Exposure + Compensation
June 15th, 2009I continue to think a lot about music and money. How do we determine value for the creative energy, the technical work, the stories told, the physical product or the ones and zeroes.
Yesterday I was thinking about exposure and obscurity.
If listeners are going to take your music anyway, why not give it freely?
But isn’t that that completely defeatist?
How should a musician earn a living if they give their work away for free?
This requires the faith and assumption that with the momentum of widespread exposure will come licensing for film, television, commercials and video games. And with that added exposure, will come more opportunities to play larger shows which earn more money.
AND that there are enthusiastic true fans that will support your work because they believe in compensation for creative work that enriches their lives.
This is a dream.
Should being deemed a dream inherently disqualify such a goal?
I think not.
Tricky Business
I’m not trying to alienate any friends who don’t want to give their work away for free. Your work has value! My musings are not to imply that it does not.
I read an interesting NYTimes article about professional illustrators rebuking Google’s request for pro bono designs.
I see their point. Google has a lot to gain by crowdsourcing, and dangling the exposure carrot. How much conversion traffic would an artist receive from designing a Google Chrome skin?
It’s not that I think musicians shouldn’t be compensated for their music. My frustration stems from the disconnect in the industry where the men in suits (loan sharks) are compensated in place of the artist.
I love to hear of artists who are capable of paying off FACTOR and making ends meet. (And you can listen to all of Metric’s latest album, streamed from their website.)
Tags: Dreams, free
Posted in Mu$ic Theory | Comments (2)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:11 am
i personally think it’s pretty balls that a big name artist like Metric (who obviously has many big name companies backing them, judging by that article, ie. distro, marketing, and no doubt amazing booking agents) takes the big hunk grants away from smaller struggling bands who could REALLY use that money…i think FACTOR defeats itself many times over by giving the bigger names in Canada all the money, leaving the little guys who don’t yet have all these monsters of industry backing them to wallow in obscurity. Metric could just as easily go to a major bank and ask for a loan with all the power behind them. their agents are just working the government system because they can.
but that’s just my bitter poor musician opinion.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Hi Joan, I’m glad you wrote. I am very interested in your opinion: these are questions and issues you’re facing with more immediacy than I am. (Joan’s album just released! Joel’s album is nowhere near ready for release.)
The Joel-ish, wordy reply I’ve just written might as well be a post. So… I’ll save some of my digressions.
Is FACTOR a plateau that one must claw and scrape, network, shimmy to get to? And once you’re in, you’re in. I heard from a record producer that back in the 70’s EVERYBODY got a FACTOR grant, didn’t matter if you were a musician or not. It was there for EVERYBODY. They’ve tightened up now, and it would make sense that the hoops they’ve put in place can be easily gamed by those who know how.
For some artists, more than 75% of the job is writing grant applications (and then more time wriggling through fine print and bureaucracy to evolve the intended use of the funding.) So are you good at making your art, or are you good at winning grants? (This is for the aether.)
I suppose with Metric, the one type of big name company that they don’t have backing them is a label to fund. So they have distro, marketing and booking ready to roll, then that makes them a more viable investment for the FACTOR board. (I need to do more research, I’m not sure what percentage of FACTOR’s decision is based on recoupability.
Thanks Joan.