Why is it that supporters of live music cannot do unto
recorded music as they would have done to themselves? Last month saw the
publication of the
UK Live Music Census, which offers an excellent examination
of live music in Britain. This campaigning document has a tightrope to walk. On
the one hand, it wants politicians to listen. Therefore, it makes a case for
the great economic value of live music. The sector is described as
‘one
of the real success stories of the past decade’. Seeking to confirm this, the census
focuses on three towns, calculating the millions of pounds that their live
music scenes contribute to the UK economy as well as the thousands of jobs that
they provide. On the other hand, the report is concerned about an industry
under threat. It is particularly focused on small venues and the
‘“perfect
storm” of issues at present which is
affecting their long-term viability and sustainability’. And it wants to
campaign for remedies.
The
activism in this sector has been worthwhile. The introduction of ‘agent of change’ legislation is a case in point. One factor
that has affected British venues in recent years has been a rise in noise
complaints, particularly from the occupiers of new buildings that have been
erected in town and city centres. Live music activists have encouraged the
British government to introduce this new legislation. The principle of ‘agent
of change’ is that ‘the
person or business responsible for the change is
responsible for managing the impact of the change’. In respect of live music,
this means that property developers have to bear the soundproofing costs if
they construct new apartments near existing venues. Conversely, if a new venue
opens in a residential area, it would have to pay for any soundproofing
required. The UK Live Music Census adds weight to this cause by undertaking a
comprehensive, detailed and thought-provoking survey. In addition, its data and
feedback prompt further recommendations for the government and local
authorities: business rates should be addressed so that small venues do not
face crippling and disproportionate increases; licensing laws should be amended
so that younger audiences are able to attend gigs at these venues; parking
restrictions should be liberated to ensure that bands can load and unload their
gear; venues should be funded to help preserve the Britain’s live music
traditions.
I
agree with all of this. What I find more problematic, however, is that live
music is promoted by putting recorded music down. This point is argued in
respect of the music’s social worth. The report states:
Many of the respondents commented on the
difference between the live music and the recorded music experience, often to
say that the former is somehow ‘better’ than the latter. For some, this is
because of the uniqueness of the experience, because unlike with recorded
music, the performance is different each time. The uniqueness of the
performance also means that in an increasingly mediated world, the experience
is authentic; it cannot be repeated. Part of the reason for this sense of
unrepeatable authenticity is because the performer-audience interaction is a
fundamental part of the experience. The live music event allows audiences to
inhabit the same physical space as the artist, sometimes even to meet them in
person.
But is the gig going experience really always
good for society? The unique ‘aura’ of the live event and the adoration of
stars could be considered unhealthy. It places art on a pedestal and encourages
a divide between creators and their followers. Walter Benjamin famously welcomed the liberation provided by recorded media, noting its ability to democratise
artistic practice by making the work more accessible in space and time. (For my
own take on this, see ‘The Aura Restorer’.)
In
addition to its social bias, the UK Live Music Census is partisan when it comes
to music’s economic worth. It proclaims the victories of live music at the
expense of the record industry. The report notes that ‘Live music
revenue overtook recorded music revenue in the UK in 2008’,
referencing a PRS for Music report by Will Page and Chris Carey, and adds that
‘since 2014 UK Music has published figures in its now annual Measuring Music
report that appear to suggest that live music is now consistently the largest
generator of revenue in the UK’s music industries’.
Live
music income has definitely grown in this century and the fortunes of recorded
music have declined. Nevertheless, as I have written elsewhere ('Sympathy for the Mechanical' and 'Measuring the Measuring'), the economic comparisons
that have been drawn between the two sectors are problematic. The PRS for Music
reports do not compare like with like. Their recorded music figures are
restricted to business-to-consumer ‘payments
for physical music products, downloads-to-own and subscriptions’. Their
live music totals are more expansive. As well as documenting the income from
ticket sales by agents and venues, they include secondary ticketing and
ancillary spend. The UK Music figures can be questioned too. Although their
recorded music totals do include business-to-business income, they are still narrow
in comparison to the live music figures, which feature the ‘total spend’ at
gigs and festivals (including food and beverage sales, merchandise, parking
costs, camping fees, etc.) as well as total ticket sales and the sponsorship of
events. These live music figures also include the income of music promoters,
music agents, production services and ticketing agents, whereas the income for
retailers and distributors is discounted from the recorded music figures. Moreover,
UK Music does not, in fact, posit the live sector as generating the most
income. This accolade goes instead to ‘musicians, composers, songwriters and
lyricists’.
How
are these artists getting paid? The UK Live Music Census adds some distortions
of its own. Its authors argue that ‘live music is now more
economically significant than recorded music for musicians’. The results from
their questionnaire show that professional musicians earn, on average, 49% of
their income from performing, 3% from recording, and 4% from composing; semi-professionals
earn 23% from performing, 2% from recording, and 1% from composing; and that amateurs
earn 23% from performing, 2% from recording, and nothing from composing. It is wrong, however, to suggest that these
figures are indicative of musicians as a whole. The
census took place at live music venues. What would the answers have been if it
had been compiled at recording studios or at songwriters’ bootcamps?
In
a similar manner, the authors argue that ‘the census data suggests that spend
on tickets for live music events now forms a greater proportion of consumer
spend on music than recorded music’. Their figures demonstrate that 47% of
respondents spent more than £20 on tickets for concerts or festivals each month
and that only 25% spend the same amount on recorded music. But the authors were
asking people at gigs. It is doubtful that the figures would have been the same
if they had been compiled in record shops, or even if they were solicited from
people in the comfort of their homes.
Moreover,
while these comparisons are unfair on recorded music, they also say little
about live music’s economic dilemma: how to account for the discrepancy between
the economic riches of the live music sector and the economic woes of many of
those working in the field? Although the report is centred on small venues, it
has room for concern about promoters, 50% of whom complain that ‘the cost of
paying bands had an extreme, strong or moderate negative impact on their events
in the past 12 months’. However, these musicians also have monetary troubles. Although
the census report maintains that live music income is more important for
musicians than their advances and royalties, the findings also demonstrate that
68% of musicians have encountered ‘stagnating pay’ for their gigs and find it
difficult to bring in a viable income. On top of this, two-thirds of musicians
have performed for no fee in the past 12 months, while 16% have been asked to
pay to play.
The report pays less attention to those who are prospering from live
music. Moreover, it does not suggest that they should help fund the venues,
promoters and musicians who are suffering from low rates of pay. Instead it
asks for ‘the wider music industries (including recording and publishing,
possibly via the UK Music network) to support musicians and smaller venues
beyond current support; for example, by subsidising emerging artist fees and/or
providing venue infrastructure’. And so recorded music has its uses after all.
The suggestion is not unwarranted. Record companies probably should
provide support for live music. The fortunes of the two fields should not be
contrasted; they should instead be viewed as intertwined. Live music continues
to drive the sales and use of recordings, just as recorded music continues to
drive ticket sales for gigs. This should not however absolve the live music
industry from its own responsibilities. As the census notes, ‘the largest
entertainment company in the world, Live Nation Entertainment, owns both the
largest live music promoter in the world, Live Nation Concerts, and the biggest
ticketing company in the world, Ticketmaster’. Its CEO Michael Rapino is number
one in Billboard’s notorious power
100 for 2018, marking him as the leading figure in the music industries. Maybe
it’s time to phone him up and ask him for some wealth distribution.
