Why Should Rock Stars Expect To Be Rich?

Tom Whitwell argues that the rock stars of the future will earn about as much as the average bank manager.

I grew up assuming that anyone on tv was mind-bogglingly rich. It's a common enough mistake that I share with the cast of Big Brother. Sometimes, it's true. Some pop stars are very, very rich. Jay-Z's various businesses have earned him $1bn. Former Beatles are on £500 million each. The members of Coldplay are worth £30m each. Even Craig David is sitting on £10m.

oasis_0.jpgI don't think it's going to last. Why should a musician who sells one million albums a year be paid so much more than the editor of a national newspaper that sells one billion copies a year? In ten years' time, maybe five, being a pop star will be a profitable profession. Like being a barrister or a consultant. But not like being a juice carton magnate.

This isn't a moral or cultural opinion. Gary Glitter can earn £50,000 a year on royalties accrued every time Rock & Roll (Part 2) is played at an NFL game. So what? All that tells us is that he was lucky enough to be part of the never-to-be-repeated phenomenon that was The Music Industry of the Latter Years of the 20th Century.

And it was an extraordinary edifice. Instead of paying for advertising, the music biz had an entire industry - radio - paying them to promote their products. Not good enough? Along came MTV, a channel devoted to airing glossy advertisments for their output. Why build expensive shops when HMV and Tower Records will do it for you? Why buy advertising when you've got the front pages of NME, Rolling Stone and all the rest of them?

Not surprisingly, times were good. Vinyl records were cheap to manufacture but hard to copy. Recording studios were vastly expensive to hire, so musicians were dependent on the industry to get records made. Most of all, as internet marketeer Seth Godin reminded executives at Columbia Records last year, people didn't like pop stars, they loved them. It seemed natural that pop stars should be rich. And they were.

Now, all that is gone, washed away by the digital tide. The great, profit-hyping discovery that was the CD - we can get everyone to buy their record collection all over again, for twice the price! - proved in the long run to be the industry's nemesis. Too late, the labels realised that in fact they had been flogging infinitely duplicable digital masters to the public. And nobody ever got rich selling something expensive that you can get for free.

The music business will change. People love music more than ever. Turning that love into money isn't simple but it's possible. Internet clever person Kevin Kelly has written a great essay called 1,000 True Fans. He sets out how a musician (or writer, or artist) should be able to make a comfortable living (say $100,000 a year) if they can offer sufficiently enticing products to a sufficient number of true fans. His maths are fuzzy but his basic argument is sound. It's no longer enough to have two million people like your song, buy the single and earn you a house. They'll just download it, and you won't see a penny. Instead, you need a deeper relationship with fewer people.

The customer service offered by record labels is remedial. I've bought plenty of Grace Jones records with money. I'd happily pay more money to see her play a concert. Did anyone from her label email me to say she was playing in London on a Thursday night when I was at home watching Bonekickers? No. They took my money and didn't even get my name. They expect Amazon or iTunes to manage my likes and dislikes, when they're the people who stand to profit.

Seth Godin sees a future where the record labels become "tribe management". They'll look after the fans, offering them special products, facilitating communities and spotting synergies. Instead of sending me spam about some new band, they'll send me a free track and invite me to an exclusive and very expensive gig.

What will it look like from the rock star's end of the telescope? In fairness, most working musicians in rock and roll's Premiership, if not its Big Four, have accepted that the days of driving Rolls-Royces into private pools are long gone. In the 1970s, Elton, Led Zep and the Stones set the standard of rock star ostentation that is now of use only to filmmakers and potboiler novelists. Today's famous musicians work harder and are paid less, and in the future it'll only get worse. A rock star used to be a demigod who bathed in money each morning. In the future, they'll look with envy on Java programmers or hedge fund managers.

Actually , Some people got

Actually , Some people got rich selling bottled water. Evian spelt backwards tells why.

harryrag | 16 September 2008 - 3:14am

Pardon?

Hedge fund mangers?

tvc15 | 3 October 2008 - 3:29pm

Distortions

Your thinking is all wrong, it completely subscribes to the belief that all music should be cereal box music - quick soulless throwaway tunes used as a loss leader to promote a product. You can give into filesharing and the whole "music should be free" mentality because its comforting to not perceive yourself as a thief but you are bastardizing a form of art and subverting the economic laws (sorry to make you feel bad). No artist wants to break the mold bc there is less and less money; it costs about 10k bare minimum - upwards of 200k to produce a pop hit - you arent going to spend days in the studio for bare minimum 10k per day for a new take on marketable music when you know youll see the same returns on something u can quickly crank out. (all bc ppl will rip you off). Love Lockdown ring a bell? Cheap Production! It clarifies where music is heading - the bottom of a box used to sell some sugary chemicals.

My personal views aside you offered a very distorted analogy which shows the ignorance that is fueling the bastardization of music.

An editor of a newspaper that sells 1 billion does not write all the content, the editor fixes the content. The editor is more like the engineer + mastering agent and gets paid at a similar scale. The musician and the producer are responsible for creating the entire content - they write the newspaper, from all the headlines to arranging the captions - you get the point - They DESERVE millions for their work. How many times do you read a paper? once, then throw it away (who recycles?). Now, how many times do you listen to a good album - for the rest of your life. A $10 investment in something that youll listen to for the rest of your life is cheaper than asinine music articles you can read for free online.

Lets stop deluding ourselves - is our economic system capitalistic? YES? Then its moral, fair, and just to charge for your hard work - you deserve the fruits of your labor. Just like your flashy shoes, the delicious meal you eat, you buy them bc you like them and they bring you some value, ie entertain you. Because you bought the products, the respective industry can flourish and innovate - you can have airforce 9000 with the patent leather diddler and a super mega avocado burrito. By purchasing you are helping the creative evolution of an industry. The new culture of "free" is sickening and concretely schizophrenic - Blogs, newspapers, artists still live well within the capitalistic system, they still need money to live and grow so they have to incorporate an advertisement to cover costs. Now what does that do to the art? The artist/blog/website has to give its power to the advertiser to make sure it is inline with the advertisers goals and wants. In order to grow in a capitalistic system you need money (enables more time spent, attracting better more creative talent etc) - so the artist/blog/website will be forced to solicit more money from the advertiser. So ultimately, who is in control of YOUR content? The Advertiser! What is the advertiser's main goal? Sell THEIR product. in short: YOUR ARTIST is BITCHED - His source of growth is linked to selling shoes or pharmaceuticals or bentleys or w/e, so you get benign ball-less media whose evolution is implicitly linked to the image, content, and emotion advertisers want you to subscribe to. All artists eventually realize this so they can either keep going as lewd halfhearted supporters of the machine or fade out.

This is "cereal box" music - soulless, corporate, and its whole purpose is to entrain. If you keep starving your content creators they will move to another master like any creature on this earth.

In this system, Your "Free" is Your "Cage".

Watch for The Grungler

--

ps its funy how the big dicks maintained their ideology that its wrong to steal - ie if u go to a supermarket and take a box of fruity pebbles everyone will look at you like your a devil - yet if u dl music online or buy a pirated cd on the street ppl think you are bad ass. Stamp out the little guy! Make him hug the big dicks then complain about it!

Why Do you think songs about alcoholism "sell" so well HAHAH

DOUCHIUS_BRADLEY | 10 October 2008 - 7:27pm

does anyone read a 9 paragraph comment?

douchius bradley: wft?

curtis | 21 October 2008 - 2:06am