Now, does everyone deserve to be paid for their art and set their prices accordingly? Yes to both, but in practicality it's quite difficult for us to really set our own prices. As independent artists, we try to price based on the prevailing market trend. A CD tends to be about $18 retail. A download $0.99. Those prices were set by the major labels and Apple. Both benchmarks are completely artificial. You read it here first, but the $0.99 download will not keep pace with inflation. As long as iTunes is a portal to music, singles will be $0.99.
Why does the price of music either stay stagnant or fall? The same reason housing prices are. Just as there are more houses than buyers, so is the same for music and listeners.
So one reason to pick on the non-full-time musician is to pretend to be the gatekeeper for the industry. The pro might reason that if they don't have to put up with us weekend warriors then there is more opportunity for them. But the very first thing I learned on my first day of college is that the music business is intensely competitive. So to this group, I'd say deal with it. You are not the gatekeeper for the industry. No gatekeeper is going to open that gate for me no matter what I sound like.
How about the listener? Does the listener feel somehow cheated if they fall in love with a garage band? Again this is just a prevailing attitude. Is it because most people can't listen critically to music to be able to decide for themselves what's good and what's bad? Kids loved to ostracize me for my love of the Beatles, Yes and the Who growing up. It certainly wasn't what all the cool kids were listening to. The music marketing industry thrives on everyone listening to the same thing. This is how multi-platinum albums are made.
How do we define a full-time pro? I think such people are incredibly rare. I love the playing of John Goldsby. He plays with the WDR big band in germany and has made several recordings. He's obviously "in the club". But he is also a magazine contributor and author of a few books. Yes, they are about playing the bass, but is that the same as playing music? He also teaches university. Freelance writing and adjunct teaching don't pay a hill of beans, but I'm sure it's a contribution to keeping the lights on.
How about the full-time pro, that does instrument repair? Or perhaps has a spouse who is the major breadwinner? Trust fund baby? Has any revenue stream that's doesn't come from playing gigs or selling recordings? Are they a "full-time" pro?
Outside of the record I buy or the gig I hear, it's really none of my business what a musician does.
So my thought is, I'm my own patron of the arts. I'm the first person that earns money elsewhere to then give to support my art. The outside world is free to join me in hiring me for gigs and buying records, but ultimately I support myself. Supporting oneself is the only definition of independence that matters.
In closing, judge music with your ears and your heart. That's what you were given them for.
Couldn't agree with you more. Its when I realized that most of my friends who are full-time pros are playing gigs they hate most of the time and not making creative music that I realized that its not worth it.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, what is the barometer for status as a full-time pro? Teaching has long been a viable income source for musicians. I studied and took lessons with professional musicians like: Jeff Berlin (who also now owns a school) and Gary Willis (who has done web design, private investigation, as well as teaching and writing books!).
At Calarts we had Dave Carpenter, Alphonso Johnson, Wadada Leo Smith, Joe LaBarbera, and Charlie Haden; among many others, teaching there and that’s one school! Also, look at the faculties of other institutions: USC has Peter Eskine, Alan Pasqua, the violinist Midori... the list goes on.
Last week, my wife and I were even talking about rock guys like Gene Simmons and Paul McCartney. They spend more time dealing with business investments and financial matters than they do music. It takes a lot of work to take care of your millions and billions! Are they full-time musicians?
There’s a fallacy still perpetuated that somehow you're only a good musician if you're making all of your income from gigging. I think its still part of the 19th Century, romanticized view of the struggling/tortured artist and hasn't been based on any fact for 200 years. It’s also weirdly perpetuated by the entire music industry, from the manufacturers, to the education system, to the recording industry.
Sorry for the ramble…