Much has been said lately of the need to revisit the way recording artists are being paid. Especially now, in the midst of the pandemic driven life changes. The old accounting system is hopelessly arcane in this information age. Performance royalties are still based upon the old so-many-cents per spin at a radio station, which heretofore had been driven by a record company’s promotional machine.
Kudos to Don Henley for raising this issue with Congress, but it’s somewhat hard to relate — one gets the notion that he’s complaining because he can no longer afford to hire anyone to peel his grapes for him; although he is also speaking for us little guys struggling to survive.
This accounting mainly addresses compensation for the credited songwriters, though. It all devolves to the sheet music days where a songwriter received the credit and royalties because they wrote the melody line and the lyrics. Prior to the advancement in popular music radio most revenues were derived from the sale of sheet music. Record companies even had full paid staff songwriters whose only job was to churn out song sheet music, and if they were lucky enough to come up with a hit and he worked for a reputable company, the staff would receive a portion of the take. Independent songwriters got it all, minus the publisher’s share. If an artist picked up a song that became a hit very little was paid out to the artist, unless they parlayed that into concert or television performances, or even turned to acting as a career (fraught with its own pitfalls). And with sheet music, there are no other contributing musicians.
The revolution of popular music radio brought about the mechanical license issue and some changes were made. Things were still based upon physical medium sales (not easily copied vinyl records) and radio spins were added, where one cyclically begat the other propelling the music creators into stardom. Enter the birth of the pop and rock stars, and the songwriters were getting the checks.
The proliferation of the internet has virtually killed the music industry that we grew up with. Since we entered the tech explosion and up until recently the real money was only being made by the artists in live performances because that’s the only way that we could move our digital “records”, in other words, the now obsolete CD. Vinyl was passe. Revenue from digital download performances have been anemic, because a secure copy-protection scheme was never properly implemented.
Pirating music was too easy, why pay for it?
Streaming was then promoted as the saviour of the industry. But you don’t see several cents per play anymore; radio was a one-to-many relationship. Digital streaming is play on demand with a one-to-one relationship. And it’s completely unregulated. Rather than a fixed amount per play the songwriter receives what amounts essentially to a profit-sharing relationship with the provider, and the streaming provider holds all of the cards.
The panic of the global pandemic has further altered our realities in a more stark way. Now the musician’s remaining main source of income has been socially-distanced out of existence, from the local working cover musician to the biggest recording stars, and everywhere in between.
Now let’s get down and talk about creativity and the creative process. Bear with me here for some philosophical stuff. What is the basis of creativity? According to Kabbalistic tradition and other similar doctrines, you need two things for creation: the spark, or the male principle; and the container, or the female principle. Please note that these do not necessarily reflect actual genders; it’s just a way of talking about them, so please don’t get your boxers or knickers, respectively, in a bunch.
And it requires tension for the two principles to come together to create something. The tension is also not necessarily a negative tension in the sense of how we typically use the word. It is the joining of two separate concepts that create a new being or thing, either corporeal or conceptual. The tension of the joining and merging of the duality. The spark is the flash of inspiration we get, the container is the form we give it. Until they are realized they are only potentials.
And, based upon the current state of the music industry together with this concept of creativity, it begs the question of what actually constitutes a songwriter. This needs to be redefined as well, to remain timely. Is it the credit that’s listed next to the song name that determines the songwriter? Traditionally, yes. But music nowadays is much more than a lead sheet and lyrics on a static piece of sheet music. While it’s true that a good song is forever, and can withstand morphing into any other musical styles, it’s also true that a particular rendition of a song is what starts kicking the ball down the hill. It used to be said that the genesis of the song creation, the idea or concept begins with the one who started it. And indeed they should receive the credit as a principal songwriter. But the songwriter doesn’t always create all of the parts.
Yes, we’re going there next. Seatbelts on and snugged.
I cannot count the number of songs I’ve been invited to play on where I was asked for creative input on the part I played, to come up with something that might raise the bar on the song. And I have not received any credit other than playing on the track in the liner notes. No stake in the song’s success whatsoever, other than bragging rights. And what really stings is when someone else receives the credit for my creative input, adding insult to injury. No money and no acknowledgment.
Now, if the case was that I was given a specific defined part to play, I would have no expectation of anything other than a player credit. If I was paid for the session I couldn’t demand even a performance credit, understandably, although it would be appreciated. Most sessions I’ve played on have been gratis, for the sheer love of doing it. But at the end of the day, this is a business. Again, if I didn’t write the song and was told what part to play, I wouldn’t have a good argument for sharing in the spoils. However, it’s a different story if I use the spark of my creativity to add to a song. Look at Carol Kaye with And The Beat Goes On. She was the session bassist for that song and came up with the iconic bass line hook that propelled that song into a hit. Now, she was a paid session musician on that song, so at least she got a check in addition to the pat on the back and another notch in her hit gunbelt.
Where does one draw the line?
A group effort is a group effort. In a collaborative song development environment (frequently a band) the hope is that the end product is greater than the sum of its parts. I’ve seen it split bands up, especially in the case where there are multiple writers. For example, George Harrison wasn’t a particularly prolific songwriter, but he wrote some of the most popular Beatles songs (arguably Something was one of the greatest love songs ever written), yet was constantly upstaged and shadowed by the Lennon/McCartney machine. I’ve seen it on much lower levels, too, where the circle is broken, the house is divided, and the acrimony that ensues ultimately tears down the structure. Potentially great bands have been crushed by this.
It’s not only a songwriter who feels second fiddle to another songwriter or other songwriters in the group. It’s also the non-credited contributing musician who can feel slighted overall. Truthfully, it sometimes makes me feel that I’m stupid for contributing and not being able to share in the bounty. Am I going to negotiate a cut and share percentage while in the studio before the Record button is pushed? Not good form, and not conducive to the creative atmosphere because it has a tendency to wreck the vibe. On one occasion when I raised this issue it was actually met with the blunt response of, well you go write your own songs, then.
Okay, then.
I have seen groups where the credit was shared equally among all members of the group, but this phenomenon is sadly few and far between. The case can be made that this is a forward-thinking move, albeit rare because of the preponderance of adherence to the arcane music compensation structure.
Please note that this is not a complaint, especially to my beloved colleagues. Rather it is intended to reinforce the serious need for restructuring of the compensation system for the pro musician. Especially now, when touring artists who cannot tour or perform live now are trying to live off of the pittance doled out by the streaming providers. The sliding scale payout is notoriously unpredictable. Just like we won’t find out what’s in the bill until we pass it, we may know the amount of plays we get, but not the amount per play we’ll receive until the check arrives. I’ve seen the compensation vary widely, from less than one thousandth of a cent per play, and almost always less than one cent per spin.
The term “making it” in the music business is now one of simple survival. If you can continue to make a living, however meager, playing music, you’ve “made it.” Sad.
How about something like this:
- The term “songwriter” is expanded to include more roles than melody line writer and lyric writer, for anyone who contributes an instrumental part, or groove, or anything that is contributory to the success of a song. If the song ever bears fruit, then there will be just compensation all the way around the horn, unity and fairness would be promoted, and the overall vibe would increase. Thus it would ensure the increased chances of successful future collaborations, because anyone who created a part in the song would have a stake. This naturally would not apply to parts already extant.
- The standardization of the amount of the payouts for streaming services across the board. Currently, every provider is different and all are moving targets.
- Increase that standard payout amount, to be offset by paid advertising and for subscription services.
- Secure digital media via crypto security, a la Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, that is all token based. You may be able to capture and copy the file but if you don’t have the token to unlock it you cannot play it. For now a bigger and better mousetrap. Tokens are notoriously difficult to spoof.
For starters.
The idea is that musicians will begin to be fairly compensated again, every contributor will be happier and share in the pie. The consumers will need to pay for it, as they do for anything else. We can end once and for all, or at least for a while, the theft of intellectual property that has plagued the music industry since the days of the cassette tape.