 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-01 02:33
It's on the right track, but I think that article doesn't go far enough. Expanding the breadth of a music program to include music other than classical and jazz would go far, both in breadth of musical experience and in a concept of all the things music can be.
Churning out a bunch of classical-only performers that are a bit better at business is a step in the right direction, but isn't likely to change the predicament all that much.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-01 03:06
I've come across that theme a number of times but I don't understand why it's raised as an issue specific to musicians.
For what career is it not important to understand the job market and how you position yourself within it? Why do musicians need special training in that regard? Every student (well, almost), regardless of choice of career, will have to enter into the job market at some point, so they all have to consider their entry into that market. Musicians are not isolated in that regard - so why treat them differently?
What the authoris saying is that musicians need special instruction in how to make a living as a musician. Do engineers take classes in how to make a living as an engineer? I don't think so. Engineering students study engineering, not the engineering job market. Music students should study music, not the music job market.
Anything to do with the job market and getting into it is much better handled outside of academia. It should be handled in, well, the job market!
The author seems to be dancing around the real issue: supply and demand. I think we all know where the music world stands there...
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-05-01 03:16
Personally, I think that we Americans too little appreciate fine music.
I think this (pardon) ignorance reduces its value, underrates those who practice it and limit musician's income.
I don't mean to legislate "taste," but I am offended at what passes for "music" in our culture. I frankly could not watch / listen to the horrific display of American values at the White House New Year's musical celebration.
I imagine that a "fair and balanced" (really!) arts program in our schools would go a long way toward expanding the role of "fine" music in our culture.
I agree with Richard Ames on the difference between technical skill development and marketplace savvy. But, I think that failing to inform students of job market realities is, well, a failure. I trained for 8-years to become a really, really competent employee; and my schools never told me a blasted thing about entrepreneurship. I hold that against them today.
And, like Richard, I caution students to be aware of the realities of the "job market."
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-01 03:58
@rgames:
When I graduated with a degree in computer science, I could look on a job listing site, apply for a job, and be hired in a week or two for steady employment with a salary of $54,000/yr. No savvy required. I knew people who were dumb as a box of rocks but managed to land jobs.
Music does not have such a job market. It's an entirely different kind of doing things.
@Bob
Shunning anything that is not classical music serves to deepen the divide between classical and popular music, further isolating the classical world from the rest of society. We constantly bemoan how much popular music is worthless schlock. This would seem to me to be a PERFECT opportunity for our highly skilled performers and composers to jump into the popular genres and inject much-needed sophistication into the world, raising the quality level of popular music while simultaneously increasing classical-types' presence and values in the limelight, possibly lending credibility to the notion that the classical institution actually CAN be relevant to society at large, rather than its current "go to that building for culture" isolationism.
That, to me, is the most promising angle to reinvigorating the job market for university-trained musicians.
In essence, there's a HUGE demand for music in America today, and the vast majority of university-trained musicians seem to see it as a case of "yeah, but it's not the music I play" rather than an opportunity to put their training to work and boost the quality of the music that is in demand. The past few years in particular have seen a distinct lull in a prevailing direction for popular music... it's aimless. A perfect opportunity to try as many new things as possible and see what sticks.
To do this takes good musicians who have a bit of business savvy, and who haven't had their fingers in their ears for the music of the past 50 years.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2011-05-01 04:12
Alex I think you're missing the point of the article...I'm not studying music because I want to perform, I'm studying it because I love music. CLASSICAL music. Forget pop...I'm never going to be able to listen to that the same way as I listen to Brahms or Tchaikovsky...
This blog post also points out that ALL musicians should advocate for their passion...not just teaching music students but teaching the general public as well.
I don't know why we should ever suggest that classical music has become irrelevant to today's culture. I really do believe that our culture has simply forgotten how to explore great art even if it is more than 3 minutes long...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2011-05-01 04:13
http://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-01 06:18
"I really do believe that our culture has simply forgotten how to explore great art even if it is more than 3 minutes long..."
If I forget about something, it's not particularly relevant to me, until maybe when I remember it again. That's my concern with classical music.
I'm not saying it's without value, nor that it can't be relevant, nor that there's not a hell of a lot to appreciate with it.
What I am saying, though, is that it is largely disconnected from society at large, and not a particularly relevant part of life for most people. It has its echoes and repercussions, but they're largely faint, and becoming more faint every day.
It is also very resistant to change. Latin is chosen for medical terms because it's a dead language... nobody speaks it in a manner that might cause it to change. Classical music is similar. It does not react to culture. Which, in a way, might be a good thing, in that its integrity to the past is stable. However, there is little to no possibility of a real game-changer in the classical world today. Nothing, musically nor societally, would change how the music is played in any significant manner. This isolates it greatly, as culture is not a one-way street. It requires exchange to maintain relevance. Classical gets a glimmer of this whenever an existing piece is associated with a current event, but these are largely fleeting. Even within the classical world, on a more subtle level, the performances are isolated. What the NY Phil did last week has no impact on what the LA Phil does this week.
I don't expect you to listen to pop the same way you listen to Brahms or Tchaik. They're different kinds of music. However, I would hope that you do listen to pop, to see what of value you can find in it, to see how people in other genres make music, to see how it is relevant, in a way not dissimilar to how you might listen to jazz, or to African drumming, or to gamelan, or to ancient Sardinian chanting.
If you can't be bothered to listen to and explore musics other than your own, I wouldn't expect people of other musics to be bothered to listen to yours. I think that's largely a problem with classical music: the "missionary" aspect. We come from on high to introduce the unwashed masses to our music and expect them to instantly accept it as superior and drop their heathen ways. I don't see other music feeling the need to educate fresh converts.
On more than one occasion, I've pretended to not be home when Jehovahs or Mormons came knocking...
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-05-01 06:59
Whilst I feel a certain level of agreement with what you are saying, Alex, I'm not sure if I agree that classical music is not in at least a sympathetic economic relation to the present society. If record companies had not started recording old repertoire like crazy in the 1980s and 1990s (because of the CD boom) then maybe there wouldn't be so many symphony musicians to lay off now that people have replaced their vinyl.
The modern music economy is increasingly structured around licensing so if I was planning a career in music right now, I'd be taking a few composing classes. But I wouldn't want to suggest that because that seems like taking control of the means of production and that's not what entrepreneurs do, is it? Maybe I'd just build a stable of composers and get fat on what they write, but that's pop music, right? Gee, this is difficult.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-01 07:20
Economic relation, sure. People buy and sell things. That's not cultural relevance. I'd also say it's a stretch that recordings from the 80s and 90s is the primary driver for musician layoffs.
I don't follow your second paragraph, for the most part. I do think, though, that all musicians should have some skill in writing music. The interpretation-only aspect of performers is somewhat unique to classical, and, imho, is quite detrimental.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-01 07:50
"The modern music economy is increasingly structured around licensing so if I was planning a career in music right now, I'd be taking a few composing classes."
I'll strongly disagree with that one. Composers have it worse than musicians - at least playing an instrument still requires some skill. Modern production music (which is what gets licensed most often) requires very litttle skill to produce to the current level of demand.
Literally - this is not a joke - those of us who work as media composers can listen to a TV show and tell you exactly which sound library / synth was used to create it. Often times the "composition" is nothing more than pressing a couple keys on the keyboard to play a few loops or preset patches - the musical equivalent of color-by-numbers.
And the folks getting the majority of the licensing fees are the music libraries - a really good deal for the composer is 50/50 on the licensing fee - more than likely it's 65/35 with the majority going to the library. And the library almost always keeps the publishing. Then you have to hope that ASCAP/BMI/whoever actually catches the use, which also requires that the production files the cue sheets in your name and not the producer's nephew (true story...).
I've had music licensed for use on every major broadcast network and cable channel. Trust me - the grass ain't greener on the other side. It's almost impossible to make a living at it.
There are two ways to make decent money by licensing your music:
1. Quantity (many thousands of tracks)
2. Luck
Take your pick...!
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-05-01 07:57
We have just gone through over a decade of cultural organisations sinking of the praises of how much they are worth to the economy. Culture = dollars, just because we don't produce steel don't think we aren't a major part of the economy: that's how the argument has gone and how it goes today. So economic relevance is cultural relevance, that's been the argument of the culture industries for quite some time so they to abide by the results.
Orchestras hired people because record companies gave them money to rerecord the classical repertoire. Now there is no work, they lay people off. The GFC didn't help but we don't have time to make the backstory connections there.
Record sales have dropped because no-one buys music anymore. Concert sales have dropped off because tickets cost so damn much. Yet BMI is paying out more to composers than it has ever done because they are still licensing music to games and other non-traditional outlets. (Get a big video game to have a classical music station on a car radio and see the income flow.) Composing still generates income.
That's the thinking behind my poor attempt at humour the first time around. It might not be the truth but it's the way I see things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-01 16:10
Not sure I follow - are you saying BMI collects performance royalties for game use in Australia? They don't do that in the US - there are no performance royalties for games or films in the US. So I'm not sure how BMI is involved. The only way BMI would be involved is if there's a TV commercial for the game - the composer would get the broadcast royalty for that use if it was licensed *AND* the cue sheets were filed *AND* BMI actually captured the broadcast. Unfortunately, music used in commercials almost never gets caught by the PRO's.
Most licensing income from video games comes from the path I mentioned above: music libraries. More than likely, though, a major production will hire the composer to do the music as work-for-hire. In that case, the production will own the music, so it's not licensed.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-01 17:09
"economic relevance is cultural relevance, that's been the argument of the culture industries for quite some time"
But classical music has no economic relevance. It acts as a charity, not able to meet its own costs by its own means. Donations, foundations, and educational systems keep it going... it does not generate that money on its own. By that definition, classical music is completely culturally irrelevant. Classical music has managed to hang on DESPITE economic irrelevance.
Also, classical records are NOT big money makers. I'd wager that most orchestras put them out as a matter of prestige, but actually lose money on them.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-05-01 17:20
EEBaum wrote:
> I'd wager
> that most orchestras put them out as a matter of prestige, but
> actually lose money on them.
In the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s you'd lose your wager. Past then I don't know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-05-01 17:30
Please take time out to look at the (pretty incredible) TED presentation linked above in this thread, and in a current, but different thread here on our BB.
To me it was a revelation. Along with a mention in still another thread about classical music "speaking for itself."
The 3-chord rock and roll progression, the 2-chord C&W, the 2-week learning curve of a garage band --all seem so trivial compared to the sophisticated and subtle compositional "tricks" of Mozart.
The 200-hour git-fiddling learning curve, compared to the 10,000 hour apprenticeship required to be able to really get around on the horn --all these things have permitted me to be somewhat elitist about MY choice of listening and learning material.
Now, maybe the whole secret of proselytizing for classical music is simply a matter of exposure.
But, hey just because it is "classical" (or broke, or romantic or ...) doesn't in itself make it worth listening to.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-01 17:36
"Also, classical records are NOT big money makers."
Since Apple started the race to the bottom with iTunes, almost no records of any genre are big money makers. They're a loss-leader so that Apple can sell iPhones/iPads/iPod/iWhatever.
If Apple were an honest company they'd supplement artist payments with revenues from iPhone/iPad/iPod/iWhatever sales.
But they don't - they maintain it as a separate business element so that Jobs can say "sorry artists - wish we could pay you more, but we don't make money on record sales." Meanwhile, they line their pockets with the money generated from gadgets that play the music that they can't afford to pay for. What a horrible business model.
Yes, that subject gets me riled up...
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-01 17:47
Huh? iTunes albums cost about the same as physical records. If you want to go into a discussion on piracy, that's another matter, but I don't think your logic on iTunes pricing is sound.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-01 20:13
It's not piracy in the legal sense but the end result is about the same: almost no money going to musicians. Because they have such a stranglehold on the distribution, Apple can negotiate hard with the record companies. And the labels are not known for their benevolence, so the you-know-what flows downhill. At least the pirates are honest about the fact that they're abusing the musicians.
It's even worse for the TV shows they provide: if you get a track placed on a network or cable channel, you collect a performance royalty. If the *exact same* show is downloaded via iTunes, you get nothing. Apple still gets to collect the money from sales on the iPods that are watching those TV shows. Shouldn't the musicians have a share in that revenue stream? So far, Apple has fought hard to make sure that answer is "no."
The bottom line is that Apple needs to be honest about their business model: the iPod has no value without the media. As such, payments to the musicians should be based on that *combined* value. But Apple contines to keep them separate so they don't have to share the revenue stream from the one that generates the huge dollars.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-01 21:39
I'd say the blame goes to the record companies for that end. I know that if I release an album and get it onto iTunes, I'd get somewhere between 70 and 80 cents on the dollar (been a while since I looked into it).
Of course you get no performance royalties for iTunes. You also get no performance royalties when someone buys your CDs. Performance royalties are for broadcasts and live performances. Separate type of copyright from when someone buys a copy of a recording.
By your logic, every sale of a CD player should also funnel some money toward musicians, because they'll use it to play music. And HP, Dell, IBM are equally culpable for selling laptops that can be used to watch these TV shows.
What you're really after, I think, is copyright reform. Current copyright and performance right laws came about when the only way to watch a television program was via a broadcast. I agree that the system is screwy and is heavily manipulated by various parties to their own ends. Unfortunately, the only motivation for anything to change is the possibility for those on top to increase their profits, so both the artist and the customer tend to lose out.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-01 22:51
My comment on the royalties was about tracks licensed for TV shows, not CD's. When the show appears on TV, you get royalties. When the same show appears on iTunes, you get nothing.
The record companies are partly to blame, but Apple are the gatekeepers. They set the price point and force everyone else into it. The problem is that the price point is the one that maximizes profits for iPod sales, not the music itself. So where's the economic value in the music? There is none - Apple has driven it into the ground because all they care about is selling gadgets.
Of course we shouldn't collect royalites for sales of products from HP, Dell, and IBM. But then again, HP, Dell, and IBM don't control a huge portion of music sales, do they?
That's the point: iTunes is a huge factor in music sales but music sales have essentially zero economic impact on the company. So where's their economic incentive to value the music? There is none - we have to rely on the goodness of their hearts. So far, I haven't seen much goodness there...
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-02 00:04
It's a technicality of the copyright system. A show on television is broadcast on television. Getting a show from iTunes is in the same technical vein as buying that episode of the show on a DVD. Broadcast vs. hard copy legalities.
If Apple only ran iTunes and some other company sold iPods, you wouldn't have a problem with the artists getting screwed?
iTunes isn't the only game in town, either.
Most people I know do very little of their iPod-loading purchases from iTunes because it's expensive and restrictive. They load their CD libraries onto the computer and continue to shop for bargains. Whether an iPod costs $150 or $250 is negligible compared to the CD library I've spent $5000 on.
I don't see how a device costing $300 could decimate thousands of dollars of music purchases.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-05-02 00:25
I've been preaching this kind of thing on my website, here and on facebook for sometime now. Especially today with many smaller orchestra closing down or shortening their already short seasons and larger ones giving back on salary, weeks and benefits. There simply are not nearly enough symphony jobs to go around, not even close. Even instruments like the viola, oboe, bassoon and bass, there was a time if you were a half decent player you move right up in the ranks of orchestra's. Now, so many of them can't even land a decent job no matter how well they play. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: justme
Date: 2011-05-02 02:30
I've never used i tunes, I purchase my MP3 downloads from Amazon.com, I imagine that there are many others that do the same...
Just Me
"A critic is like a eunuch: he knows exactly how it ought to be done."
CLARINET, n.
An instrument of torture operated by a person with cotton in his ears. There are two instruments that are worse than a clarinet -- two clarinets
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pastor Rob
Date: 2011-05-02 03:34
A hardy here-here to Bob Phillips.
Pastor Rob Oetman
Leblanc LL (today)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2011-05-02 03:39
Alex wrote:
Huh? iTunes albums cost about the same as physical records. If you want to go into a discussion on piracy, that's another matter, but I don't think your logic on iTunes pricing is sound.
Katrina writes:
I beg to differ. iTunes albums usually cost $9.99. Manufacturer's suggested retail price for new releases of established artists' cds (on major, nationally-distributed labels) is usually $18.99. Of course many retailers use loss-leader pricing for cds, knowing their customers will buy cds for $9.99 (where they may lose $3-4 per cd...roughly 30% loss based on $13 wholesale) and purchase a washing machine or clothing or groceries at up to 100% markups.
Even as an independent musician in a band with our own cds, we're charging $15 per cd at gigs and at our website. At CDBaby, we're charging $15 and I have completely forgotten the CDBaby cut for that! (I'm imagining wholesale @ $10).
In my experience (working in music retail since 1993) and as a performing musician since god can remember when, and a recording musician since 2000, iTunes and its various similar sites (TuneCore which distributes to iTunes) still has a very large markup and costs less to the consumer than a cd.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-02 03:48
Suggested retail is higher, but iTunes doesn't discount. I'll pay $6-18 for a new album. I can also buy CDs used, which isn't an option on iTunes. $4-8 will get me some great albums at a place like Amoeba.
I end up spending about as much money for about as much music.
Do retailers really pay $13 for albums wholesale? Sounds high, but I haven't seen the numbers.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-02 04:29
"If Apple only ran iTunes and some other company sold iPods, you wouldn't have a problem with the artists getting screwed?"
The artists wouldn't get screwed (as much) if that happened because Apple would have a vested interest in the revenues from the sale of the music.
As it stands, Apple wants the music to be as cheap as possible because they use it only to drive the sale of gadgets. In fact, they've always claimed they lose money on iTunes, but they don't care because that loss is in the noise compared to those gadget sales.
EDIT: and to follow-up on Katrina's comment - when retailers use music as a loss-leader they subsidize it with the sales of the other items she mentioned. Apple refuses to do that.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
Post Edited (2011-05-02 04:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-02 04:50
Hrmmm... a bit of Googling supports that. I stand corrected. So where IS the money going, i.e. who are the bastards?
I guess, then, it's more of a question of how much stuff should cost, and where the money's going. I'd guess your supposition would be that the music should cost more? Mine is that the music's still too expensive and the record companies are to blame. Perhaps we're both right?
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-05-02 06:48
The blame does lie partly with the record companies but Apple gives them an out: labels come back with "We feel your pain, but Apple sets the price point, so we can't help you."
It's capitalism, so the real blame lies with the people voting with their dollars. If you provide someone with a lower-cost version of an equivalent product, people tend not to care who gets screwed. Morals and ethics usually take a back seat to cost.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-02 07:17
People would be more willing to spend if they thought the money was going to the artists. However, most large record companies have gone out of their way to both minimize their payout to artists and to vilify themselves in the public eye. If I know that $8 of my album will go to the label and $1 to the artist, it's hard for me to be sympathetic. If the artist is getting screwed either way, I'll take the cheaper price, and perhaps try to find an avenue that supports the artist more effectively, like attending a live show, buying merch, talking them up to friends.
I'd also have the perception, and I don't know if it's true, but it would be my guess and probably the guess of a lot of buyers, that the artist gets the same money from a disc no matter the price. So a label and/or retailer might make $4 more profit on a disc I pay an extra $4 for, but the artist would probably get the same $1. So you bet darn well I'll opt for the lower price.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2011-05-02 14:31
Alex, you are correct about the artist making the same money no matter the retail cost for albums released by record labels. About 15 years ago I heard that the highest-paid artist per cd was Sting who was making $4 each. Ultimately the label is the money-suck, but retailers have suffered because they're the contact the public has with the label, and most customers think the store is the bad guy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2011-05-02 17:14
I'm not following how this thread got onto the subject of recording labels and related nincompoopery...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
