Music's Weakest Link by George Ziemann -- September 29, 2010 Of all the things that are wrong with the music business, the saddest realization is that the greatest threat to the future of music is not bad contracts, the internet, laws that punish the fans, or even the shrinking number of places to perform. The thing that is doing the most damage is the attitude of musicians. The bulk of this article originated as a letter to a person who hosts an e-mail discussion group among independent artists, detailing the reasons I didn't want to take part any longer. There's no reason to identify the recipient or the group, but it ended up as a relevant summary of my general feelings on the subject of the music business, so I decided to share it here as well. The one thing that bothers me most is the willingness of so many in the music business to classify children as thieves and ignore the reality that hearing new music has traditionally always been free to the listener. I grew up with a transistor radio within the reach of Motown. Never bought much music until I entered the work force and very few of my purchases went to the Motown artists that filled my ears for so long and made me appreciate a wide variety of music in the first place. My music collection is primarily rock. But I remember going to sleep at night with the radio tucked inside my pillow, drifting to sleep with the sounds of the Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, the Isley Brothers, the Supremes and everything else that CKLW transmitted. That's where my love for music was born. The entire point of Top 40 radio was the repetition. For decades, it was possible to sell albums on the strength of one hit song. We didn't realize that this repetition was paid for by the record labels and charged back to the artists as promotion, and it is obvious that a great number of artists have forgotten the investment required to obtain that airplay. Now, it seems as if everyone expects people to buy their music before they have ever heard any of it. Seems short-sighted, if not on the edge of ignorance. The public's thirst for and active search for new music is something that no one in their right mind would really want to bring to an end, and it is up to us to find a technological answer to the modern realities instead of treating the audience as if they are stealing something that we put out there in the first place. But it's so much easier than dealing with the truth. Certainly, one of the reasons to distribute a recording is to attempt to profit from it, but there seems to be an overwhelming sense of entitlement among the more established artists that predicates whatever they produce today MUST deliver the same financial rewards as in the past or it is the fault of everyone else in the world. I don't know how to respectfully convey to them the fact that artists can lose their appeal for many reasons. Maybe they failed to keep up with the times, perhaps their audience drfted off. In the case of some of the older artists, it is entirely possible that their audience has shrunk because a great number of their fans have died, or no longer derive the same pleasure from music as they did in their younger days. There is also the distinct possibility that the audience of some acts has become aware of their condescending attitude to the people they used to call fans, as evidenced by their willingness to sue children and college students who have yet to enter the work force and earn enough disposable income to spend on entertainment. I know that this factor has definitely made me stop purchasing music or attending shows of many artists I used to respect. I used to feel a need to try to get this across to those most actively entrenched in the attack, but the escalation od animosity they now display makes it almost impossible to do without being insulting. I feel I have already crossed that line with a few artists who simply refuse to listen to reason. There is also an attitude of superiority and the opinion that just because you didn't spend thousands of dollars to create a recording, it must be crap. This infuriates me. I've been doing concert sound for 35 years and engineering recordings for two decades. My current album cost me absolutely nothing to produce and I'd put it up against anything from the majors in terms of technical merit. It still has flaws, but most of them were intentional. I knew they were there when I released the record; I left them in because they served an artistic purpose. And I'm certainly not the only one who can produce a decent recording without spending a fortune to do it. There are thousands of independent artists who have grasped the intricacies of digital technology and know how to use it. We all have better recording gear on our desktops than George Martin had when he produced Sgt. Pepper on two four-track recorders taped together. It's not what you have or how much you spend that matters, it's what you do with it and the message that you express. Another problem is what I call the Big Lie, which is the intentional fallacy that a musician needs a major label recording contract to attract an audience. I've actively avoided and purposefully passed up several traditional opportunities for "success" because I know the realities of what happens when you sign a recording contract, including the "work for hire" clauses, the fact that that selling 14 million albums can be less profitable for the artists involved than owning a McDonalds franchise, and that even artists like The Beatles have been continuously ripped off for their entire careers because the major record labels will do everything possible to avoid paying artists what they have rightfully earned. According to Fred Wilhelms, who used to be an attorney for AFTRA, in the entire history of recorded music, exactly two audits have determined that the record label actually paid the artists properly according to the terms of their contract. That was a couple of years ago. Maybe a third instance has come to light. It does no good to go down the street and take your talent to someone else. You won't get a better deal. The contracts are all the same. I saw Noel Redding (Jimi Hendrix's bassist) selling his guitar on eBay just before he died because he needed the cash. Bob Marley's family just got deprived of any right to Marley's work because of a "work for hire" clause in his contract from the 1970s. It's not unusual to see artists performing until the day they die, even if it would have been in their best interests to retire. But they can't. Most of them don't own their own work. If they don't keep performing, they'll starve. And when they die, that's when the true thieves that have actively stolen the rights to their creations profit the most. But you'll still see people lined up for blocks to get "discovered" on shows like "American Idol" because the truth is carefully hidden and obscured. Tell people that Sony has been taking performances from those shows, producing million-selling albums and not paying the artists a dime (it's happened in Mexico and Australia) and it just pisses them off because it interferes with their fantasy. Everyone wants to believe that the last person standing in these contests is a winner. But where are the "winners" from seven or eight years ago? How many were excellent mimics but didn't have the true spark of creativity? How many of them got tossed aside when their second album didn't sell? How many discovered the small print when they didn't get a follow-up check after their initial advance? How many of them could get up on stage and sing one song a week, but didn't really have what it takes to succeed in the bright light of day under the demands of constant touring and public appearances? The artists themselves are just as much to blame for this as anyone else. One of the terms of a recording contract is that you do not discuss the terms of your contract. So the people who have already been taken to the cleaners won't talk about it publicly. If you do, your career is over. The truth is out there, but it seems as if no one wants to acknowledge it. It's easier to blame the audience, brand them as thieves, buy legislation to protect the real criminals and punish the fans. I was once the adminstrator of Boycott-RIAA and was constantly attacked from all sides because my position doesn't have many supporters. I think the signed artists are wrong for persecuting their fans, I think the peer-to-peer users (and companies) are wrong for sharing music without compensating the artists, I think the RIAA is wrong in wanting to criminalize the search for new music, I think ASCAP is wrong for wanting to deny authors and composers alternative licensing tools like Creative Commons, and I think that even groups like EFF seem to miss the real point as they quibble over the minutae of the law and ignore the implications of justifying the actions of filesharers with no consideration for the wishes of the people that created the works in the first place. I think the general public doesn't realize the damage they are causing to the viability of musicians trying to make a living, and I think that musicians themselves are only compounding that damage by attacking the audience. But try to tell them that and you're viewed as in league with the so-called "pirates." It seems to me that most of them screaming the loudest are actually part of the pirate crew themselves. I also think many of the independent artists refuse to break away from the "way things were" and continue to pursue their careers with a mindset that is locked in the old paradigms, which only prolongs the ability of record labels to make "starving artists" something to be accomplished on their daily to-do list. They need a figurative whack on the side of the head, but it's going to have to come from someone else, because I'm nobody to them. No matter how much truth I bring to the table, they're not going to listen to me. I go through this feeling that my energies trying to educate are pointless on a semi-regular basis because nothing seems to evolve in the slightest. Things are no better today than they were 10 years ago. Maybe worse. Everyone seems so insistent on their legal rights (most of which were written before modern technology ever existed, by the very groups in the best position to separate those rights from the creators of the artistic works), with no regard to reason or the advancement of culture and the arts. No one seems to be searching for a logical, middle ground. While I've always felt that the attempt to educate others was a noble effort, the thing that keeps wearing me down is the realization that regardless of the outcome, there is nothing for me to gain, nothing to win, nothing to lose. I'm not even sure why I've fought so hard for so long trying. No matter what happens to the music industry in general, it isn't going to effect my life either way. Once upon a time, there was a music business, now it's the music business. The difference is significant. Those involved possess less understanding than ever of the need for culture in our lives. The messages about life and the world, love and loss that used to emanate from the transistor radio under my pillow have been replaced by hate, greed and self-aggrandizing. Too few artists are left that worry about what the world is turning into. They're too busy selling perfume and hawking clothing produced in sweat shops. What's left to care about? Who is left to admire? The only satisfaction left to be derived from the state of the music industry is a perverse pleasure in watching the castles of the rich crumble as the audience deserts them. It does no good for the musicians that really are still concerned with the creation of art, but the industry abandoned them long ago in pursuit of cold, hard cash. The Grammy awards are handed out by a group called NARAS, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Science. But you won't win a Grammy because you pushed the envelope of the art and science of recorded music, you win them for success in advertising and sales. The industry itself has forgotten what it used to stand for. Music isn't the only place that our priorities have been misplaced. It's just most evident to me because I'm so close to the subject. Look around. What do our children learn in school? Who are their heroes there? It's not the most accomplished students that get the glory, it's the athlete. Is it any wonder that kids would rather play Guitar Hero as opposed to taking the time to pick up a real guitar and learn to play? Learning music theory, chord structure and composition takes time and effort. We've taught the kids that achievement is secondary to competition. We downplay the pursuit of wisdom and honor the gladiators. It doesn't matter if a child can conquer the obstacles of physics or advanced math. What matters is if they can crush their opponent. That's where the money and fame is. That's what we've taught our kids to love above all else. Greed, hunger for power, anger and the destruction of those who disagree with us are what drives our world today, whether the playing field is in education, in business, on the political front or in the music that we hear. Peace, love and harmony are for losers. There's no money in it. It should be no real surprise that these attitudes shape every aspect of our culture. Art is a reflection of what we are. It is dying, and we as a people are the ones who are killing it.