Can you guys drive the 800 miles, pay your own travel and cover the cost of your band at no expense to us?

Q&A:

For of all, these are opinions.  I don't have everything figured out.  These are only observations from my vantage point and do not relate to every scenario...

1. How do you make a living and pay your bills?

I'm diverse.  Everyone is different and has a different approach to how they support themselves on the creative side of the music biz.  Instead of putting all my eggs in one basket, I've spread them into many.  I wear the hat of a songwriter, writing not only for myself but also for other artists.  I also perform in a duo and travel, making money off concerts, etc.  In addition I produce projects for artists and do a little session work.  What I'm doing changes from week to week.  It's always music oriented and relates to one of those pre-mentioned avenues (Songwriting, Artistry, Production).  

2. Why doesn't super talented so-and-so not have a record deal?

A.  They may not want one.

B.  Talent is only part of what is needed to succeed.  One must also have a likable personality.  Artist persona on stage and off…and they may not have the backing, financing or already built-in fan base that labels have to see these days.

C.  Is what they are doing going to fill a need in the market?

3. I've had a number of older listeners ask me,  "Why do I have to listen to all these young cookie cutter groups on the radio that I don't relate to?"

Couple reasons…

You and others like you aren't buying the CDs/songs of the more mature, seasoned artists that you relate to.  The record companies aren't going to get behind and push something that isn't selling.  They'd lose more money than they already are.

It's easier for the college age band/artist to hop in a van and travel across the country to play a show for free.  When you're thirty+ and have a wife and bills to pay, you can't be as free and sacrificing with your time.  It's a shame because by the time many artists reach thirty+ they've figure themselves out.  They have a firmer grasp on the art of performance and songwriting but now they don't have the flexibility the younger up and coming artists do.  

Those are a few reasons you have to listen to younger,  less mature artist expose their views of life, liberty and the pursuit of rock-n-roll dreams through oftentimes ill crafted songs.

4. Why do all the songs on the radio 'sound' the same?  

Businessmen and corporations own and run labels, not musicians.  The bottom line is the bottom line.  If the companies know that the consumer is going to buy a certain product (even over and over under a different name and face) they will continue to produce that product.  It's too risky to take a chance on artists that don't fit the proven formula.

Remember, this is commercial music that we are talking about here.  NOT ART!

5. Do you get paid on every show?  

No.  …NO!  The following is a common question/Statement:  "Can you guys drive the 800 miles, pay your own travel and cover the cost of your band at no expense to us?  It'll be great exposure!"  Translation: "You are going in the hole on this one.  I hope there's some additional funds in the band account because you need to spend for the off chance that more then ten people (only two of who will remember you in a month's time) will show to the event that the promotor will forget to advertise.  

Note: I did the math on a $5,000 gig that we did recently. Here's the breakdown…(I also listed this breakdown in another post.)

Total the venue pays:  $5,000  (1/2 day travel/CONCERT/1/2 travel)

Our expenses: 

 -$750 to manager

-$750 to booking agent

-$900 to backing band members (3 backing band members at $300 each)

-$1,000 Van rental, trailer and fuel

-$200 Hotel

-$150 Food

Artist take home pay:  $1,250  

That's when you're fortunate enough to get $5,000+ gigs.  MOST clubs pay less than $500 to the artist/band and MOST festivals pay less than $1500.  Do the math.

The Death of Music As We've Known It

Eighty five didn't seem that long ago/Flying paper airplanes out my bedroom window/E-Street band playing loud and clear/Down Bound Train ringing in my ear-Watson & Nash

Somewhere around 1982-83, my small but growing music collection was equally divided between LP albums, 45s and cassettes.  I'd inherited the best of 1950s pop music, mostly my parent's old  45s  and a huge collection of LPs dating from the early 60s through the late seventies from my two older brothers.  My musical repertoire  consisted of everyone from Little Richard and The Everly Brothers to The Beatles and Neil Diamond.  I also had a steady diet of smaller acts like Huey 'Piano' Smith and Cozy Powell.  As long as I can remember I was in love with both music and lyrics.  I enjoyed the mood that both conveyed.  I was also in love with the experience owning albums, those musical worlds created by various artists.  With my recorded player blasting in the background, I'd pour over LP liner notes and gaze at the colorful album artwork.  I wanted to know everything I could about the recording artist and the players on their team.  Billy Joel and Elton John were heros of mine.  I remember memorizing the names of the band members and studio players on their earlier albums.  I could identify their 'licks' even if they were playing on other albums.  I can't forget those sunny summer days, with my bedroom window open, smell of honeysuckle winding through my red carpeted bedroom and Dobie Gray's 'Drift Away' playing in the background.  The scent of the outside world met the smell of the freshly ripped plastic that I'd torn off my latest album find.  The white painted walls of my room were filled with fold-out posters that I'd found inside of albums I'd purchased.  Laying across my dark blue bed cover were open album  covers and their inner sleeves pulled out so I could read the lyrics while the records played.  Owning an album, something tactile,  seemed to connect me  with the singer/songwriter on the other end.  The unveiling of a new album of one of my favorite artists was an experience that bordered on the spiritual for me.  Smell, touch, visual, sound.  I'd save my $5 weekly allowance up so I could walk the aisle of the music section in our little local department store and make my next selection.  Once purchased, I wouldn't just drop the needle on the radio hit.  I'd let the album play, side one, track after track, then side two.  I'd hoped to discover something intriguing and moving hidden around whatever 'hit' had been pushed to us over the radio waves.  Again, the album as a whole was an experience.  

By the mid eighties, around age ten, I'd started my own formal music lessons.   Amidst learning scales and exercises on the piano, I'd listen to my album collection and pull out various 'riffs' that I'd found here and there on different songs and incorporate them into my own elementary studies.  Without this vast landscape of musical offerings to emulate I would have probably stopped my interest in formal music education at the scales.  The printed lyric on the inside sleeves of the albums greatly influenced the small poem-songs that I'd began to write.  I could see the words jump off the page that were moving me as I listened to these songs.  …but the print got smaller.  

Remove the needle from your record player, pop in a cassette tape and fast forward a few years to the late 80s.  I'd started buying cassettes to replace my albums.  All my friends were getting Jam boxes and walkman devices…You couldn't play a record on those.  You needed a cassette!  I have to admit that I was, at that point in my life, more apt to fast forward to the hit.  Still, I'd accidentally land on a 'B-side' (or whatever we were calling it) and fall in love.   By 1989 my friends parents began to purchase them CD players.  CD players?  I remember being confused on how we were supposed to play our records in these CD players.  I was confused.  At the time I thought they were devices that just made your older records sound better.  Seeing that it was a completely different medium of playing music, I stuck with my collection of LPs and cassettes.  I'd already invested in this huge collection of music that served me just fine and CD players were still a bit pricey at the time.  While hanging out at friends houses listening to music, we could migrate directly to the 'main' song.  No more fast forwarding and rewinding, getting there too early or late and having to listen to one of the unknowns.  You could also put the song on repeat or if you were at a rich kid's house, he might have an automatic disk changer, where you could go to your favorite song on a different disc…Allot easier than getting up and dropping the needle on the record player to your favorite song or having to change out and re-sleeve your albums.  By the time I was sixteen I owned my own CD player.  The majority of my musical purchases were still cassettes, primarily because the 1990 Ford Tempo that I was driving had a cassette player and no CD player.  Even with the changes from album to cassette (we'll forget about 8-tracks) to CDs you still got something tactile.  You could flip the lid on a CD case, fold out the artwork and read the liner notes.  You could still enjoy the images from the pricey photoshoot.  Tactile.  Touch, Visual…Experience.  

I was in college in the early nineties, when the internet bloom hit.  I didn't spend too much time back then on the internet because our only provider was dial up, even in my college town.  During this time period, I'd also lost a little bit of interest in what was happening in the commercial music world.  I'd taken the route of studying music at the University and had my head wrapped in Wagner scores and Bach Inventions.  I'd traded my musical experience of being an outside spectator for becoming a performer and creator of music myself.  Claiming both Piano and Trombone as principal instruments in college, most of my time was spent studying scores and memorizing sheet music for countless performances.  Symphonic, jazz and chamber music was my daily regimen.  While my eyes and ears were lifted away from the pulse of commercial 'radio' music a change was taking place.  

Technology will eventually screw those over who make their living in entertainment and the performing arts.  Enter mp3 player!  You could now download your music directly from the internet.  Labels were scratching their heads.  The writing was on the wall.  Downloading would eventually bankrupt the music industry.  The industry recognized that legislation would need to be passed to protect the artist, songwriters and labels.   Before the industry could get the foundation laid to build a shelter from the impending storm Napster (in it's original form) entered the scene.  Everyone from college kids to housewives in Texas were filling their computers  with hundreds and sometimes thousands of free downloaded songs.  No attention was given to how this was affecting the pocketbooks of the songwriters and artists.  No one cared…but there was still hope.  People were still buying CDs.  True, they were on the decline but people were still buying them.

Somewhere along the way the world got smaller and our attention spans got shorter.  There was a huge shift in our consciousness, in the way we connected to our world.  Dial-up was replaced by cable modems and DSL.  Our computer kept getting faster.  The world was and still is, at our finger tips.  We can now shop, play games, conduct business, date, read books, watch movies, listen to music and even live second lives all online.  The experience of owning various tactile products, such as CDs and books, have been replaced by the ease of having your whole world exist in one thin 19 inch flat rectangular device.   The arts and entertainment, while initially experiencing the gains of using this device as a means of easy exposure are now suffering at it's fingertips.  Illegal downloading has a choke hold on the music industry and it's face is turning a deeper shade of blue.  Be sure to read the blog I posted on November 9th entitled 'The LimeWire Debate'.   Digital Downloading has forced the industry into a position of breaking 'tracks' instead of 'acts'.  Gone are the days of watching a single artist develop through the years and mature in their sound.  Gone are the days of musical experimentation with artists.  No more Elton Johns, no more Billy Joels…A hit has to be produced immediately and mass marketed and if it doesn't stick, the artist is gone.  There is no time or money to allow the first album to do 'just o.k.'  The artist has got to knock it out of the park their first time up to bat.  There is no artist development.  Artist development was done in the old days.  Those days are gone.  If the framework was the same in the late 1960s early 70s, Billy Joel would have released 'Cold Spring Harbor' and would have been dropped from his label because it wasn't a big enough hit.  We would not have 'Piano Man', 'Just The Way You Are' or 'Uptown Girl'.  Elton John would have been dropped after 'Empty Sky' and we wouldn't have 'Crocodile Rock', 'Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me' or 'Candle In The Wind'.  Very few artists are truly allowed to grow and get to the great stuff.  So many extraordinary artists are being lost under this new system.  There are too many artists some deserving, many undeserving being sent through the turnstiles.  Those with a relative hit and the money to market it continue on while The Beach Boys are sent home.

A whole generation is coming up void of that magical 'experience' of devouring an album note by note, line by line.  It is rare that a culture is created around an album.  Say farewell to the days of concept albums like 'Dark Side of The Moon', 'Pet Sounds' or 'Sgt. Pepper'.  It's sad.  I hope we can somehow get back to that old all encompassing aural, tactile experience of owning a collection of songs released by a smaller, more select group of artists.  I hope the industry figures out a way to market the experience again.  

The LimeWire Debate

My sister-in-law 'Facebooked' me yesterday to ask me what I thought about the LimeWire debate and the Federal Courts 10/26/10 decision.  She was offered a 'Bring LimeWire Back' t-shirt and heard arguments for bringing it back.  Curious as to what I thought, she asked my opinion.   Being both an artist and songwriter, who has been active in the music industry since the late 1990s, I have a unique perspective on the issue.  First, let me clarify that I have nothing against free downloading of music if permission has been obtained from the artist/songwriter, label or representative of those parties.  Allowing the free downloading of a few songs off a project or a 'previously unreleased' song that may not appear on the artist's project(s) is a great means of promotion, again, provided that the parties involved in the creation consent.  What I firmly believe to be unethical and immoral is illegally downloading the intellectual property of someone who depends on royalties for their livelihood and who has not given permission for the download.   

Concerning LimeWire, they were, to my understanding allowing downloads of intellectual properties (music/songs) to those who used their software, without the express consent of the creators of those intellectual properties.  For those of you who don't know, LimeWire is a free peer to peer client program that runs on operating systems supported by the Java software platform (Mac and Windows).  Peer to peer file sharing emerged after the widespread adoption of internet service, and has now become one of the most used file sharing methods, especially for music and films.  

On October 26, 2010, Judge Kimbe Wood, a US federal court judge, issued an injunction forcing LimeWire to prevent "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality" of its software. A trial investigating the damages necessary to compensate the affected record labels is scheduled to begin in January 2011. 

Many people have this 'stick it to the record label'…'Take back music' mentality that is ill informed.  They view file sharing of songs/illegal downloading as only affecting the major labels and wealthy artists.  Those who support the illegal downloading of music speak of how this is somehow benefiting artists and songwriters. Those in support of LimeWire argue that 'sticking it' and downloading regardless of whether or not permission was obtained  will force the labels to fall and music will somehow be better because of this. Nothing could be further from the truth.   What will happen is that songwriters will suffer the most, artist will have to tour relentlessly with no rest or downtime to create new music, recording artists will primarily be composed of 25 year olds and younger, (with labels closing) the music that is produced will consist of music by those who are wealthy or who have obtained the wealth from outside sources, to promote music to the masses and the selection of 'good' music will narrow. Songwriters will more than likely suffer the most, as they make most of their income from royalties gained from mechanical sales and licensing of songs (not from artist ticket sales).  Speaking at a number of music industry conferences, I've lately made the comment, "I glad I'm both an artist and a songwriter because if I were just trying to make it as a songwriter these days, I couldn't." 

Proponents of LimeWire state that LimeWire's closure will not only effect file sharers around the world, but will open the door for legal action and injunctions against any file sharing software, service, or user.  This is stated as if it were a bad thing and as if illegal activity (downloading without the express permission of the intellectual copyright owner) should be tolerated because it raises too many questions about other potential infringements.   If peer-to-peer sharing software, companies, etc.  are negatively impacting the livelihoods of the creators of these intellectual properties, shouldn't there be investigations and lawsuits?

Advocates state that peer to peer file sharing may help artists increase record sales by obtaining fans that they otherwise might not have been reached.  They state that when music is not paid for and rather, 'shared' there will be an increase in CD sales and concert attendance.  They state that similar artists or genres of music may benefit as people look for similar acts.   It's true that file sharing may help a few artists, but these artists are primarily previously established label artists with financial backing and artists who are able to obtain financial backing to promote a project.   The musical landscape will continue to be dictated by the elite.  Non-label investors will dictate what style music is backed based on personal preferences.  Not only will MAJOR labels suffer but INDIE labels will also suffer.  Many outlets for 'fringe' acts will no longer exist.  Smaller (newer) acts who are unable to obtain support to tour and record will 'burn-out' before gaining a grassroots following large enough to support their income/expenses.  The musical landscape will consist of artists who are under 30 and single (without a consistent tour line up of at least 250 dates year after year artists will not make enough financially to support mortgages and families).  Subject matter of songs will thus, never mature.  If the system collapses new music will consist of a very few good artists/songs and a whole lot of ill-produced, poorly recorded and mixed songs that lack structure and direction.  Remember most of the music that you hear and enjoyed today (most-not all) have come from artists who came through the major label system or their sound was inspired by emulating a major label artist's sound.  Without labels, there will be a certain digression.  Crafting of songs will fly out the window because those making music will be those who don't "have to produce great songs" to make a living from music.  Plus, without tour support from labels or backers (most of whom recoup their investments from record sales) artists will make peanuts at their live shows.  Especially if the artists tour with bands/are bands.

Do the math, imagine you are an artist who is fortunate enough to get $5,000 from a venue to come do a concert…Which is very uncommon for non-label artists:

Total the venue pays:  $5,000  (1/2 day travel/CONCERT/1/2 travel)

Our expenses: 

 -$750 to manager

-$750 to booking agent

-$900 to backing band members (3 backing band members at $300 each)

-$1,000 Van rental, trailer and fuel

-$200 Hotel

-$150 Food

Artist take home pay:  $1,250  

That's when you're fortunate enough to get $5,000+ gigs.  MOST clubs pay less than $500 to the artist/band and MOST festivals pay less than $1500.  Do the math.

Oh, oh, but you are going to sell CDs and merch at the club venue.  Yeah, but not enough to really make a dent in your ever accruing travel and production debt for the project that you are trying to sell.  Remember, most people aren't going to purchase your CDs because no one listens to CDs anymore…You say sell them a card containing a code where they can download your songs?  Why would they want that? They've already downloaded the songs for free.  Tee-shirts?  Woo!!! That's going to add a lot to your budget.

PLUS, even if giving away away music helps the artists, it hurts SONGWRITERS and their families who are dependent on mechanical and performance royalties for income.

Currently, songwriters make a whopping $.091 per song per album sold.  The rate may be a percentage of a cent higher at the point in time that you are reading this…So let's go with an even $.10, best case as a future statutory standard mechanical royalty.  The artist goes out and sells 100,000 CDs (It's more likely that an indie, non mass marketed, artist will sell less than 10,000 in a year). So, in a best case scenario, if the artist sells 100,000 CDs the songwriter (if he/she is the only writer on the song) will make around $10,000.  

Imagine, if the fan already has the album for free.  What incentive does the consumer have to purchase the CD?  The artist's star power?  Without label or big money support most artists are going to be traveling as B-level artists…and who cares about getting their autographs?  No one is going to buy the CDs and the few who may, will not make that big of a difference financially. So, in turn, SONGWRITERS SUFFER.

File sharing/illegal downloading will DEFINITELY HURT songwriters.  I've already seen this hit my own pocketbook. I've consistently had song cuts for ten years now.  Music that I've written has appeared on numerous projects.  These songs have been with both major and indie artists, on the charts and projects that were on Billboard.  Though I continue to have songs make it onto projects my royalties are smaller and smaller.  I firmly believe that the decrease in my royalties and my songwriter friends' royalties  are directly linked to illegal downloads and the idea that 'music should be free'. 

The site www.bringlimewireback.com states:   "When world famous musicians start working at McDonald's because nobody buys their records or attends their concerts (cause they got it free on Limewire) we might change this stance."  That's such an ignorant statement.  Musicians who are 'world famous' are in the position because of the record labels.  The 'label' system hasn't crashed and burned completely.  Artists are still getting funding and are making royalties off of CD sales, even though CD sales have plummeted.  (Those are the major artists).  The label system is burning though and YES it is causing some signed artists to have to get other jobs.  Don't get me wrong, John Mayer isn't having to go to work at Burger King but you'd be surprised at the number of new signed artists (to major labels) that I know who moonlight as baristas at Starbucks or who work as waiters to pay the bills.  Why?  Labels can't pay out advances like they used to because of illegal downloads and the death of the CD.  These are not hack acts that I'm talking about that are working second jobs, these are guys who take off from their waiter and barista jobs to tour in the U.S. with other bigger acts and who fly out to Europe to do shows, who have a huge following but who can't make ends meet and have to work part time jobs, red-eyed, just to get by.  It's a shame.  Does the average consumer of music know this? No!  Not unless they live in Nashville or L.A. and wonder why the girl working behind the counter at their favorite coffeeshop looked a lot like____________.

www.bringlimewireback.com petitions people to get behind their cause and states:

"(Their) petition is simple, it will show the record industry that a large number of people value free file sharing services, and that some people care more about the music than the money."

There's this idea that we're sticking it to the labels and that it only hurts the label and helps the artist.  That is simply not true and even if it were, who made LimeWire Robin Hood that they could steal from the 'rich' (most of whose employees are not rich).

The average consumer (average person who downloads) isn't downloading hours upon hours of INDIE bands.  They don't want that.  They are illegally downloading music produced and promoted by MAJOR LABELS.  If you are a person who's 'shared' music, go look at your playlist.  Are the majority of the artists making up that list MAJOR or INDIE? My point is if the listeners are supposedly 'not into' the music the majors have 'thrusted' upon us why are they illegally downloading major label music?  Aren't those listeners making the statement "We are into your music but we want to take you down because you've created music that we are into but say we aren't."  That statement is about as confusing as the hypocritical 'anti-big label' sentiment.  I'd rather they just say, "We want something for free and we don't really care who it hurts or helps."

 Illegal downloading will only serve to help a handful of fortunate artists and will eventually make music worse.

The main point though is that the supporters of LimeWire really don't care about whether it hurts the artists/songwriters/labels/managers/agents/promotors or not.  It really doesn't matter to them.  The supporters are getting something for free and they want to continue to get something for free.  Music is also not deemed as something 'worthy' enough, in their eyes' to pay for.  Even if it is deemed worthy enough, the 'free-downloaders' would rather have something for free than pay for it. 

Again, let me clarify that I have nothing against free downloading of music if permission has been obtained from the artist/songwriter, label or representative of those parties.