Apps and the Music Industry

choiceweb0pen0

Just saw this article on The Atlantic's website and thought it might interest some people here. I especially found the breakdown of income for a band like Grizzly Bear fascinating, if a bit depressing.

cafreema

Thanks, CW. Not sure the parallels between apps and the music industry are as strong as claimed, but I know very little about apps, so I could well be wrong.

The Grizzly Bear stuff is indeed depressing, although not as depressing as this article by Damon Krukowski of Galaxie 500 and Damon & Naomi.

Craig

choiceweb0pen0

Yikes, your'e right Craig. I agree the Atlantic article's title needs work. I guess they mean to say people expect apps to cost 99 cents or less, just like many consumers expect music should be cheap or even free. It never occurs to many if the creator/artist gets much money or not. I will say though that perhaps it's a sacrifice/choice for musicians to live in an expensive place like NYC instead of having healthcare.

greg

Fascinating articles, it is worse than I thought for many bands. Interesting to see from the Atlantic's article that touring actually brings in the most income.

amclark2

I will say though that perhaps it's a sacrifice/choice for musicians to live in an expensive place like NYC instead of having healthcare.

Exactly. There are a lot of places you can live where $126k per year after expenses would be plenty. I have to think there's at least some people even in Brooklyn making considerably less than that and still getting by, unless the gentrification of Brooklyn is a lot further along than I've heard.

Plong42

I have always assumed that touring was the only way for a band to make money in the new music economy. What surprised me is that a band would only line up 33 shows to support an album. If that is your main revenue source, I would assume at least twice that number, if they are trying to make a career out of it they ought to play 100+ shows a year. I suppose that might turn into a grind, but a band that plays that often gets tight.

Plus a doing 100+ shows a year would wear them down and then they could write more "dues" songs. That got Jackson Browne through several albums.

greg

Yes agreed Plong, also a new album every three years is a bit restrictive; I know recording takes time these days compared with say the 60s, when two LPs a year was the norm (equivalent to 1 CD p.a.), but with only 30 days on the road, that gives plenty of time if a band wants to maximise income. Bruce Springsteen, for example, does far more than this article suggests.

Germanprof

I am afraid that those figures don't fill my heart with pity. They make more than I do, and I trust are doing what they love and seeing interesting places. An awful lot of folk would trade places with them.
It's the implied reality for those a bit lower down the musical pecking order that's probably not so good. That and the spotify figures. Of course we don't know how many of those listens turned into CD/download sales; still, I remain unsure spotify is a good thing.

thomnottom

I was assuming that the depressing part was in regards to the streaming revenue, not their overall wages. Sure, lots of teenagers form bands with million dollar contracts in mind. But if you poll a bunch of twenty / thirty something-year-olds working 2 other jobs because playing bars every other night of the week barely covers their costs, the majority would jump at the chance to do it for $100k+/year. Heck most would love half of that.

The real issue from those articles is that the money they earn from streaming services is downright laughable. And those services are still bleeding money at those rates.

One other side note, leaving Brooklyn might save a band some money but might also increase costs elsewhere and make it a lot harder to reach even this level of success. Similarly more touring could bring in more money, but it also takes its toll physically and financially. Do you know how many times I saw bands who ended their sets asking if anyone had a place they could crash?

greg

I agree that streaming income is ridiculous, but it is better than ilegal downloading, where the artists get absolutely nothing. For some of those who stream, music is emphemeral, so they would not pay to purchase.