FEATURE:
Pay for What You Get
PHOTO CREDIT: @kaelbloom/Unsplash
Making Sure We Reassess Musicians and Their Value in 2021
___________
I am sort of going to do a…
IN THIS PHOTO: A BBC spokesperson said the decision to drop Amaraterra (pictured) from the programme was made for editorial reasons, rather than them asking to be paid to perform
continuation of a recent feature, where I discussed Spotify and the fact that streaming rates are still very low. I will introduce an article that recently focused on that but, generally, I think that we do not appreciate how little artists are paid. There is a difference between the problems on streaming services and musicians and performance. It has been a very strained and quiet year for many musicians. I have seen on social media so many suffering because gigs have been cancelled and, of course, that means a main stream of revenue has been taken away. Streamed gigs and online events have helped recoup some money and, together with album sales, it has not been a total disaster for some. Many of us get music for free on streaming sites and we do not buy merchandise and records much so, when we think of musicians, do we consider the importance of performances and how important it is that we support them that way – and that they are paid at the very least? This feature has been provoked by news that musicians who were due to play a Strictly Come Dancing spin-off, It Takes Two, were taken off/dropped because they asked for money - though the BBC cites another reason for their cancellation. This article from The Guardian explains more:
“A group of professional musicians have said they were dropped by Strictly Come Dancing after they asked to be paid for performing on the programme’s spinoff show.
Amaraterra, a band who perform traditional southern Italian music, said they were excited when they were approached by producers who were enthusiastic about them appearing on the BBC companion programme It Takes Two.
IMAGE CREDIT: BBC
However, when they asked for a fee to compensate them for a day’s work the BBC producers told them, in emails seen by the Guardian: “We just don’t have money in the budget to pay for contributors.” Instead, they were offered a free lunch and it was suggested that they would receive a “decent amount of screen time, as well as a mention of your group name”, which would help boost the band’s following on Instagram and Facebook.
“Hopefully, when things return back to normal, and the arts is final[ly] restored, taking part in this [recording] for such a great show will be of benefit to you,” they were told by the show’s producer, who wanted them to perform with the professional dancers Nadiya Bychkova and Graziano Di Prima.
Band member Cassandre Balosso-Bardin said the band responded by asking the BBC to honour the relatively low rates agreed with the Musicians’ Union for session work, in addition to to the hours of practice required. They then did not hear back for several days, only to be told the show had dropped them”.
That is, of course, a T.V. show we are talking about - and it is not indicative of the way people treat professional musicians in general It does seem that some feel that exposure and opportunity is enough for musicians and, for that reason, why would they want to be paid?! Even if a band or musicians are in the background and contributing a small amount, that does not mean they have no value and should do things for free!
PHOTO CREDIT: @gwundrig/Unsplash
I can only imagine how galling it is for musicians do look forward to performing and then be told they can’t. In a wider sense, I have been considering musicians and whether we appreciate them as much as we should. From quartets performing at, say, a street event or somewhere like Covent Garden to larger concert gigs, these players add so much to our culture! The same is true of more traditional bands and singer-songwriters. Many artists have been steaming for free during the pandemic or they have charged fans very little to see them perform. Money is tight for everyone, but I feel that we try and get as much for free as possible and we do not think about how much work and time is being sacrificed by musicians. For those Strictly musicians, they had travel and practice time before they got to the venue. I don’t think it is cheeky for anyone to ask to be paid for professional services and, when the story broke, a lot reacted angrily on social media. A lot of upcoming artists, prior to the pandemic, played gigs at pubs and, often, they were not paid. Maybe there is a deal linked to the drink sales and whether pubs can afford to pay artists but I think, in a year where music has helped so many people and enriched us through the darkness, we need to alter the way we digest and enjoy music.
PHOTO CREDIT: @dsoodmand/Unsplash
Most of us cannot afford to spend a lot on live music and streaming but, when we balance this against other costs that are perhaps more frivolous, then do we have an excuse to expect our music to be free?! This takes me back to the debate about streaming; a hot issue that still rumbles on! If classical musicians have been living on poor wages/earnings for a long time, the same is true of other musicians. Streaming should provide a steady amount of revenue for rising and established artists alike. I do feel guilty that I only pay £10 a month to use Spotify, and when we think about the lost revenue that would have been accrued through gigs, the small amount artists receive through Spotify is alarming. There are some who think artists should really triple compared to what they are paid now. For artists who do not get millions of streams with every single release, the reality is that they earn extremely little from Spotify and other services! The sites themselves need to rethink their models and pledge to improve in 2021. I think all is can afford more than £10 a month to have access to all of music! Guy Garvey of Elbow has asked for fans to pay more – as this article explains:
“Music fans have to be prepared to pay more for the songs they love in the streaming age, according to Elbow’s Guy Garvey, who says the next generation of bands are being lost because they cannot sustain careers in the current climate.
IN THIS PHOTO: Guy Garvey/PHOTO CREDIT: Thomas Butler/The Guardian
Garvey, who gave evidence last week to a Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport inquiry into the impact of streaming, told the Guardian he believed services such as Spotify and Apple Music were not charging enough.
“The big picture is that £10 a month for access to all music is too little,” he said. “It came out in the committee the other day: everyone feels a little bit guilty for having access to all this music for fuck all. It’s not sustainable and the emergency is we’re losing artists because they’re demoralised and they can’t afford to live.”
Garvey is pushing for equitable remuneration in which streams are split 50/50 between labels and groups, meaning a percentage goes directly to the people who made the recording. He called it “reliable income that’s nothing to do with the labels or to do with the streaming platform – it’s a right”.
Equitable remuneration already applies to broadcast usage in the UK, and Garvey and others who gave evidence – including the founder of the #BrokenRecord campaign, Gomez’s Tom Gray – want it to be extended to cover streaming.
“People don’t realise that their artists don’t get their cash and that needs fixing,” he said. “I think it will be fixed and it will be the labels and the artists and a bit of government, and it will also be the streaming platforms, and it will be the consumers that fix it”.
Nadine Shah wrote an ex cellent feature in The Guardian that emphasised the problems with streaming and the disparity between bigger artists and other artists:
“Streaming only really works for superstars and super record labels. Instead of receiving a direct amount per sale, as with downloads or physical purchases, it’s a “winner-takes-all” system. The way it works is the combined revenue of every streaming subscriber is divided by by “market share”. For example, suppose Bruno Mars releases an album and – rightly, because he’s amazing – Bruno appears on the surface of every phone, on every playlist, pushed by every algorithm. He could potentially end up with 5% of the whole world’s streaming money. Or, to be accurate, his record label will pocket that 5%. Bruno might see about 20% of that if, and only if, he’s repaid his recording costs. Pre-digital artists may be on pre-digital deals, so they may see nothing.
Even before Covid, the major labels were making almost $20m a day from streaming. And this year has seen a a huge increase in streaming subscriptions, as fans turn to platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify to help ease their locked-down minds. The three major music groups, Sony, Warner and Universal own about three-quarters of the music ever made so, by this system, they’ll pocket about three-quarters of streaming revenue every month. Independent or self-releasing artists share the rest.
For all the promise of digital democratisation of music, the opposite appears to be happening. For an independent artist with a dedicated audience, the system doesn’t work. And neither does it work for loyal fans. If you are a dance fan, jazz fan, or metal fan, the artists you love and listen to are unlikely to see a penny of your subscription.
Streaming is the future, but to deliver a rich and culturally diverse musical future, non-mainstream music needs to be able to keep its head above water. This is especially true as radio and TV continue to morph into streaming platforms. A playlist on the BBC Sounds app doesn’t pay performers in the way the same song on BBC radio would.
What can we do to fix it? Last week, I appeared beside Guy Garvey of Elbow, Ed O’Brien of Radiohead and Tom Gray of Gomez, to give evidence in front of the DCMS inquiry. It was terrifying. Music and politics rarely come face to face. Musicians are supposed to rail against politicians, not testify in front of them. But now we’re asking the government to intervene and correct the streaming market where it’s failing”.
Reading her words above, and you know her frustration and situation is one shared by thousands of artists around the world; those we stream and listen to regularly are getting such a minute slice of the pie and, in 2020, have been struggling to live, make music and survive! Nile Rodgers is giving evidence to M.P.s next week regarding streaming - musicians from all corners are speaking up. It seems baffling that there is such a gap in streaming payment between the biggest artists and everyone else. From streaming and classic musicians, through to live streams and gigs, I do think that we all need to reserve more money for the very valuable and important musicians who work so hard to give us all a lot of positivity and enrichment! I appreciate how some people do not have a job and others are struggling to make ends meet but, for most, there is an opportunity to give artists more. I hope that the It Takes Two controversy awakens eyes and minds to the way musicians are undervalued - and, going forward, I think the Government need to pledge more money to support the arts and force streaming giants to increase subscription fees and reassess their payment structure (I know there is something in process., so we might get some good news). Musicians do not only contribute to us as individuals, but they also make so much money for the country; they give their music to film and T.V. – which augments and transforms memorable scenes - and they touch all of us. If we continue to experience music for free or for very little money, that could have a huge impact on the numbers of musicians we have in the U.K. These are very valuable people that we…
PHOTO CREDIT: @srd844/Unsplash
CAN’T afford to lose them.