The end of music recording for profit for most everyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/busine...-royalties.html

It appears that this is happening already for quite some time now... And it seems to make sense, from a different perspective, that isn't tight to piracy, and/or streaming services:

There's a problem with a recording: It's canned music! It's an array of digits (in digital music), which means that one little by little looses the feeling of uniqueness (as it would happen in a concert), and just superficially satisfied a need: To listen to something...

Fortunately nowadays there are many inexpensive ways to create a recording, that sounds very bit professional as these huge ones years ago. At least for most ensembles, up to a quintet, lets say. The minute you need an orchestra the money goes WAAAAAYYY up.

But the point is that the market is flooded with various music ensembles, recordings, compositions, productions... All which are cheaply made. Some times it doesn't show, but most time it does.

I think that a recording should be treated as the advertising media and not much else now... Advertising for the live show, the score, the existence of the artist.

... and to add insult to injury are the hordes of musicians who are not only willing to play for free but actively pursue venues where they are expected to play for free.

It's a perfect example of: "The producers get rich, while the artist starves." Except, in the case of YouTube, I would lump the service itself under that banner. It is a transition period, but I am still waiting for the professionals to begin demanding a larger cut of the advertising revenue from the service. YouTube brings in billions. No reason why the artists themselves can't earn more, except the business owners are greedy. Eventually, I am sure there will be backlash, and an eventual balancing out, but for now, the wave is certainly in a trough.

I think it would be interesting to see an economic comparison of how this compares to the "good old days" for a typical musician. But there are some barriers to doing this: Obviously, Spotify, Pandora and Youtube replace the radio-play that the music might have gotten at one time (although you have to wonder how much radio play "avant-cello" music ever would have gotten) This would require that somebody actually figure out the arcane credits system used by ASCAP. (I personally don't know anybody who actually understands this.) I rather doubt that a direct comparison here would show much better profit potential under the old system, but that is speculation.

But, of course, since these are on-demand services, they also replace many CD or record sales. So, a fair comparison would also require an understanding of how the record companies computed their costs for record promotion and distribution prior to calculating the net points and distributing a share to the musician. As best I recall, the rule was, "there are never net points." All promotional and other services were performed by subsidiaries of the contracting company at ridiculous markups to ensure not only that no musician ever saw a net point, but that the vast majority ended up owing large sums to the record company.


Any bright accountants out there feel like taking a crack at a fair comparison of the old and new systems?

K.

It would be really interesting to know what percentage the artists get. For example, Vladimir Horowitz commanded anywhere from 80-90% of his box office receipts, with only 10% going to the venue. I'm sure he had a similar deal with his records.

I doubt if any classical recording artist today even comes close to that.

I can't be sure but my gut feeling (and experience) would be that there's ABSOLUTELY no way that any artist would get 80-90% of his record deals. No way...

And about the box office, I'd assume that this would exclude expenses to cover the costs of orchestras, renting parts, the concert hall rental, etc... After that, yes, perhaps he'd get 80%, but again, I can't imagine him grabbing 80% of the gross income of a night in Carnegie Hall (though I'm less certain than that of the record industry with which I do have a small connection)...

The money is in music education. For good reason - music isn't a business. In recorded history there were very few musicians who made money off of printed music or recordings. If they made money, it was either from concert tours or from wealthy patrons who kept them as resident artists. The ones who had the most stable, consistently prosperous careers were always the educators. Besides, cultivating a child's musical potential and awareness is by far the most important thing we can do.

I pulled the number from an interview in which Horowitz was asked how much he made. The interviewer said, "Of course, it helps that I hear you take in 80% or more of the gross." Horowitz nodded and said, "Well--" as if he didn't really want to answer it.

So, you're absolutely right. It could be off, but the evidence from the interview suggests it's accurate.

EDIT:

I've gone back and looked at some numbers (briefly, if you're interested).

Stein Auditorium seats 2,804
(Wikipedia.. I didn't go there and count )

Average ticket (Horowitz, 1980's): $250
Average ticket (everyone else, 2004): $50.35

The Horowitz ticket price was based on two sources. One, the interview in which they discussed percentages, which I mentioned before. The other is a video of Horowitz's return to Russia in 1986. The source for average ticket prices is: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4601934/ns/bus...e/#.UQh12vLSHe4

So, let's look at gross numbers:

Horowitz: $701,000 (1980's)
Everyone else: $141,181.40 (2004)

Adjusted for inflation:

Horowitz: $1,415,005.48
Everyone else: $166,257.32

If Horowitz took 80% of the gross, the hall would still receive $283,001.10 (adjusted for inflation), which is almost double what the hall would receive for "everyone else".

Horowitz's take on that night: $1,132,004.38 (adjusted for inflation)

And that's why a guy like Horowitz didn't care about recording contracts. He took in over a million on ONE NIGHT in Carnegie Hall.

I claim no particular expertise in the area of accounting, or of adjusting currancy for inflation. Neither did I enjoy any inside track into what super-star musicians were actually earning. But, I can see what has happened to professional musicians, and to the "music industry" that supported them for many, many years.

In fact, their plight is so disturbing, the trend so dismal, and the general public so very oblivious, that I thought I might write about it a few months ago, right here on the Forums:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthrea...tml#Post1935590

The issues are complex, and many. Here's one: Has anyone (beside me) thought about the prospect of having recorded music REMOVED from your grasp?

Ed

How did music survive before recording technology? I think it is probably good that musicians will have to find their revenue primarily in performance or teaching.

If people won't buy a $14 CD, what makes you think they'll go to a $50 concert?

It's only very recently that the public starts expecting to get music for free, whenever they choose. YouTube and sharing downloads (illegally or otherwise) etc have put the recording industry almost out of business, not to mention the closure of record shops. Here in UK, the well-established HMV chain of record shops is under administration, despite large numbers of people visiting to browse, especially in the big London store (but not buy - they probably see what they want, then get on their computer at home to see where they can get it for free....).

It's a matter of conjecture how much longer the Polygram and BMG conglomerates (which have DG, Decca, RCA etc - many of the big-name musicians record for them) can survive. Maybe the smaller labels might find a way around the problem.

. . . And the professionals and experts who have invested their lives in that recording industry? What of the:
* recording engineers
* the mixers
* the owners of studios
* the accoustic engineers
* the manufacturers of high-end microphones and tape drives
* the manufacturers of high-end digital equipment
* the manufacturers of tape . . .

What do you think these professionals will be better-off doing?

AND - welcome to the Forums!
Ed

I have gotten music for free for a very long time, whenever I choose. Back when I was a kid, we used to have these things called "radios"...

The $14 CD can easily be replicated by any number of streaming recordings. If the one you actually want to hear isn't on Youtube, you can still find other and probalby even better performers. Legal or not, moral or not, it's an easily replaceable commodity. Until Youtube disappears, that's our reality. Live performances are an entirely different experience; you can't replicate that with your iPod.

I think it would be interesting to read accounts when piano rolls were introduced and the impact they had on working musicians. (Piano rolls were the first form of musical digital recording if I am not mistaken.)

Well, what happens to anyone in obsolete jobs?

It's unfortunate that once-valuable expertise becomes irrelevant because of changes in technology, but that's been happening since prehistory, when people started making the shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculture.

When did recording artists or musicians ever get the lion's share? Like the age of sail, it was a very short time and only for a lucky few. Artists from Chuck Berry's generation signed terrible contracts and got next to nothing for the millions of records they sold. In the old, old days, musicians and composers had to seek wealthy patrons and live on their whims. For musicians, there was a short golden age of sorts where Lennon & McCartney, Prince and the U2 generation did spectacularly well financially. However, that golden age was only maybe 30 years long out of the last 500 years of music history.

Even today, big stars such as Beyonce still make huge money, even if it is not all from selling recordings. Dr. Dre makes obscene money from selling his name. An artist has to be smarter (or luckier) and branch out to more than music if they want the huge, huge money. There are fewer mid-level stars today. Much of that oxygen is taken by the TV reality shows. The reality show model is $10 million per year for a famous judge or host, $1 million a year for a lesser-name judge. The winner might get $500,000 for one year. X-factor pays $5 million over several years. For the other shows, half of the contest winners don't do that much after that one year. On a big show like American idol the top ten might get $100k for that one year for doing the tour. On the other shows it is probably more like $20k for the top ten.

Yes, the music industry business model is changing, but there was only a short golden age for recording artists. That golden age was a lucky confluence of new technology and new consumer demand that meant that bands with modest talent had the opportunity to make millions by being at the right place at the right time and walking through the door. That window is mostly closed for the average talents. It is now mostly the top promoters and/or the very top talent that can make the big money.

As for the article, avant cello? Someone tell me when has a self-described avant cellist or similar niche ever made decent money? I would guess they weren't doing too well in 1800, or 1900, or 1950, 60, 70, 80, 90 or 2000. Back to the article, 1.5 million plays? Think in terms of radio, that same amount of listens might translate into 10 or 20 plays of a song during drive time in Los Angeles or New York on a big FM station. How much money would an artist get for 15 radio plays of their song? I would guess about the same or less than the $1600 the artist is cited as getting in the article. Times are changing, but it isn't as bad as the avant cellist is making it sound. Even going back in time to the golden age, probably would be of little use to such a niche artist.

So have I - most of my listening is via BBC Radio3's live performances and digital recordings on DAB. Plenty of first-rate performers to listen to. But I can't order the Beeb to play Trifonov's latest Tchaik 1 recording, whereas someone with the knowhow will know how to download that recording for free....

Far more interesting is the fact that 90 percent of the people I see everyday day have earbuds listening to something, like what?

Some “changes in technology” may have contributed to the problems described in this thread, but the real culprit lies in changes to attitudes and standards among audiences.

Changes in attitude: Just as Bennevis stated, there has developed this sense that one should be able to listen to whatever one wishes, on demand, and pay nothing for the privilege. Availability, and anonymous consumption, have contributed to this attitude change. Also, there is virtually NO PENALTY, and no enforcement, for violation of what is free and what is not. I never, EVER, snuck into a concert. I never stole an LP, or a tape, or a CD. I never copied sheet music without explicit permission. But now, miraculously, there is no longer any cost - neither in terms of payment, nor in penalty. “Legal-schmeegal! Just let me consume freely.”

Changes in standards: Generally, the recording industry went to great lengths to make recorded music sound “live”. Without exception, every single aspect of recording and reproduction was examined, analyzed, and developed. There was fierce competition among studios, and among “labels”, to capture and present the “truest” sounds. Inferior recordings, along with inferior performances, fell by the wayside.

And today? It accomplishes very little to use a perfectly placed, studio-grade Neumann microphone for recording, when playback will be through $5 earbuds, or on a cell phone. “Signal-to-noise ratio? Don’t bother me with math, dude, I’ve got tunes to download.” “Balance? We’re talking music -- not gymnastics here!” “Overtones? What I can’t hear is (obviously) not important.” And so, the Mickey Mouse recording group responds to the requirements of the new standards . . . and on it goes.

Sadly, we musicians have allowed these changes. In some instances, we have even facilitated them. But here is what really gets to me: Most musicians, even on these Forums, are completely oblivious to what we have allowed to happen, and to where it is leading. And, of those who are aware, only a small percentage even cares.

[Descending from soap box . . . . . putting podium away . . . . . taking blood pressure pill . . . . . returning to placid frame of mind . . . . . donning ear buds . . . . . listening to new age . . . . . I feel oblivion is at hand . . . . .]

Ed

It leads to lower standards and lower quality mass produced music. Change always leads to change though and there are a lot of young musicians out there who have stellar talent.

Maybe we'll go back to vinyl which is a harder medium to copy from or maybe some computer genius will come up with a way to encrypt every CD or digital song in a way that doesn't allow it to be copied but once.

Where there's a will there's a way. Things come and go as fads and MP3's in their Apple form are quite horrible to listen to as is the Apple line in their restricted medium.

Hem... there is a way to protect and encrypt every CD or digital song in a way that doesn't allow it to be copied but once. I present to you the biggest flop in recent history of music: DRM ladies and gents

I don't know if it's still the case, but at some point itunes was selling two different versions of the same track: One in low bitrate and DRM and one in higher bitrate and without DRM. Talk about poking your own eye out, right?

Yep, it's a great marketing pitch, but I'm not sure it will overcome the opportunity cost perspective of your average buyer. Not to mention, I can watch those same live performances on YouTube, and if I want to really ratchet up the sound, I'll buy some extra speakers (which I can re-use, whereas I can't re-use my concert ticket).


wr- thank you for clearing that one up. I was about to jump all over it, until your witty retort beat me to it.


I think it's important to realize that the most successful artists are often the ones who exploit attitudes and standards among audiences, not the ones who go against the grain and try to define those things. You can fight the fight, but at the end of the day, you won't get paid, and you might lose an arm in the process. Or, you can follow the trends and find a way to get paid using current attitudes and standards. Just depends on how you choose to look at things..

And, regarding the "free sheet music" comment.. most (if not all) classical music is now in the public domain. Newer editions exist solely to preserve copyright claim on the music, and hence claim on potential revenues for selling said music.


Change happens, but for the vast majority of the time, it is neither good nor bad. Change is change. Where we perceive it to be good or bad lies in what we are used to/comfortable with, what we are willing to give up, and what we are not. There is a very famous saying that, "To be great, you must be willing to give up being good." Perhaps the music industry has been 'good', and is now working towards greatness. Certainly, there are more artists performing and playing now than ever before, especially with the advent of new mediums for the transmitting of that media. The more people do it, the more people value and celebrate it, and the better the 'thing' gets.

But I think the music industry has a LONG way to fall if we're going to say it's hurting. As long as execs, top artists, etc are all making mega millions, it's not the industry as a whole--it's the margin the bottom guy receives. Heck, you can't claim the industry is hurting when the freakin' janitor at Carnegie Hall makes half a million... nowhere else in the world does a janitor make that much!

Have you ever tried cleaning Carnegie Hall?



I certainly do not want to get into defining terms like “most successful artists”, and I agree with you about the MECHANICS of going with the flow. I also think in these terms: The Beatles certainly “exploit[ed] attitudes and standards among audiences”, and it was a very nice payday for them. In contrast, V. Horowitz, for example, essentially played his music on his terms (not in Russia, obviously), without much regard for changes in audience preferences. Monetarily, he did O.K., too. I am not sure who may have been more successful, or by what standards.

For Christmas, I received two recordings -- A CD with Yo-Yo Ma performing the music of Ennio Morricone, and a DVD documenting the musical development of Louis Armstrong. As you might expect, Mr. Ma’s playing is beautiful, and brilliant, and vibrant, and full of life. The recording engineer was wise enough to leave in the sounds of Mr. Ma’s breathing, as he articulates and phrases his bow. The playing is compelling!

One might expect similar from Mr. Armstrong - I did. I was disappointed. The chronologically early stuff was great: small group Dixieland Jazz. “Sachmo” was every bit the leader, and the innovator. When he improvised, one can hear him stretching the boundaries that existed at the time. His extroverted personality comes out the bell of the horn. But as time passed, the excitement, and the innovation, and the creativity noticeably subsided. The clothing changed, the band changed, the sets changed, the repertoire became “soft” and popular. Sadly, I believe Mr. Armstrong BECAME one of those who “follow the trends and find a way to get paid using current attitudes and standards.” He sold out, and it was a great artistic loss.

As I am certain I wrote earlier in this thread, it is a very complex subject. At least, we here, are wrestling with it!

Have you ever tried cleaning a school cafeteria?

The average salary for a school janitor is $18,000.
The average salary for a hospital janitor is $23,000.

You can't tell me, in good conscience, that cleaning Carnegie Hall is more taxing, demanding, or requires any level of expertise not found in the two janitorial professions above.


Yeah, I don't want to get into definitions, either. It detracts from the discussion, focusing on a "specific million dollars" (as if someone who makes $11M 'made it', but someone who only made $10.9M 'didn't make it').

I certainly agree that Vladimir Horowitz "made it". I'm not sure about your depiction of him, though. Was he not the gentleman who wrote a transcription of the "Stars and Stripes" to perform in Central Park on "I Am An American Day" in 1945? Wasn't that the year we won WW2, and when American Patriotism was at its highest? Certainly seems like he catered to the crowd on that occasion.

But even Horowitz was a product of attitudes and standards. Look at his performance style versus, say, Lang Lang's. Horowitz adopted a very conservative style of playing the piano, much like many of his contemporaries. Was it a product of his personal tastes? No. Who is born with the desire to sit still and pound keys? Was it taught to him through years of training within the community? Possibly, but regardless of whether it was an active or passive choice on Horowitz's part, he still performed in a manner the audience appreciated.

He also performed in the way that brought in the most money. In other words, he took to the stage, and when recording was "in vogue," he made many. I would argue that his career was as carefully crafted as any artist's, whether it's the Beatles or Justin Bieber. I think the biggest difference is that, until the dawn of the computer age, there were fewer avenues to choose from in terms of medium. But there were still choices to be made, and except for Horowitz's extreme duress when he stopped performing for a number of years, he seemed to make the choices that would bring in the most money.

And Horowitz certainly did more than "OK". haha I would say, based on what I can figure out about his revenue streams, that he was one of the wealthiest performers who ever lived. I can't find an accurate value of his net worth, but I would guess he's way up there with the top earners in the history of music.

I found an article in the Chicago Tribune, written the day after Horowitz's death, supporting my earlier claim that he took in 80% of the gross from his concerts: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-...owitz-keyboard.

I feel the monies maestro earned from his career are well overstated. At his death his entire estate was valued at just over three million dollars. This included his home so I feel some inaccuracies are being played here.

Don't be such a Smart Ass. We all know DRM was a failure. That doesn't mean other methods can't be used to protect music. Heck the industry can't even protect CDs and DVD's.

I don't consider Apple in anything I do on the computer. Maybe you're different. I purposely avoid Apple like the plaque. I'm amazed that people pay for a product which restricts what they do. Still can't get around that concept. I have heard that the sound quality of the players themselves, leaves a lot to be desired.

I can't understand that. I have used Macs in a professional capacity (writing, arranging, mixing and composing) on a daily basis since '95 and I have nothing but praise for how excellent they work. Restrictions? I haven't noticed any specific; I mean come on, it's a computer - a tool - if there's any restriction it's only my imagination.

As for the sound quality in iPods, iPhones they are fine; and that's my professional opinion. Sure, it's not vinyl (still sounds best), but for my everyday use they sound great.

But this is a digression from the OP's topic.

As you pointed out, ChrisBell, the topic was (generally) recording; but in my mind, "recording" and "playback" are as inseparable as a basketball and a hoop. And that brings me to my question:

When you professionally evaluate the sound quality of iPods and iPhones as "fine", and as "they sound great", are you actually asserting that the amplification, and the "speakers" within these devices produce a realistic musical sound?

Ed

Not sure what you mean with "a realistic sound". As soon as music is recorded it goes from being realistic to being approximated. When I feel an urge for realistic, I go to a concert or a jazz club . . .

They are loud enough for my ears and sound great whatever I play on them; orchestral, jazz, piano solo, etc. I prefer a non-coloured sound so I use the new in-ear plugs from Apple.

I am refering to fidelity, not loudness. Do they sound like you are right in the room with the orchestra, or the jazz combo, or . . . ?

Why am I explaining this to a professional?

Mainly because we're not sitting in the same room talking, I don't hear your voice, intonation, etc. And as we are on different continents with a different command of English I like to be really clear what we are talking about.

Fidelity has all to do with the production; good production equals = good sound.
Great mix, great room/hall = great sound.
What one needs then is speakers, monitors or ear-phones/plugs that can replicate faithfully that production. And as all these iThingies come with the ability to EQ the end product to ones hearts content.

A pop artist named Beck Hansen recently produced an album but didn't record it. He turned it into a book of high quality sheet music. 20 songs total. He wanted to give back to the music community in a different way. Music fans all over the world produced their own videos of these songs. It's seems to have turned into a big hit. I'd be curious as to the sales of his book. I bought it and it was a steal for twenty something dollars.

Payment for the original artist is about to get even worse:

http://singularityhub.com/2013/02/16/wil...that-direction/

Amazon will probably end up taking the remaining profits of used .mp3 sales. The original artist will get a small cut of the first initial sale, but probably not from subsequent 'used' resales.

To answer the OP's original question: yes.

So, it would seem that the chances to " make it big " in the music business which were slim in the beginning have now become almost astronomically tiny.

Recorded music is everywhere and is getting cheaper and easier to access by the day.

At the same time, recent psychological research indicates that human happiness is often most positively impacted by anticipating, enjoying and reflecting on shared "experiences" rather than from buying "things".

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/01/27/...ness/34167.html

There is also a movement under foot that craves natural, authentic, organic, real, live, etc.

So, it would seem that musicians, particularly classical musicians, need to focus on providing accessible, differentiated, meaningful, memorable, perhaps even spiritually uplifting live performance experiences to a (local) audience.

As the fastest-growing religion in most Western nations is " none ", many people also no longer avail themselves of the healing power of coming together to sing in a group every week. Combining musical performances with the opportunity to make music together could be just the kind of niche waiting to be filled. For example, the so-called " mee-zing concerten " (sing-along concerts) where the audience takes the role of the choir have been wildly successful in the Netherlands. http://www.meezingconcerten.nl/Inc/Home.php#.USMn0KU4vK8

The Dutch football hero Johann Cruijff had a saying " Every disadvantage brings an advantage." What kinds of advantages do local musicians have and what are the new kinds of opportunities that are appearing on the horizon? These could be exciting times for all.

I saw this, too, and I think it is an abomination. There is no reason for this, except that Amazon wants to cut out everyone except itself. When someone can point me to the difference in quality between a new eMedia product, and a used eMedia product (whether book, track, etc), I might be inclined to understand why this patent was granted. Until then, absolutely not.

And it is atrocious that the artist will not get a cut. I can see Amazon "limiting production," so first-users will pay a premium for content. Then, as they resell the content, it becomes available only through used content, and on a first-come, first-served basis. (Or worse, a bidding/auction war to get the "rights" to read the content.)

Great money-making scheme on Amazon's part. Horrible for every other person on the planet.

One more reason I don't use or support Amazon or its products. Ever.

The idea is so offensive to common sense that I thought it was satire for the first few paragraphs...