Ted Gioia's open letter to Taylor Swift

[ProfD]

4 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

The argument in the article is that live performance income has dwindled since Covid for most with Taylor being an exception - a resoundingly international phenomenon type exception.  Also pointing out that all employed by her tour are benefiting in a fair way all the way down to bonuses for the drivers. 

That is true.  Taylor Swift is definitely the exception. 

 

If there is anything Taylor Swift can with her star power, influence or whatever to change the trajectory of live performance for others, that would be awesome. 

 

The boats that want to be lifted by such an effort would have to be ready to sell.

 

Otherwise, while Taylor Swift could provide an alternative to the current music industry, the artists/bands/musicians have to be ready (music, performance, marketability, etc.) too.

 

The  artists/bands/musicians who have developed their own audience/demand/following on some level will benefit the most in being pulled up.😎

[SamuelBLupowitz]

I'm seeing a lot of "it won't work for this reason" comments, regarding different systems (education, corporate regulation, consumer expectations), and all I will say on the matter is that I think it's very clear that all of these issues are very much connected, and very much human-made, and therefore can (with great effort and intense organization and significant struggle against the powers that be and a lot of luck) be undone and remade. That's a really easy big-picture stance I can take; I'm not coming into this thread with a point-by-point because what we are talking about at some level, minuscule or global, is a revolution. So... no small ask.

 

But to paraphrase Ursula Le Guin, the divine right of kings once seemed a given, and an insurmountable one. So I haven't given up on humanity, or its thirst for art and culture.

[timwat]

Trusting that everyone commenting has read Gioia's piece, here is a little more history about United Artists' formation. This might help contextualize what Gioia is suggesting, and why Taylor Swift:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists

 

 

[CyberGene]

49 minutes ago, Anderton said:

What I don't understand is how the music streaming platforms haven't figured out that the most successful video streaming platforms offer original content. 

Hmm, I'm not really convinced original content is actually anything that is good in itself. Usually original content is used by the streaming platforms to make you subscribe to their platform and sometimes I hate it because I don't want to subscribe to a platform just to watch one show. And then, I'm not sure if the show creators are paid better than others that can distribute their shows to many platforms. Original content is also not guaranteed to be quality one. I'm currently having only a Netflix subscription and we've been binge-watching various TV-shows with my wife for years and we kind of watched it all 😀 I mean, we watched almost all famous shows and moved on to less popular shows and there are some original ones that are terrible.

 

BTW, I'm not sure how paying for an original content works but I think that may not work well for music. I mean, it would be like you are ordering/paying musicians to make some music. How can that guarantee that they are creative and give their souls to make something good? And not just make something because they are paid in advance? Being born and living in a former communist country (Bulgaria) where all pop musicians were paid by the state and were expected to produce a certain amount of music, I am suspicious of such a business model.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

7 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

BTW, I'm not sure how paying for an original content works but I think that may not work well for music. I mean, it would be like you are ordering/paying musicians to make some music. How can that guarantee that they are creative and give their souls to make something good? 

I mean, it generally seemed to work for Mozart.

[CyberGene]

1 minute ago, SamuelBLupowitz said:

it generally seemed to work for Mozart

Well, depends on if you ask us or him, because we can enjoy some of the finest music on earth but he died poor 😀 

[SamuelBLupowitz]

Just now, CyberGene said:

Well, depends on if you ask us or him, because we can enjoy some of the finest music on earth but he died poor 😀 

Good point! Maybe pointing to the record label advances of the latter half of the 20th century would be better -- another example of, perhaps, not the fairest deal, but I think the point is that artists want to make art and need funding to do it. That's part of why it's so hard to get musicians to collectively bargain, I suspect (though writers seem to be particularly good at it).

[MathOfInsects]

Everyone in the Classical Era and most in the Romantic Era produced solely because they were bought and paid for. Mozart was an "indie" artist in that he didn't have one patron but rather many, but the works that have endured until today were all produced by (and because of) patrons. 

The flip side is also true: there were tons of talented people producing or potentially able to produce works even greater than those we celebrate now, but they were not supported by patronage, or their work was not preserved by the various institutions of power, so they and/or their works were either lost essentially forever, or never created in the first place.

[CyberGene]

Just now, MathOfInsects said:

Everyone in the Classical Era and most in the Romantic Era produced solely because they were bought and paid for

That's true but if you read most of their biographies, you'd see that almost all of them were constantly in financial troubles. I remember a quote from a letter of the father of Chopin which I need to find to quote verbatim but it was along the lines of: you may be famous, etc but your constant financial troubles and loans are worrying, you live day for day, not sure if you can pay your rent for the next month and that doesn't give me sleep, you have to start giving lessons despite your distaste for teaching.

[ProfD]

8 minutes ago, SamuelBLupowitz said:

Maybe pointing to the record label advances of the latter half of the 20th century would be better

Record labels lost a lot of money paying out advances to artists/bands/musicians for music that didn't sell.

 

That's part of the reason the music industry moved away from developing artists (A&R) to to investing in cookie cutter hits.😎

[MathOfInsects]

22 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

That's true but if you read most of their biographies, you'd see that almost all of them were constantly in financial troubles. I remember a quote from a letter of the father of Chopin which I need to find to quote verbatim but it was along the lines of: you may be famous, etc but your constant financial troubles and loans are worrying, you live day for day, not sure if you can pay your rent for the next month and that doesn't give me sleep, you have to start giving lessons despite your distaste for teaching.

I would have to check, but I'm not sure that Chopin was held aloft by patronage to the extent of the Classical Era composers. Maybe as a pianist. Those in the patronage system died rich and famous, almost to the man. Beethoven, Haydn...towering figures across the continent and died verrrrry comfortable. 

 

Also, for what it's worth, Mozart came from a very wealthy family. He died broke but wasn't broke-broke in the real sense.

[CyberGene]

Just now, MathOfInsects said:

I would have to check, but I'm not sure that Chopin was held aloft by patronage to the extent of the Classical Era composers

You may be right. I have always been more interested in Romantic era composers and they were more often financially troubled which I think may be somehow correlated with the very nature of the art of that era, more individual and related to images, senses, poetry, etc. which already has the signs of what may be called non-commercial music.

[ElmerJFudd]

21 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Record labels lost a lot of money paying out advances to artists/bands/musicians for music that didn't sell.

 

That's part of the reason the music industry moved away from developing artists (A&R) to to investing in cookie cutter hits.😎

Which seemingly ended key modulation, contemplative harmonizations and chromaticism in melodies as compositional elements of popular music. 😉

 

——

 

Back on topic, I think the fact that streaming and revenue from streaming exists as a source of income it’s disappointing to say that the creators aren’t considered as deserving a better % of that pie.   Saying, “well they just have to get out, gig and sell their merch”  doesn’t address the fundamental issue of owning ones own  body of work and earning from it via available channels - be it physical media or on demand through streaming services.  These are areas that Taylor has battled and won - and she’s gigging too.  

[CyberGene]

Kind of off-topic, kind of not, but reminds me of the "arguments" Alan Parsons and Roger Waters had throughout the years about the former having only received his salary as a studio engineer while working on the The Dark Side of the Moon and feeling bitter about how Pink Floyd made millions without giving him anything and although his contribution was huge, and Waters commenting later in an interview that if it wasn't for Pink Floyd, nobody would've heard of Parsons, so they should be even 😀

[MathOfInsects]

The ultimate "exposure" gig!

[ProfD]

43 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Back on topic, I think the fact that streaming and revenue from streaming exists as a source of income it’s disappointing to say that the creators aren’t considered as deserving a better % of that pie.   Saying, “well they just have to get out, gig and sell their merch”  doesn’t address the fundamental issue of owning ones own  body of work and earning from it via available channels - be it physical media or on demand through streaming services.  These are areas that Taylor has battled and won - and she’s gigging too.  

The creators (artist/bands/musicians) can keep the profits and publishing and tour money if they don't take out high interest loans from record companies.😁

 

The labor force usually has the same gripes.  The company should be paying higher wages or profit-sharing or giving more time off and better bonuses. 

 

It would be nice for a company to spread the wealth or for a bank to forgive the interest on a loan but they aren't obligated to give more than agreed upon contractually. 

 

When folks figure out the game....that's usually when some of them start their own business.

 

Taylor Swift has made a ton of money and is now telling the music industry...she's good.😎

[MathOfInsects]

On the other end of the spectrum, if the scale goes from "Nobody" to "Taylor Swift," one thing I've noticed is that most of the people griping most publicly (at least on my social media feed) about the streaming revenue, wouldn't be making anything even if the percentage was 100%. 

[Reezekeys]

5 hours ago, ProfD said:

It wasn't meant to be a knock or negative.  I was just relaying the thought process of folks from previous generations in terms of traditional careers. 

 

I figured that, sorry if it came across as a knock! My mother used to say to me "promise me if the 'music thing' doesn't work out you'll go back to school and become a xxxxxx" (fill in the blank with the "traditional", lol). OK mom. As far as she was concerned, when I took her backstage to meet Liza Minnelli after a show we did, and a few years later she saw me play at Carnegie Hall (with Eliane Elias), things had "worked out." 🙂 Then it was back to the weddings and $75 jazz gigs! 🤣

[Docbop]

 

This popped up on FB recently.

[MathOfInsects]

1 minute ago, Reezekeys said:

 

I figured that, sorry if it came across as a knock! My mother used to say to me "promise me if the 'music thing' doesn't work out you'll go back to school and become a xxxxxx" (fill in the blank with the "traditional", lol). OK mom. As far as she was concerned, when I took her backstage to meet Liza Minnelli backstage after a show we did, and a few years later saw me play at Carnegie Hall (with Eliane Elias), things had "worked out." 🙂 Then it was back to weddings! 🤣

I was forbidden from becoming a musician. It was explained to me over and over again that music was an avocation, and I still needed a vocation. The craziest part of that is that mom was a professional musician, grandma was a professional musician, dad was an entertainer, and our family was highly intertwined with certain music scenes at the time. 

My take-away was that they could be musicians because they were much better than I was (I assumed), and I should count on a "real" job instead of being deluded that I could play music, which was the only thing I ever wanted to do, and the only career I have ever committed to and stuck with, despite giving other options my truly best efforts.

[MathOfInsects]

4 minutes ago, Docbop said:

 

This popped up on FB recently.

I saw that. I wish "latest" had a date associated with it, but it's probably not too far off. 

I just can't figure out what to do with that information. What percentage of streaming revenue are artists getting? (In other words, is anyone making money streaming, aside from the people offering the platform itself?) How are streams related to royalties? If I buy your record I can play it as many times as I want and you don't get another penny. Why should streaming be different? 

 

I agree the current system seems whack. I just don't have a sense of what fixes that.

[mrk7421]

Ted Gioia is pretty much a jazz guy if I am not mistaken. So what is he trying to do,get Taylor Swift to support jazz musicians? I started off as a jazz player but my experience became that it was the musicians themselves who were trying to undermine each other.Good luck getting an opportunity from a jazz musicians....in so many cases I have seen that many of them are classic narcissists....it takes a lot to play jazz but so many players are so busy taking care of themselves that they have little time or concern for anyone else. Also....there is a local jazz radio station where I live....K M H D  Portland and the DJ's are making some very bad calls in their programming. So much so that I don't know who would care to listen to this station for very long. The administrators seem to not pick very good people to program the music. Anyway....I would be surprised if Ted Gioia gets very far with this. Taylor Swift gets a lot of attention from things that have nothing to do with music. She is cute....and that means EVERYTHING in the market these days.

[Docbop]

7 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

I saw that. I wish "latest" had a date associated with it, but it's probably not too far off. 

I just can't figure out what to do with that information. What percentage of streaming revenue are artists getting? (In other words, is anyone making money streaming, aside from the people offering the platform itself?) How are streams related to royalties? If I buy your record I can play it as many times as I want and you don't get another penny. Why should streaming be different? 

 

I agree the current system seems whack. I just don't have a sense of what fixes that.

 

Well I was working at the church when Michael Jackson passed and one of our many artist members was Siedah Garrett who wrote MJ's Man In the Mirror.  After MJ passed Man In the Mirror was getting tons and tons of plays on all platforms including Spotify.    I remember seeing Siedah on a talk show not long after that, and she showed the check from Spotify for one dollar in royalties.  Who really knows how Spotify counts but only one dollar when MJ's songs and especially Man In the Mirror was getting played so much.    Something stinks at Spotify and that's why I refuse to use them. 

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

The creators (artist/bands/musicians) can keep the profits and publishing and tour money if they don't take out high interest loans from record companies.😁

 

The labor force usually has the same gripes.  The company should be paying higher wages or profit-sharing or giving more time off and better bonuses. 

 

It would be nice for a company to spread the wealth or for a bank to forgive the interest on a loan but they aren't obligated to give more than agreed upon contractually. 

 

When folks figure out the game....that's usually when some of them start their own business.

 

Taylor Swift has made a ton of money and is now telling the music industry...she's good.😎

Yes, I think that’s the point.  The gatekeepers have always dangled access as the carrot on the stick. Access to studio, exposure, airplay, duplication, streaming, advertising, etc. etc.  When the internet first took off (the Napster days) there was so much talk about how the industry would be changed. How artists would finally be able to cut out the middle man.  Play their shows, record at home, distribute direct to fans.  In theory, that was a big moment.  But it didn’t unfold as planned.  It was a free for all and it took the industry years to claw back control.  And now they had to give Silicon Valley a cut.  
 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, CyberGene said:

Being born and living in a former communist country (Bulgaria) where all pop musicians were paid by the state and were expected to produce a certain amount of music, I am suspicious of such a business model.

 

Good point, but let me elaborate. I'm not talking about Kim Jong Il paying musicians to write patriotic disco opera music. The model is the MacArthur Fellows program. Short form: According to the foundation's website, "the fellowship is not a reward for past accomplishment, but rather an investment in a person's originality, insight, and potential." However, it also says such potential is "based on a track record of significant accomplishments." 

 

1% of the Apple TV budget for original programming is $60,000,000. The cost of a song by a top, highly expensive artist like Rihanna is around $80,000, but a lot of that goes to a writing camp of people who write the hit songs. Let's assume 10 songs per artist and they need a writing camp. That's $800,000 in expenses. For people who write their own music, the cost would be about $80,000 less per song.

 

The artist would get $1,000,000 as a flat fee. No royalties, and the music would be exclusive to Apple Music. Here's who I'd sign, with what I'd want them to do over the course of one or two years:

 

Peter Gabriel: Make the finest album of your career, and make it truly immersive.
Robert Plant: You're an artist with integrity. Make the album you've always wanted to make.
Chuck D : Give us something incendiary that defines the future of rap as an immersive experience.
CRAY: We think you have a serious future ahead of you, so here's a push. Take your EDM to the next level.
Cui Jian: You're the father of Chinese rock music. Give us the future of Chinese music.
Wendy Carlos: Produce a multitrack Atmos version of the Brandenburgs, with the orchestra of your choice.  Make it sound like you're sitting 20 feet away from the musicians.
Herbie Hancock: Oversee a retrospective of your career, from the very beginning to new material. We'll take care of getting the rights for music you did with people like Miles Davis.

 

I would subscribe for damn sure to hear that music. Cost to Apple is 7 x $1,800,000 or $12,600,000. And there's still $47,000,000 left over.

 

Two more things:

• Any recording/songwriting expenses left unspent would go to music education or a charity named by the artist.
• A "talent scout" would get a $175,000/year salary and travel expenses to discover new talent. New talent would of course be less costly than the "marquee" names, but could really help fill out a roster. Again, I'd subscribe but in this case, to hear stuff I'd never heard before that got past a filter and wasn't just uploaded to Spotify by some rando.

Remember, all this AND another $47 million left over is only ONE PERCENT of what Apple has reportedly spent on original video content. 

 
 

[Tusker]

4 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

I don't think anyone "blames" Spotify, Apple Music, etc. They're giving people what they want - unlimited amounts of music, dirt cheap. What I don't understand is how the music streaming platforms haven't figured out that the most successful video streaming platforms offer original content. 

 

I don't pay to subscribe to Apple Music or Spotify.

 

Thanks. I agree. 

 

As for me, I do subscribe to Apple Music and I love it. It's a source of richness in my life and I am grateful to these platforms even as I see them as a temporary state of affairs. Hopefully nobody construes my "dead cat bounce" comment as an indication that we need to boycott our current sources of music to move to the next phase of evolution. I have no advice to offer about the very next step.

 

My post was about how democratizing forces  of the internet can be expected to tear down our current perception of music as a cultural artifact to be owned and rented rather than an experience. The artifact aspect of music doesn't emerge in human consciousness until relatively recently in human history. Perhaps 13th century Europe in the form of scores? The 20th century worldwide in the form of recordings?

 

The owning of culture is a recent invention, which tends to freeze rather than free art. Pinocchio evolved as a folk tale in Europe, until Walt Disney froze it in a legally defensible copyright making it very difficult for the story to evolve further until recently. That's the downside of viewing culture as an artifact to be owned. Is it any wonder that so many of us are bored with modern music?

 

One might ask what would happen to all the recorded musical artifacts over time if we move to a more experiential view of music again? I don't know. Perhaps they'll live in YouTube or some other repository and we'll browse past them, just as we browse past stuffed animals at the museum. We might have a passing interest in their anatomy and design but we would consider them dead, as well we should. 😀

[analogika]

10 hours ago, ProfD said:

Record labels lost a lot of money paying out advances to artists/bands/musicians for music that didn't sell.

 

That's part of the reason the music industry moved away from developing artists (A&R) to to investing in cookie cutter hits.😎

That shift happened in the 1930s, though. Back when recorded music started putting the working musicians out of work. 
 

Remember, things were better in the Olden Days, back in the Olden Days, too.