David Harrell
"The idea is to support musicians, not the music industry as it existed 15 years ago"
April 2009
|
THE FINGERTIPS Q&A David Harrell "The idea is to support musicians, not the music industry as it existed 15 years ago" April 2009 |
|
Every month, the Fingertips Q&A sends five questions about the state of music in the digital age to one actual, working musician. Pundits and technology zealots are on a rampage to force feed preposterous memes onto an unsuspecting world: "All music must be free!" "Music is like water, a monthly utility!" "No one wants to own music any more!" And music and media writers observe these strutting, naked emperors and compliment their most excellent clothing. Well, I don't do that here. And I've had enough of the pundits and zealots; I'd much rather find out what someone who's out there trying to earn a living wage in the music industry thinks about all this stuff than read the bloviations of one more blogger or technology expert. This month, I'm bringing in something of a ringer. David Harrell, front man for the Chicago-based band the Layaways, is not only an indie rocker but a digital music industry expert himself, sharing news and opinions via his Digital Audio Insider blog. Musically, the Layaways have been featured twice on Fingertips, in February 2005 and November 2008. Q: Someone has given you the job of insuring that musicians are actually able to make money in the 21st century. You have unlimited power. What would you do? A: I guess I'd start by saying that it wouldn't mean trying to return to 1995 or whatever year it was when recorded music sales peaked. The idea is to support musicians, not the music industry as it existed 15 years ago. While I'm sure some would say that using that unlimited power to eliminate the peer-to-peer networks would be a step in the right direction, I doubt it would change things that much. While I don't dispute that some of the decline in music sales is due to P2P traffic, I've never bought into the idea that every song obtained that way represents a lost sale. Besides, there are so many other ways for music fans to obtain music these days without paying for it. I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but other than government-funded stipends for every musician, I don't think there's a way to guarantee that all musicians will earn a living. I'm not arguing that musicians don't deserve a living wage, but it's a simple fact that--and this is the case with any creative field--you have more talented people than the market for their collective talent can reasonably support. And you've got more of them every day, as it's easy for anyone to release music today, even if it's just putting some songs up on MySpace. The result is more and more competition, not just for the dollars of music fans but for their time and attention. On the positive side, despite dwindling sales for recorded music, I don't think there's ever been a better time to be a musician, especially for acts near the bottom of the food chain. The gatekeepers of the past can easily be bypassed and anyone can record music and distribute it to the entire world. And there are more ways to listen to music than ever before, as well as more ways to compensate the musicians. The internet also allows musicians to directly connect with their audiences in a way they never could before. I think we'll start to see more examples like the fan-funded Jill Sobule record that just came out--she was able to quickly raise $75,000 online to fund its recording and promotion. Going back to my unlimited power--at the very least, I'd try the following: 1. Change the method by which radio performance royalties are calculated. BMI and ASCAP pay royalties to songwriters/publishers based on a sampling of radio play, not every song played during a particular period. If your songs aren't captured by the sampling method, you're not going earn any royalties from radio play. The same goes for SoundExchange, the body set up to collect the public performance royalty for internet radio. Granted, if you're not getting enough airplay to be captured during a sampling period, you're probably not missing out on that much income. Still, it can't hurt... 2. If there's a way to do so without unduly burdening radio stations, institute a public performance royalty for terrestrial radio in the U.S. (Currently only songwriters and publishers get paid for terrestrial radio play in the U.S.) 3. Explore something like the Canadian practice of requiring radio stations to devote a certain percentage of airtime to Canadian artists. If commercial stations in the U.S. were required to devote a similar amount of airtime to local/regional artists, it might help create a larger pool of musicians earning substantial royalties from airplay, and it would help spur sales of recorded music and increase live revenue for those acts. 4. Establish universal healthcare. I don't mean to go off on a political tangent, but I've always found it slightly ironic that the party that describes itself as the pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship one is also the one most resistant to the idea of government-mandated healthcare. My point here is that the lack of a healthcare safety net in this country probably stifles a fair amount of both business entrepreneurship and creative endeavors.  © copyright 2009 Fingertip Productions |