Artists Should be Compensated for Their Art
According to DigitalMusicNews.com,
Jon Simson, former executive director of SoundExchange, recently
warned, “I am very concerned about the apparent disrespect shown by many
in our culture to those who pursue artistic endeavors. One recent
survey showed a surprising number of Americans who believe that artists
should have a second job to support themselves – as they should not
expect to be paid for their art! We must educate the public and
eradicate these extremely destructive beliefs.”
So obviously we feel
it is in an artist’s (and our own) best interest to be paid for their
music. As the creators of intellectual property, it should be within a
copyright holder’s rights to dictate exactly where and how their
creation is used. Should they decide to sell a single-song MP3 ONLY on
cdbaby.com (and NOT on iTunes or Amazon or anywhere else) for $4000, it
is not our place (or yours) to tell them otherwise. Though honestly, we
may question their sanity and try to gently suggest an alternate price
and convince them that they’re losing sales opportunities by keeping
their content off of iTunes and Amazon. But that being said, what they
say goes.
But in contrast to this black & white opinion regarding the
protections afforded a copyright holder as it relates to the sale, use,
and distribution of their work,… live music seems like a somewhat
different beast.
The Real Perfect World
I certainly agree that good art should be rewarded. But in a society
where EVERYONE can easily create art, should everyone be paid for it?
Is there enough money to go around? Should the riches be reserved for
the true masters? Who determines who those masters are?
I would love to live in a world where it was a commonly held truth
that a decent band should earn a decent wage for playing at your
favorite bar down the street. After all, they’re providing a service (at
least to the proprietor), same as any other W-2 or 1099 employee. But
should the patron have to pay if they don’t like the band? What if the
band is having an off-night? How did this band get a gig here in the
first place? I’m here for the drinks, not the music!
Maybe if we all, performers AND listeners, conceived of art as a
profession (one that requires the development of skills, a deep
knowledge of history, a certain level of competency, and a bit of that
magic factor: creativity, innovation, inspiration, exploration) instead
of a worthwhile self-obsession, we’d live in that perfect world. But
just because it is a profession doesn’t mean you necessarily should be
earning money right out of the gates. Perhaps music-making should
require a certain kind of apprenticeship (what used to be called “paying
your dues”) before artists can assume a posture of financial
entitlement.
Running full-speed through the gauntlet of a music scene can be
exhausting. This crucible of apprenticeship might (might!) weed out the
slackers, the unworthy, the untalented, and the ones who are in it for
all the wrong reasons. All the while, the decent bands who persevere
will keep getting BETTER, rising to that level of appeal and skill where
they should get paid.
What You Get is What We Got
Hmmmm. That world described above sounds a bit like the world we live in now, right? Well, partly.
1) The skilled musicians with mass-appeal clearly reap the benefits.
2) The skilled musicians with little appeal have to confront the
realities of the Law of Supply and Demand. If mass appeal is your goal,
you must change your art to meet their tastes. If you choose to make
niche art that is truer to your vision (a vision with little
mass-appeal), you will struggle harder to find your target audience. But
once you do, you may be able to charge them more for what you offer and
command more fan loyalty.
3) The ones with mass-appeal who have little skill… oh boy! Here’s where the real trouble begins.
Get Your Act Together
We once lived in a world where only the best of the best dared step
into a recording studio or onto a large stage. (I won’t give away my
musical prejudices by naming names). Now (and for the past 50 years) it
is possible to make a professional sounding recording without
necessarily having the physical, hands-on skills of professional
musicianship. In other words, better technology makes up for poorer
technique. But, in the realms of live-performance, especially using what
the old-fashioned among us might call “real” instruments (sorry, Brian
Eno), the same cannot be easily said.
I don’t care how creative, ambitious, emotional, or
filled-with-conviction you are as a performer. Live music, to most
people’s ears, is still primarily about execution. Well, I should say
“passionate execution.” It doesn’t have to be precise. But it has to be
transparent and alive in order to transmit the musical message. If
you’re singing off key, if your guitar is out of tune, if your rhythm
section isn’t tight, if you’ve forgotten lyrics, if you botch a
transition, if the performance is lethargic,… all these things will take
the listener out of the moment. They will become overly conscious of
the listening experience. As soon as that happens, it is tougher to win
back their rapt attention. You may have lost them.
Clearly I’m Confused
The listening experience I just described above is what happens to ME
when I hear poor musicianship, boring songs, or witness combative or
posturing attitudes from performers on stage. But sometimes I feel like
I’m in the minority, and that many of my friends are oblivious to what
seem like obvious musical weaknesses from a buzz-band they’ve convinced
me is the next greatest yesterday’s news. Are the listeners oblivious?
Does the audience care? Are they deluding themselves because they feel
like they SHOULD appear to enjoy the music (either out of politeness, or
according to the prescribed hysteria of such-and-such tastemaker who
may have anointed the band as “important”)?
To quote Mugatu from Zoolander, sometimes “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”
Have we lost our discerning ears? Are we patting everyone on the back
now for simply having the guts to create something (which is a
commendable act, I might interject)? Are we a peaked-society, slipping
into declining days of aesthetic decadence? Are we too
passive-aggressive to call a spade a spade? Does the hipster
echo-chamber believe its own hyperbole?
H.E.L.P.
Call me a snob, but I think that sometimes even brilliantly creative
bands should stay in the basement a bit longer to practice their great
ideas until we don’t have to guess at the intent, until we don’t have to
be rubbed raw by bad intonation or sloppiness (unless it’s sloppy on
purpose, of course).
Then again, maybe a live performance should work the same as a
recording in terms of determining value. if someone chooses to download a
song or attend a concert, no matter how good or bad it is, they have
made a consumer choice. Shouldn’t they have to pay for it? You don’t get
to return an opened Coke can just because you suddenly changed your
mind and now want Mountain Dew, do you?
By this point in my rant, you can probably tell I’m just arguing with myself.
So help me out and tell me what you think!
0 comments:
Post a Comment