And another thing: it's not record companies that put artists under pressure - it's us
One of the most telling passages in John Niven's "Kill Your Friends", which is at least based in real life, is his list of the acts signed by the UK labels in 1996. It goes like this:
"Here's what we, the A&R community, put our money on last year. This is what we reckon you're going to be buying and enjoying in the coming year or so: the Beekeepers, Luna, Feline, Proper, Lower, Arnold, the Dub Pistols, the Hybrids, the Aloof, Spookey Ruben, Sally Burgess, Ragga & the Jack Magic Orchestra, Genaside II, Hardbody, Finley Quaye, Jocasta, Old Man Stone, Ajax Disco Spanner, Gus Gus, Vitro, Travis, Agnes Monkey, Tiger, Don, the Nicotines, Mantaray, Laguna Meth, Symposium, Deadstar, Foil, Peach, Manbreak, Ether, Charlotte Kelly, My Life Story, Robbie Williams, Aquasky, Code Red, the Driven, Dust Junkies, Silversun, Alistair Tennent, Kenickie, 1st Class, Ryan Molloy, North & South, Olive, Blue Amazon, Nash, Kelly Lorena, Belvedere Kane, Horace Andy, Ariel, Craig Armstrong, Kavana, Lilacs, One Inch Punch, Kings Of Infinite Space, Mandalay, the Stereophonics, Akin, Amar, DJ Pulse, Snug, Eboman, M Beat, Slipmatt.
Go on then, *you* pick the change out of that lot."
When we discussed this on the podcast we reckoned there were just three acts on that list who made money: Robbie Williams, Travis and the Stereophonics. The story of the other 70-odd - and this is just the tip of the indie landfill; there are tons more where those came from - can only be told in accounts departments via the bills that somebody paid - for demos, for studio time, for expensive producers, for videos, for advertising, for subsistence, for tour support, for arty press shots, for fruit and flowers, for bribes, for drugs, for hours, days and weeks spent schlepping from kids TV show to Radio One session to support slots on tours of the Benelux countries in the hopeless belief that the next single off the album would be the one that would jam its foot in the door of the public consciousness long enough for them to get into the lower reaches of the Scottish League Division Two of fame.
I was thinking of this when I read somebody's post about how American singer songwriter John Hiatt was making better records now that he didn't have "record company pressure". I think "record company pressure" is, like artistic integrity, one of those myths that we use to try to convince ourselves that everything in the garden would be lovely if it weren't for the blue meanies. I like John Hiatt and as far as I can tell he started making albums in 1974. I've got lots of them. To date he's made seventeen, not including departures like Little Village and soundtracks. What all these albums have in common is that not one of them will have made back the money it cost to make, no matter how modest or major the budget may have been. This is the brutal, brutal truth of the record business and the strangely naïve way that the record companies conduct it. It's a punt and the overwhelming majority of horses never win a race of any kind. Oddly enough, that doesn't stop new owners wanting to saddle them.
Even Hiatt is probably amazed that major record companies kept investing in him for as long as they did. The only pressure they put him under was the vague hope that he might come up with a hit. I doubt if they were stupid enough to believe he was more likely to do it if they forced him into the studio with Justin Timberlake or whoever was having the hits at the time. The pressure that supposedly comes from the record company is only another form of the pressure that an act voluntarily puts itself under all the time. They know better than anyone they're in a furiously competitive business. What they probably don't like to dwell on too much is the fact that the brutality of the market is the direct result of the ever-widening gap between supply and demand and the callous indifference of the listening audience - that would be us.
As reality bites in the current climate it's likely that the major record companies will be taking slightly fewer punts. But there won't be any less records. Everyone shown the door by a major label will find some way to put their album out. And that's fine so long as they don't do what their former paymasters did - which is bet everything on just the one number and have no alternative strategy if that all goes wrong. But they'll still be taking a punt, only this time on themselves, and they won't have "record company pressure" or its logical contradiction "lack of promotional support" to blame when it goes wrong.
Will this put them off? I don't think so.
- More from David Hepworth.
- Login or register to post comments
-
If anyone needs evidence that the A&R / cocaine interface...
is a bad thing, one need only think for a minute about the likelihood of a band called Ajax Disco Spanner breaking through to play the enormodomes of America. Methinks not...
For A&R read R&D
In most major industries, the car manufacturing industry for example, a significant proportion of annual turnover (roughly between 10 and 20%) is earmarked for R&D (research and development). Unrecouped bands are the music industry's equivalent; their costs covered by the profits generated by the small proportion of acts signed that hit the jackpot.
I'm not sure "lack of promotional support" is necessarily a cop-out excuse for being useless in all cases. Records and acts are often "broken" because record companies concentrate a lot of effort and money on them, while others acts might be deemed less of a "priority". It's the same with any product - a brand of shampoo, a magazine. Although it won't become a "hit" on hype alone, it'll have more chance of succeeding the better it is promoted. The Word would sell more copies if it could afford a higher print run, better distribution and a big fat advertising budget, wouldn't it? Same with a record.
It's a very thin line between success and failure in the music business and it's not always determined by merit (which in this case is pretty hard to define). Let's not forget, if it wasn't for a very lucky fluke and an unusually persistent and dogged manager, The Beatles would never have got a record deal. And four of the biggest stars in the history of popular entertainment would have been bus drivers or panel beaters in Skelmersdale.
p.s. 5.30am David? This suggest insomnia and a worryingly restless mind. Have you considered Transcendental Meditation?
1,000 True Fans?
Taking the idea of A&R as R&D further, a band signed to a label is the Salesman, Product Manager and Product rolled into one. The label may, or may not, take care of the Marketing.
For a manufacturer, every product has a life-cycle. If nobody wants to buy Ben & Jerry's Liver and Onion ice cream, Ben & Jerry will stop making it. That's business.
There's an interesting 'school of thought' that proposes an artist only needs one thousand true fans to make a modest living:
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
An interesting perspective on having a career...
... from an interview I did a while back with a singer called Amy Wadge about maintaining a modest career in music...
http://www.webarchive.org.uk/pan/13368/20070209/www.thetrousers.co.uk/is...
--------------------------------------------
'Conversation then drifts, as it often does in such situations, onto the trials and tribulations of being an independent artist, something that must have plusses and minuses? "Yeah, it does. I mean, I don't know if anyone really sits down and says ‘oh, I'm only going the indie route', because if the right deal came along then of course you'd go for it. But I've always felt it would be better for it to happen now, with my album finished and representing me how I want to be rather than going in and getting manufactured the hell out of.
"My record company and my manager are the same person, so he hasn't got any problem with someone coming along and saying ‘here's loads of cash!'. They've stuck by me and I've been able to create a great album. But the whole thing with majors at the moment is just crazy. Until you've already got somewhere they don't sign you…so that's what we're trying to do. And if we don't get somewhere, I've still got a great life and a great career…we'll see what happens!"
It's clear that music is Amy's passion, something she just has to do. "Yeah, I always say — and it's really true — it's the reason I get up in the morning. Any time where music's been missing from my life, it's never worked for me. Even if I didn't do it for a career, I'd be playing music anyway. I just love it and it really dominates my life. Sometimes I wish it didn't, but it does. I can't give it up ‘cos it won't give me up." '
' "You know, I always say that the megastardom thing is a total lottery, but what we've hopefully been doing is building something that is sustainable for a very long time — maybe until the day I die! I'd love to get a career that's maybe a bit more controllable, where I can say I pretty much know what I'm going to earn every day…to make a sustained living out of music would be brilliant!" '
--------------------------------------------
I know a number of artists who, while the "BIG BREAK" would not go amiss, are concentrating on sustaining a lower or lower-mid range career (in "stardom terms"). Gigging round the circuit, putting out self-produced or indie-label EPs and albums, selling them at gigs and through independent distribution.
Maybe that's a part of the new way of doing the music business which will need to rise up to replace the current busienss model which, as Mr H is fond of reminding us, is clearly broken at the moment.
Very interesting subject that requires thought
I saw Ian McLagans bump band at SXSW and he alluded to the state of the recording industry a couple of times during the course of his set.He said that in his opinion the industry had gone back to the dinosaur days and was all the more exciting for it now that the 'sharks' had got their come uppance. He is releasing his own material on his own website www.maniacrecords.net and i for one will be supporting him.
Question is who decides where the money goes? The Ting Tings, another SXSW participant will undoubtedly have a lot of money thrown their way because of their vibrancy, youth and a singer who looks like an updated Blondie. Yes they were great but better musicians that Ian McLagens Bump band? Never in a million years!!
I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to.
All I've heard of The Ting Tings is that single that's been getting air play on various radio stations (Great DJ, I think it's called) but there's not much in that song to suggest more than two days of work and most of that was probably drum programming.
One of the lessons of Kill Your Friends (which I just finished last night) is that record companies aren't throwing money at competent musicians or amazing songwriting, they are throwing money at records which they think will sell to the lowest common denominator of the buying public.
I really liked Arnold
A band that probably more people should have heard but who, I guess, suffered at Creation due to the dominance of Oasis. Fishsounds is a good album and the eponymous single is, I think, a superb slice of laid-back acoustic pop.
Waiting eagerly for Kill Your Friends to be delivered (thanks to Waterstones for their double loyalty points Good Friday!).
It all works nowadays, doesn't it?
What i don't understand is how record companies can get away without investing in their A&R in as big a way as they always did. The problem seems to be working out a way of reducing the risk on their investment. With all the hype and buzz (and stats) that comes out of the internet nowadays you would have thought someone would be able to come up with a better formula for identifying a 'sure thing'
The Ting Tings are a good example they signed to Columbia after getting a lot of Buzz at Glastonbury last year, they had one great single 'That's Not My Name' now they can't even chart with 'Great DJ'. How long before someone at Columbia suggests that Katie goes it alone and sacks of the male drummer half of the band
Ian McLagan's a good example of the 1000 fans syndrome. He's had a bloody good innings over the years and now has a good solid fan base that probably wouldn't expand regardless of how much money a major could spend on promotion. Being a great musician has alway been a pretty minor factor when looking at whether an act will be a success or not. I'm sure he can a good living doing sessions, touring the states and selling recordings via download to his fans.
What I think makes this positive is that any of these things are now possible, majors will continue to try and find the next 'big thing' and the minnows will thrive through the long tail/1000 fans that the internet has made economically possible.
I'm just grateful that the majors might find one great act every couple of years and people like July Skies and Epic45 (thanks Rob) can keep on producing great music by distributing 1000 CDs themselves...
Another problem for the majors nowadays seems to be once you've found your talent and they've become successful how do you keep them on the straight and narrow and produce some longevity.
Paul i share your opinions
and the great thing about the current music industry is that the artists i like who are generally in the 1000 sales category as opposed to megastars can make a living and enable me and other like minded souls to hear their music. I am pretty sure that this is what Ian McLagen was referring to when he made his comments. It is also pretty clear from the sheer volume of artists touring now that the music is going back to the people. The majors have had their day for the moment - yes it will come again sometime but lets enjoy today.
Speculate to accumulate
Looking at the roster of artists that was featured in Kill Your Friends, I can point to at least two who were teeny-pop acts and who were probably signed to make the record company some quick money in the tween market.
Code Red were as bad as their name suggests (I sadly remember interviewing them at the time), while North & South were almost as bad, but had the luck to have a BBC (I think) kids programme attached to their life and goings-on. Think early SClub, but not set in such a glamorous location.
Also, isn't Craig Armstrong the bloke behind a lot of the Ibiza chill-out stuff and now writes a fair bit for movie soundtracks? Can't believe he hasn't broken even!
I also agree with the earlier poster about Arnold - I thought they were great and their Hillside Album is a forgotten work of genius!
The indie (as in true indie label) way
seems at least to offer support from people who love the music rather than the more cynical jaded attitude of the majors. My perception is that great music has emerged inspite of the big record companies rather than because of them - against the odds, but somehow quite a lot comes through. Yes many acts are subsidised but when the majors back someone wholeheartedly they don't really seem to know what they are doing and others who could make it big are neglected. A band's success does often follow when enough publicity is funded. But then the record company often doesn't manage that success well and allow for longevity - they just milk for all it's worth for fear it will end. It seems rather pessimistic to think this is still the best way.
The issue with doing it yourself, properly is finding funds to start up. This was the issue that female artist (forget the name) who featured in a blog not long ago was tackling by asking for contributions online from individuals. That is one way. The ideal seems to be smaller scale management and businesses. I think there is no reason why the majors failure to deal with the new ways shouldn't provide an opportunity for more good music not less. As I recall the orignal indie scene (late seventies) produced all kinds of varied, interesting music.
Another point re funding acts that don't sell any records is you could have a band who are not successful in their own time but who have a big influence in the future and end up making money on their back catalogue in the long run when their influence and work is recognised, so it's not just about hits here and now. Of course trouble with that is - how do you know it's going to happen?!
Take my word for it
I've known people who work for big record companies who are just as dedicated and interested in the music as the people who work for small ones. Many of them are now out of work. There already is "more good music, not less" but the problem is people find it very hard to make a living out of it.
The indie labels are working against exactly the same odds as the big ones. Traditionally bands have done better out of the big labels because they've been prepared to bet big on something becoming a big hit. Bands have been quite happy to take their money, often under false pretences, and only moaned about not being understood when they were dropped. Name me a band who went from a major to an indie when they had the choice. It's no more likely to happen than Wayne Rooney is likely to turn up at Huddersfield Town because he likes the way they do things.
The two things that should have changed in the equation recently are:
1. The cost of making a record ought to have dropped dramatically since the advent of Pro Tools and the rest of the digital recording technology;
2. As we move away from physical distribution the playing field ought to have been levelled and the big labels' advantage should be eroded.
However, what the acts seem to want is the revenue they used to make out of physical product, the luxury of old-style recording budgets, the cred of an indie plus the cash money of a major.
The record buying public are paying half the price for a CD that they paid ten years ago. The number of acts keeps on growing. Something's got to give.
Happy to take your word for it
on the matter of there being people who work for big labels with a dedication to music. I am sure they exist. But small labels seem to care more. However, my experience of the music business is fairly limited.
I suppose if something has to give then it will eventually. No doubt the majors will cutback, as they are doing. But hopefully new bands will adapt and accept the new reality - well they won't have much choice as it's going to be adapt or die eventually. I agree it's not clear how it will work though. If you do it yourself you keep more of the revenue but where does your budget come from to start with? Well it has to be more modest than in the past of course. There's a need to be inventive in how funds are raised. Time will tell. I expect solutions will evolve.
Since John Hiatt....
....was used as the example in the opening post of this thread, I thought I'd mention that he has a new cd coming out in May called "Same Old Man".
I'm certainly looking forward to it!
looking forward to it
I'll certainly buy it, regardless of his royalty statements!
John Hiatt
I would suggest that John Hiatt was under a fair amount of record company pressure to start with. He was probably signed with the aim of uncovering another Bruce along with all the other Mellencamps and Springfields that came along. He was most likely teamed up with producers and musicians who were given this as their remit and as such a lot of his early records sound very dated and you can hear the desperation for the successful single on a lot of them.
As he's got older, he has probably got more of a say in who he works with, whether this constitutes freedom from the record company or not, I'm not sure.
Also, I'd be surprised if Bring The Family didn't make some people some money? It was recorded very quickly (albeit without the cheapest band in the world) and I saw him around that time and there was a fair turn out on the strength of that record. It must have at least broken even for the record company and would Little Village have happened if Bring The Family had lost money?
I don't want to sound as if I'm down on people like John Hiatt..
...because I'm not.
I just think that record companies overestimate what people like this can sell and their fans overestimate what they have already sold. I don't know exactly what Bring The Family sold but I think it's worth noting that the British arm of his US record company didn't put it out. They licensed it to an independent. Hiatt himself has used his albums as shop windows for his songs, some of which have been big hits for other people.
Little Village was seen as a way that Warner Brothers could persuade Ry Cooder to start making rock records again. It fell apart before it even got started because nobody could work out how four biggish names could make money out of it.
A couple of years ago I talked to Richard Thompson, who's a roughly comparable artist to Hiatt. He said that in a recording career lasting nearly forty years he'd never once had a a positive royalty statement. That is, he'd had lots of advances to make albums with but never actually seen one go into the black in any meaningful way. That doesn't mean that he felt he'd been swindled; it's just that the record business is geared to the advance not the royalties.
Like many veteran artists he now regards live work as his main money earner - which is why everybody plays festivals nowadays and also why festival tickets cost so much - and sees records as things he does for the fans and sells at gigs.
Joni Mitchell
Joni Mitchell's a big one for moaning about record companies, but I seem to remember David Geffen saying in an interview that none of her albums ever "recouped". Can this be true for even such a high-profile artist? And if so why did the record company support her at a loss for so long? In the hope that her reputation might at some point throw up a big hit that covers previous losses? "Prestige act", good for the label's image? I'd like to know.
I don't know David Geffen's secrets but..
...I wouldn't mind betting that none of those Asylum releases ("Court & Spark", "Hejira" etc) recouped. Joni will have made a lot of money over the years by having other people make big hit versions of her songs but her records have never been fixtures in the charts. That's a good guide to whether you make money or not. Do you linger in the charts, even at a lower level? If you do it's likely that your records are bought by people outside your fan base. Why did they support her for so long? I'd guess because they hoped she would break through, because it was good to have her on the label and - don't laugh - because they admired her work. But when it came time to renew they walked away. By then Geffen had a new label and he re-signed her! In the late 70s Warner Bros famously said goodbye to a lot of big names like Van Morrison and Bonnie Raitt because the artists had financial expectations which they could no longer meet. That's the truth. The universe of fans who are likely to buy your records is not going to grow far beyond a certain level. Unlike the universe of people who'll see you live which, as the Rolling Stones keep finding, is growing all the time.
Makes you feel grateful to the much maligned chart toppers
who keep the money coming in to subsidise the 'art'. (Of course sometimes the hit is also high quality music too, but not often). Maybe we should buy more chart stuff and think of it as an investment in the acts we revere. Don't have to actually play it. Or we all make a contribution to the record company instead, as fans to go toward music making by the band we love. Perhaps everyone should just try harder to produce hit singles. It's really in their interest it seems.
Interestingly
just read in magazine about Chris Blackwell who invested money made on a commercial hit My Boy Lollipop in music he loved that he probably expected not to produce any profits. No doubt this will not happen so much in future as insufficient dosh will be made from the hits. More typical of the current reality is the tale of Lloyd Cole, also in the magazine, who struggled financially and now needs to tour regularly to survive. Yet he appears happy with his lot, after all he is able to keep doing what he loves, even though his glory days are gone. I guess pop stars will just need to become a bit more like everyone else - like ordinary people, but hopefully not too much, we still want some glamour/craziness.
Boo Hoo
So Lloyd Cole "now needs to tour regularly to survive". Well hang on a minute don't we all have to go out to work regularly to "survive" and avoid "financial struggle". It's his job. It's how he's chosen to make his living. Why on earth shouldn't he appear "happy with his lot." A couple of moderate selling albums over twenty years ago does not qualify Lloyd Cole or anyone for a meal ticket for life.
Quite so
That's what I am saying too. I didn't mean to suggest we should get the violins out.
Quite so
Sorry. Misread your post slightly. That is what you were saying too.
No problem
The thing that freaked me out is that Lloyd Cole is 50.
You beat me to it Sven
Judging by the sheer number of artists/songs that appear on the randomizer that I've never heard of, most Worders are listening to acts that are unlikely to make much dosh for the majors. Sad then, but we need acts like Oasis who appeal to the masses who can then subsidise the good stuff we like! I suppose the music industry is just like football nowadays where the riches go into the pockets of a very small group of (often undeserving)players leaving crumbs for the rest. (Shouldn't we get used to saying hit downloads now as singles have almost gone the way of the dodo?)
publishing?
Sometimes low-achievers get signed to a major label for their records, and to their publishing company for the true intellectual capital - the songs. The loss-making records are more than compensated for by the value of the publishing. Perhaps that's it?
Ooberman's do it yourself work ethic
"We still owe Cargo £4000, but once that's paid off we're home and dry and making a living out of music again." - Danny Popplewell
Ooberman enjoyed a brief flicker of popularity in 1997. Following the commercial failure of their first album they were dropped by Independiente. They subsequently released two much better albums on their own label, but by this time the buzz surrounding the band had evaporated. When they folded in 2003 that appeared to be the end of it.
In 2006, Danny Popplewell emerged from hibernation with unexpected news of a fresh Ooberman album. Following this came the announcement of a raft of side projects, to be released within months of each other, which he described as the Ooberman road map
The most interesting of these, from the perspective of this thread, is Symphonika - an orchestral project intended primarily for industry and promo use (they appear to be angling for soundtrack work) but whose two albums have also been released in extremely limited quantities on CD, for hardcore fans who may want to hear the music.
This hasn't pleased everyone. One poster on the band's messageboard wryly described the first Symphonika CD as "like a 20-minute advert for going to Alton Towers at Christmas". However it does speak of a more symbiotic relationship between the fans and the artist; whereby the former get some new music and the latter uses the money raised from the sale of the CDs to soak-up some of the production costs of what is essentially an expensive demo.
Other landmarks on the Ooberman road map include a rarities album, an album by the band's other song-writer, Andy Flett, recorded under the Ooberon moniker, and another side-project titled The Magic Theatre mooted for a release later this year.
The upshot of all this is that by the end of 2008, in the space of roughly three years, Ooberman will have independently released six albums under various guises - some intended to have fanbase appeal; some being attempts to court record companies; some gambling on boarder popularity. This is perhaps how a band with limited finances has to operate if they are to make a living from music: To always have plenty of irons in the fire, a long term plan for the future, and a degree of flexibility regarding how their music is used.
I wonder whether the day will come...
...when you pay a subscription to be a fan of an act like that.
hiatt, again...
My original comment about Hiatt stands, I think. The record companies, and their A&R people, are always trying to flog a dead horse and get a hit out of them, precisely because of the amount of money they have invested (wasted?) on them. The last record Hiatt made for Capitol was The Tiki Bar is Open - which they never released, eventually it crept out on Sanctuary. The album smacks of record company interference, with the nasty gated snare, samplers and whatnot. Contrast this to his homemade effort Crossing Muddy Waters (actually recorded after Tiki Bar, but released before) where he just does whatever the hell he wants to and therefore makes a record that at least the fans love, unlike Tiki Bar, a record that everyone is indifferent to. But Capitol needed a hit so they had to do something!
I do agree that it isn't really the record companies who are entirely to blame, everyone participates in the delusion that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow; but sadly there is not very often a vacancy for the job of Elton John or Paul McCartney (Frank Sidebottom once said he wrote to EMI to ask for pamphlets on a career in showbiz!). The business model is 'invest money to get hits', I certainly don't have a problem with that, and actually some artists benefit from interference - I guess the Kings of Leon would not be as good as they are without the shady involvement of Angelo (whoever he is).
If the truth be known
as well as artists as highly revered as Richard Thompson and Joni Mitchell being unable to recoup outlays I am pretty sure even majors such as Paul McCartney and Elton John are going to find it difficult to make the same amounts from cd releases these days as they did previously - declining sales at reduced prices make that pretty bloody obvious.
Richard Thompson releases stuff on Beeswing independent of any record deal he has at any given time - presumably with label acquiesence. Why do they allow him to do this? simple answer is they know they are not going to earn from it.
The idea of a fan subscription has merit - a years subscription gets you a fans only release or something along those lines. if it gives liquidity to an artist that allows them to follow their muse i am all for it. Jackie Leven had a website Haunted Valley that released an annual cd and they were pretty good quality - sadly it no longer seems to be around so maybe even something as low key as this could not make money.
Didn't McCartney say as much...
...in the divorce settlement?
THAT'S THE ANSWER
The fans can subscribe and get a fans only version of a record i.e. before the record company wastes tons of money commercialising it.
This way at least the fans will get something they can enjoy listening to and the record companies can spread the fairy dust over the recordings in the hope of getting a hit.
Here's my prescription
1. Cut recording budgets
2. Don't record songs until you've written them
3. Get them in front of real live people as soon as possible
4. Play songs live before you record them
5. Change and improve songs according to audience response
6. Release a handful of your best songs digitally. They used to call these "singles".
7. If they prove popular then you can put out a hard copy (CD) with those songs plus ten others that would have been on the album
8. If they don't prove popular hurry up and write some better ones
spot on!
I completely agree with everything you say here. Perhaps EMI (or whoever) should get some pamphlets printed with this on!
(5) is the tough one, most bands/artists lack the humility to do that - but they all need to understand this one, and fast. That's what A&R were supposed to help them with.
there's a feature in here, Mr. Hepworth!
It would be great to actually get a few artists to discuss how they actually make a living - go back over a career and discuss how much money was invested, how much was made, how they kept in beer & ciggies, roof over head, and so on. It never gets intelligently discussed. I do recall XTC raising the subject of how their recording 'strike' for a few years actually resulted in them being in the black for the first time. Brilliant!
Perhaps get Mr. Hiatt in to talk about it?
I'd love to
But the problem is that they're less than candid on the subject, as, to be fair, are most people when discussing their financial affairs. Plus they don't really know and they're very often a personality type that simply refuses to think about money in rational terms. The person who would know is an accountant. What does hold good is the old music business saying that people in the music business are either poorer than you'd think or richer than you can possibly imagine. Most of the people you see on the cover of Word make most of their money from playing live or from getting other, more popular artists to cover their songs. All the rest is completely hand to mouth.