]
[1] OES FAQ
How is the OES survey conducted?
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm
[2] Complete quote from article:
"According to the O.E.S., in 1999 there were nearly 53,000 Americans who considered their primary occupation to be that of a musician, a music director or a composer; in 2014, more than 60,000 people were employed writing, singing or playing music."
[3] "1999 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates"
(Link omitted to avoid comment censoring.)
From the OES FAQ: "The OES survey is a semi-annual mail survey of non-farm establishments."[1]
What that means is:
1. Establishments, not individuals, are surveyed.
2. The survey *samples* establishments -- it is not exhaustive.
So the article is wrong when it refers to what people "considered their primary occupation".[2] The "estimates are calculated with data collected from employers".[3]
[1] OES FAQ
How is the OES survey conducted?
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm
[2] Complete quote from article:
"According to the O.E.S., in 1999 there were nearly 53,000 Americans who considered their primary occupation to be that of a musician, a music director or a composer; in 2014, more than 60,000 people were employed writing, singing or playing music."
[3] "1999 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates"
(Link omitted to avoid comment censoring.)
Most creators just give it away until their faith in discovery is exhausted. There is no rhyme or reason to what goes viral.
18
Mr. Johnson writes: "Against all odds, the voices of the artists seem to be louder than ever."
Right. And those voices are saying, "Help!"
Right. And those voices are saying, "Help!"
107
yes sir but we want democracy without bothering to vote and we want music without having to pay the creator.
Back in my salad days of early-1990s, and during my grad school years, when I was an occasional jazz DJ at KZSU, I used to lament about the high cost of jazz CDs especially for impecunious grad students. The jazz artists also got a pittance out of those $15-$20 CDs.
Why can't their manager and producer leverage technology, I wondered. Haven't they heard of ftp sites?! Here's this new digital format called WAV files. Just upload you album as WAV files onto the ftp sites and I will mail you my check directly, or will call your manager with my credit card #. Cut out the middlemen and get the fans to closer to the artist directly.
I wondered why jazz artists would not connect with fans directly on usenet. I recall only Vijay Iyer posting regularly on rec.music.bluenote (he was still a grad student in physics at that Other School Across the Bay). There was no World Wide Web yet.
Once I got into the real world I realized the inertia to change in the music world, and the strength grip of the industry on the artists. A quarter century later, a lot has changed, but many of my favorite jazz artists have passed on....
Why can't their manager and producer leverage technology, I wondered. Haven't they heard of ftp sites?! Here's this new digital format called WAV files. Just upload you album as WAV files onto the ftp sites and I will mail you my check directly, or will call your manager with my credit card #. Cut out the middlemen and get the fans to closer to the artist directly.
I wondered why jazz artists would not connect with fans directly on usenet. I recall only Vijay Iyer posting regularly on rec.music.bluenote (he was still a grad student in physics at that Other School Across the Bay). There was no World Wide Web yet.
Once I got into the real world I realized the inertia to change in the music world, and the strength grip of the industry on the artists. A quarter century later, a lot has changed, but many of my favorite jazz artists have passed on....
4
As a writer, I have long witnessed the increase of creativity that is simultaneously being accompanied by the decline of income for local and regional artists. Youtube and anecdotal stories not withstanding, the everpresent reports of creations gone virtual are dreams that hide the harsh, broader reality: creativity outside of the popular groove has a more difficult time being seen, discussed, appreciated--and purchased.
For ten years, I have experimented with preserving the Gullah aesthetic and its oral tradition in writing, in new works and revisions of old works from the Library of Congress archives. Gullah is the name of the Africans enslaved in the Carolina lowcountry and also applies to the unique language developed, and more importantly a way of thinking and viewing the world and the challenges of being enslaved.
Seldom considered today is that those enslaved laughed! Laughter was a revolutionary act! It lay beyond the bonds of authority and control; it originates from within and affirms humanity's "timeless will." Next to freedom, it is one of the enslaved greatest feats! Capturing that oral tradition in digital form is challenging; it is harder to sell. It is difficult to convince people to take their eyes off the computer to understand the past.
For ten years, I have experimented with preserving the Gullah aesthetic and its oral tradition in writing, in new works and revisions of old works from the Library of Congress archives. Gullah is the name of the Africans enslaved in the Carolina lowcountry and also applies to the unique language developed, and more importantly a way of thinking and viewing the world and the challenges of being enslaved.
Seldom considered today is that those enslaved laughed! Laughter was a revolutionary act! It lay beyond the bonds of authority and control; it originates from within and affirms humanity's "timeless will." Next to freedom, it is one of the enslaved greatest feats! Capturing that oral tradition in digital form is challenging; it is harder to sell. It is difficult to convince people to take their eyes off the computer to understand the past.
40
But you should feel encouraged that at least one person reading your comment wanted a link to learn more about your project.
2
Thanks! I was having trouble with the link!
Here's a short form work (8 p)--my best, I think (certainly my favorite!)--finished today! Free! Complete with artwork from leading artists of the period (Alice Huger Ravenel, photographer Marion Post Wolcott, and rare Paris engravings by Pierre-Georges Jeanniot (1896).
Its form is part of the writing--as are the carvings on a drum.
If I can't get rich, I'll have fun giving it away!
For all at the Times:"The Cutting Fool" [http://bit.ly/sharpaxe].
Messages: [https://twitter.com/walterrhett]
Here's a short form work (8 p)--my best, I think (certainly my favorite!)--finished today! Free! Complete with artwork from leading artists of the period (Alice Huger Ravenel, photographer Marion Post Wolcott, and rare Paris engravings by Pierre-Georges Jeanniot (1896).
Its form is part of the writing--as are the carvings on a drum.
If I can't get rich, I'll have fun giving it away!
For all at the Times:"The Cutting Fool" [http://bit.ly/sharpaxe].
Messages: [https://twitter.com/walterrhett]
2
I'm not convinced. There are more musicians because the barriers-to-entry have been dramatically lowered.
Bands that would have been able to support themselves full-time forty years ago are sleeping on floors in order to make ends meet. (They have been at least sleeping on my son's floor.) The amount for most life performances by most bands is a pittance. If you do the arithmetic they could only survive because they are working other jobs or simply doing with less.
Bands that would have been able to support themselves full-time forty years ago are sleeping on floors in order to make ends meet. (They have been at least sleeping on my son's floor.) The amount for most life performances by most bands is a pittance. If you do the arithmetic they could only survive because they are working other jobs or simply doing with less.
57
But the data also shows the artists are making more per-capita. You can't just will away that fact by jamming your fingers in your ears and chanting "I'm not convinced."
@ scott....... and how do we arrive at this per capita figure? one factor is that older bands, bands that made millions in the old music industry, are continuing to tour and are able to charge BIG prices for a ticket. per capita is a useless stat. per capita everybody in the usa is rich!
Let's be real: streaming services like Spotify that compensate artists with a pittance wouldn't exist if it weren't for illegal file sharing having shell-shocked musical artists into believing their choice is between no money or almost no money for their hard-earned recordings. Not all music should be performed live, as both Glenn Gould and The Beatles well understood.
Artists making their real living doing something other than their art -- e.g. the jazz musician that teaches online lessons, the writer with speaking engagements, the composer working on video games, etc -- are indications that the internet has devalued the artwork itself to the extent that far fewer creatives can make a living off of simply creating art for direct consumption by their fans.
Artists making their real living doing something other than their art -- e.g. the jazz musician that teaches online lessons, the writer with speaking engagements, the composer working on video games, etc -- are indications that the internet has devalued the artwork itself to the extent that far fewer creatives can make a living off of simply creating art for direct consumption by their fans.
98
NO, NO, NO!! This article is so misleading, it borders on being completely irresponsible...First, it forgets to point out that Napster was STEALING. It was based upon willful copyright infringement. Next, talk to some established artists like David Byrne or Marc Ribot. Anyone who has been involved in the arts for many years will tell you that the "sharing" economy has in most cases destroyed a once-healthy marketplace. However, creative careers are thriving for bottom-feeders who work for low rates, and have no idea that the fees they are accepting will never sustain them as a lifelong artist. These "diverse voices" mostly live in poverty!!!
134
@Steve (NY, NY): "[The article] forgets to point out that Napster was STEALING. It was based upon willful copyright infringement."
Good point. The article does not use the word "copyright" even once. You can see the Times's blind spot by what is omitted in the sentence beginning: "The intersection between commerce, technology and culture ..." Where does the LAW figure into this?
Good point. The article does not use the word "copyright" even once. You can see the Times's blind spot by what is omitted in the sentence beginning: "The intersection between commerce, technology and culture ..." Where does the LAW figure into this?
9
So can you explain all the personal and industry income data? Remember that the sources used in this article count the income from waiting in the food industry data, not the arts.
The "established artists" are hurting because they're becoming irrelevant, their audience is dying off, and they have more competition from the 99% of artists, but those aren't as complementary as blaming the interwebs.
The "established artists" are hurting because they're becoming irrelevant, their audience is dying off, and they have more competition from the 99% of artists, but those aren't as complementary as blaming the interwebs.
It's insulting .
How about "trickle down journalism ".