If you were to step into Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine and travel back to a typical club date, say, 25 years ago, things wouldn't look that different. Aside from the gear onstage and the band's hairstyles, the basics would all be the same, from the delicate bouquet of spilled beer to the sudden disappearance of the owner when it's time to get paid.
That doesn't mean that nothing is changing. In fact, the importance of gigs to each musician's career is evolving dramatically — and fast.
In other words, getting up there under the lights and playing three sets meant one thing in an era when people thought MP3 was a type of Hammond organ and getting a record deal was the only ticket to ride. These days, with musicians somehow disenfranchised and empowered at the same time, performance has become more vital than ever.
Few among us understand this as well as Paul Sacksman. As publisher of Musician — in its day the most respected player-oriented magazine in the market — and more recently as codirector of the Music Resource Group and publisher of The Musician's Atlas, Sacksman has developed astute insights into this industry as well as a rare compassion for artists. This I learned from working with him for four years at Musician; it's also why I know there's no one better qualified to speak to working players about the business side of music.
Onstage: How does live performance now fit into each musician's career plan?
Sacksman: Performance has always been a necessity for the artist to connect with and build a fan base. But in the past it also was the place that the industry looked in order to decide which artists would receive support from the business. Many artists are now disproving that model. Just because an A&R department may not be interested in your band, that no longer has to stop you in you tracks. You can continue, because if you are able to connect with fans, then you can have a career because of technologies that allow you to run around the gatekeepers. That does seem to mean that there are somewhat different reasons to connect to your audience from the stage and to perform in front of as many people as possible.
The gatekeepers in your model are record labels, whose influence has clearly shrunk since the Internet has given greater control of music distribution to musicians themselves.
That's right. There's no question that the industry still wants to see artists in performance to decide whether to support them, financially or otherwise. But there is a new element in that this support is no longer needed.
Does this mean that musicians might take different kinds of gigs these days instead of following an older formula of pursuing industry showcases or other opportunities that might give them A&R exposure?
That's one of the elements. The truth now is that if you are effective in creating an audience relationship, the industry will notice. I've heard many an A&R person say, “We're not so interested in developing you from scratch as looking to become a part of your business.”
Under the old model, you got signed, received some kind of support, trusted that you'd be able to pay the label back for that support, and built your business through a long association with that label. Does it make sense for any band to pursue that route today?
My feeling is that unless you are a priority with a major label, it's almost not worth signing the deal. But again, there are ways to avert these obstacles. Through digital distribution, artists are now able to get their records into the hands, or their music into the ears, of their audience, along with visuals and other information, without the labels.
Without label resources, how do bands build the kind of momentum they need to sustain a career?
This may be a cliché, but “think globally and act locally” is the key. But remember that artists never did, do not currently, and probably never will be able to make a substantial living at performance. There never has been a lot of money at the club level, and there still isn't.
So how do you make a living comparable even to the meager incomes achieved by bands on labels?
Go out and perform as much as possible [at nonclub venues]. Today's artists, because they are independent from labels, have become more open to a variety of environments. Playing the marquee club in town is still the goal, but there are other opportunities too, from private parties to corporate events, and some of these alternatives pay more than the club circuit has ever paid or will pay.
What role does merchandising take these days?
The artist is now empowered to take on responsibilities that were previously assumed by the label, so merchandising has become such an important element. To create and sustain any career, there has to be a revenue flow, and artists are realizing that they can create that flow, just like they produce their own records.
It certainly feels more grassroots than the campaigns you see cooked up by some corporate advertising guru.
In fact, it has influenced what the major brands are doing, as they see that the original paradigms of broadcast and print advertising are no longer as effective as they want them to be. This approach — I call it guerrilla marketing — was actually established by artists and musicians, not by Madison Avenue. The only difference is that when it's done by Madison Avenue it's literally covert action: they pay people to stand in bars and talk up liquor, or to act as phony tourists in New York to ask others to take their picture with a new camera that they will then talk about. Musicians aren't as subversive as that.
Will unauthorized digital distribution cut back even more on the amount of money that's earned from album sales?
It will have an impact, although I'm more fascinated by evidence that some of the most downloaded commercial artists are also the best-selling artists. If that's true, and I think it is, then the supporters of file sharing are correct in assuming that active music consumers are willing to spend time and money in exposing themselves to the works of multiple artists. If anything, that'll whet their appetites even more for seeing a band perform.
So there's still hope for survival; it's just that performance, low paying as it is, may be the center of the economic plan.
That's the muse. That's what drives musicians. I don't think there's any greater necessity than an artist growing in front of an audience. The financials on the lower end haven't changed, for the most part. Yet more artists continue to dedicate themselves to honing their craft. That's always been the responsibility of the artist — and it's always been done best onstage.
