I think the music business is doing great! It's just a different time and there are many new outlets for music consumption. Also there are a lot of opportunities for work out there- the thing that I try to show people when going into it is to think outside the box and have the ability to be well-rounded. This doesn't mean they HAVE to have a bunch of different jobs, but the more diversified they can potentially be will increase their chances of work.

 

I can't tell if you guys are joking. Those numbers on the dollars coming into the music business could be completely meaningless for the typical working musician. Music streaming increased by 50%? How much of that money winds up in the hands of musicians, and how many musicians? My guess is that the large corporations get the lion's share, a relatively small number of individuals and bands get most of the rest, and most get next to nothing. I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong though.

 

I guess I see the "music business" as more than just record sales. I'm talking about the fact there are tons of performance (jazz, pop, etc.), teaching, recording, and business opportunities. I have about 4 "main" music jobs that I make a good chunk of income from, and that's not out of the ordinary for people I know. Like I said above in 2018 there are TONS of music opportunities and different avenues for you to make money from.

 

Streaming royalties are a joke.

 

I'm seeing a slight uptick in gigs. The way the economy is rolling, it has to filter down sooner or later. I expect with the onset of spring weather (soon, hopefully) more people will feel like going out. I will be gigging with three groups over the next 60 days, always fun. I have a lot of heavy outdoor work to do at home too so I guess I'll be sort of busy this spring.

 

I'm in four bands and we barely work.

 

While the gross numbers re streaming can be impressive, at the same time, sooner or later if you're a full time working musician, doesn't it come down to "net" revenue ? From posts on SOTW as well as articles in the media, it seems that the net from streaming sources, such as Spotify, even with a significant number of plays, can be small.

Of course, what practically constitutes a satisfactory "net" revenue will vary from musician to musician, but if you're trying to make a living, a certain amount still has to be earned each year to survive.

Which isn't to say there aren't musicians, i.e., sax players, whose income from sessions, touring, concerts, bar gigs, single and merchandise sales, etc. aren't doing well. There are.

However, at the same time, with all due respect, Dave Pollack's comment that there are " TONS of music opportunities and different avenues for you to make money", seems open to discussion, given posts here on SOTW and personal experience, for too many sax players, both full and part time. But, this is one instance where I would love to be proven dead wrong!

I, and others, have written about this in past posts, especially when mp3's first arrived and some foresighted musicians were assembling email addresses while touring and using this to promote and sell digital singles and albums. Remember exchanging notes with musicians in New Orleans who were using Jazz Fest and Mardi Gras to collect emails addresses and were selling a reported thousands of digital singles around the world. Plus, analogous reports from Chicago and California at the time. But that was then, this is now.

Perhaps Dave Pollack could expand and detail what he sees as "music opportunities and different avenues", including potential revenue. Then if others would care to share their experiences, we could develop a working model that could help each other, as well those players fresh out of school.

 

...snip...

Perhaps Dave Pollack could expand and detail what he sees as "music opportunities and different avenues", including potential revenue. Then if others would care to share their experiences, we could develop a working model that could help each other, as well those players fresh out of school.

OK - I'll give it a shot:
Growing up - most of the guys I've met who claimed "Music is my life", really just wanted an excuse to not work a day job...

Flexibility plays a big role in my model. Multiple income streams are critical. The music however is not the heavy lifting - It's the joy. The real work is the stuff no one wants to do...

For the last 20 years or so, industrial music composition and music for broadcast accounts for 65% of my gross musical revenue or more, but that's a big bucket including everything from advertising and TV score, to video games and answering machines...It's always done on a tight deadline, dictated by strung-out people who often have no creativity, compassion, or warmth. Then of course, there is also a down-side.

Over the years I've also sold some songs, worked as a guitarist, a vocalist, a saxophonist, a percussionist, a bassist, an engineer, producer, sequencer, executive producer, mastering engineer, booking agent, and I'm sure I've left some things out. I spent several years on the road early on, and have done a ton of session work on various instruments. I'm not even that great a player - I'm good though, and I'm determined to be better. (every day)
I'm also always in a band or two playing for pay at some level. I license my music fairly regularly... Just like some here have a heavy practice regimen; Mine is to never stop writing. Even without a project, I turn out at least one piece of usable music a week. As a result, I have a pretty big library of tunes that can be tweaked quickly or at least used as a starting point.

I've also had work stolen and had to sue for compensation. I've been stiffed more than once due to advertisers, ad agencies, and other entities going out of business. My last two royalty checks were under $1...and I still love what I do - and I have managed to do it at a net gain. I've spent close to 40 years now in the business and I'm pretty close to retirement financially - I just can't seem to find a clean stopping point. I might also add that there is no retirement plan or healthcare plan you don't provide for yourself. You're going to have to save some money, and make some investments if you plan to ever retire.

OK - That's my bit. There are also a lot of other money making opportunities in the music business I'm sure. Lighting techs, managers, and trombonists are all technically "In the biz" while not necessarily being musicians....

 

Thanks to youtube viewers are being exposed to good sounding music being played by actual musicians. For years it was an electronic no need for musicians synth business. Now people see the great musicians playing instruments live on stage. People with money pay for live bands to impress their peers. Youtube also is great for getting students for lessons " Mo' Money". The key is to get the ears of the youngsters off of computer game synth music and turned on to the more humanistic beauty of playing an actual instrument other than a keyboard or samples and loops. I'm not dissing actual "Piano Playing", we all know the value of a good piano player who understands harmony and chord progressions. Music just based on beats and "Auto Tune" is actually dehumanizing music. Soon they'll only be booking robots and synths if we don't continue the art. Now thanks to youtube there are people who want to learn real musicianship again. We can't stop...it's our duty to keep good music human before AI gets all the work like everything else.

 

Thanks to youtube viewers are being exposed to good sounding music being played by actual musicians. For years it was an electronic no need for musicians synth business. Now people see the great musicians playing instruments live on stage.

That's an interesting take on it. You have a point and I hope you're right. Having grown up in pre-'no need for musicians synth business' era, and the pre-computer age, my exposure to live music was being there, in the moment, seeing/hearing actual live musicians playing in clubs. There was and is no real substitute for that. Much as I've enjoyed recordings on a good stereo system, I've always noticed how much better the live experience is and how much better the music sounds live.

YouTube is very useful and valuable in a lot of ways, but man, when I watch some live performances on YouTube, I'm always disappointed at the poor sound quality and lack of ambience/energy, compared to actually being there. It's the difference between watching something on TV and actually experiencing it yourself in real life. Hopefully people still realize the difference and so there will remain some demand for musicians playing in a live setting.

Fader, you lay it out pretty well, when it comes to someone wanting to make a living in the music business. It's very challenging. My approach has been to make money in other 'careers' (geologist, kayaking instructor, odd jobs, etc) and play music mostly for enjoyment, with the payment on gigs considered a bonus (still very important though!). I've done some recording (3 CDs with my band, and a few fill ins with other bands), but my main thing is playing in front of a live audience, which kind of goes along with what I said above. Of course there is still plenty of 'busy work' getting gigs, dealing with club owners, schlepping gear, driving in traffic to the gig, etc. But the time on stage, playing the music, makes it worthwhile.

 

Ohhh...gotta add busking to the list. An enterprising talent with a good location. That’s an easy $100 a day. Add in 2 or three club gigs a week and you’re making do. That’s not a comfortable living, but If someone really wants to play for a living, they can.

Some places still have house bands. (Usually a solo or duo). Especially resort towns. Beach. Ski. Gamble.

And there’s the Nacho circuit if you’re desperate....Mexican restaurants from Miami to LA with a cat pretending to play keys (or guitar) and singing Jimmy Buffet. You can add your sax if you’re quiet. Quite quiet. Ok. I’ll quit....for now.

....but there’s more...

 

I am definitely a hobbyist, but I can see where you can make a living as a musician if you also teach and do other music related jobs. Like anything else, you have to be willing to invest resources into it. If a person's day gig isn't music (mine isn't), they have to look at all the resources they've put into their day gig and imagine what they could have accomplished had they put the same effort into music. In my little community, I've made connections with some venues and with bands that do events/productions, work on some original music, and gig a couple of times a week which is enough for me.

There are MANY people who chose a different road than professional musician, for many reasons, who would have been contenders had they put the same effort into music. My mom was a widow and couldn't really support me, so I knew I had to get licensed/educated to do something, so I chose clinical social work. Music was really, really fun, but I didn't want to teach it, and I needed to pay my rent and buy necessities. I played gigs around and gave lessons, but this wouldn't pay a mortgage at my level of playing! Many players I knew in college had a lot more support and resources than I did, and pursued music quite successfully. But I'm sure there are also players who didn't have support who kept working at it, and that's impressive for sure. Everyone's journey is different.

It's never too late to work on your playing and try to get gigs, write music, etc. There are obstacles, though- I finally decided to study saxophone at a nearby university but the instructor had some extra "requirements" to study there, so it didn't work out. That's been very discouraging, but I'm a fighter so I keep practicing and playing. I need to pay my dues for sure, but music is more than practicing hours- all the time I've spent with people in their various suffering, grief, addictions, etc. gives me "soul information" that I think is the heart of music. In some ways I think the lucky ones are the ones who didn't choose music as a career because for us it's only been fun, recreational and even therapeutic, and later in life we can rediscover this awesome thing.

 

....snip.... In some ways I think the lucky ones are the ones who didn't choose music as a career because for us it's only been fun, recreational and even therapeutic, and later in life we can rediscover this awesome thing.

Very true... I gave up a gig in a very busy band due to some medical issues. When I was able to play again, I found I didn't want the gig back. These days I enjoy playing with the band that only does about 20 shows a year. I miss the money, but not really....

 

Last two posts above are both great, and show why this forum can be so valuable. I too have a day job, and I play in a punk/ska band plus a jazz quintet... I also do solo gigs (wedding cocktail hours mostly). A good friend of mine chose music for a living, and does a lot of what Dave says up there. He teaches private lessons, is an endorsing artist for RS Berkeley so he helps sell their gear and puts on master classes at local schools, he gigs, etc etc. He does make a living at it, though the older he gets the harder I can tell that it is to keep up with the grind. It really requires some serious hustle to make this work.

He pushes me to play out more and expand my horizons, and I think he would love for me to give up the day job and play full-time, but it's just not for me.

So I make sure that when I do take gigs, I figure the least I can do for the guys like him is NOT take gigs for low money, or undercut anyone else out there. It's hard enough as it is, and competing against guys like me who don't necessarily need the money isn't really fair is it?

 

No one has yet mentioned playing for a church. The session players I go to first in my studio all make a large portion of their income playing at a couple of different Mega-Churches.

There's a Wednesday night thing, a practice, and one or two Sunday services. The pay is steady, good, and weekends are free to pick up gigs. The piano player I use is a music director for a church. His is a $100,000+ per year gig.

 

Speaking of church gigs, a trombone player I know here played in the PTL Club's big band for 8 years- it was apparently a good band, and lucrative enough to support his family playing the TROMBONE of all things. He still has a letter Jim Baker wrote him from jail!

 

In the 90s I used to play at a church, but it was very different from any other.
The leader was a very well read fellow who incorporated all the mayor religions of the world into a total synthesis.
It was fun and rewarding to play there, long gone now.

 

I think the comment about working in multiple facets is on point. I've been a full-time musician all my life and it's been long enough to see a real change from acoustics to electronics, live big bands to DJs, big the aural to the visual, and a big change in taste (or lack thereof). The last of my three-phased career, I put together (learned how from a multi-talented girl friend, thanks) a mosaic of activities. I had to do it all: classical, jazz pop playing, composing, conducting and teaching.

I question the results of some of the above mentioned percentages. Seems like trickle down theory and I wonder who is getting rich (exceptions excepted), the management or the guys on the street.

Probably one of the biggest changes I've personally felt the consequences of was that the number of jobs didn't necessarily diminish, but to keep the count up, I had to travel further and further.
The days of relatively single-activity career is likely done. I will never forget some words of wisdom my major professor gave me. "You've got to create your own vacancy".

I'm pretty much retired now with enough income that is above the national active income level, so I'm set (in a manner of speaking). But if I had to continue, rather than trying to recapture the days of the past, I would learn from younger generations. Adapt. See and emulate them. And forget the past and adapt to the future.

 

When a teenaged Stan Getz got his first job working with Jack Teagarden, he got paid $70 a week. Which doesn't sound like much, until you realize that's about $1,250 in today's dollars. Of course, he was Stan Getz, but it shows you how much things have changed. Back in 1940, there were a lot of big bands that were working a lot of gigs, and they could hire people at weekly wages that were high enough that high enough that musicians didn't need to be in four different bands and writing jingles and teaching lessons on the side just to make ends meet.

I'm just a weekend warrior "serious amateur" myself, so I don't really know how hard it is out there for guys who are trying to make a living as musicians. But it sure seems like it's gotten harder over the years! I think that back before there was a television in every house, people went out more, and there were more clubs, more dances, and thus more gigs and better pay. Now that we've got the internet, social media, streaming video, and video games, it seems like people go out less than ever. From my limited perspective, it seems as if there's been an uptick in activity in the last couple years, but there's still less live opportunities than there were back in the '70s. And despite inflation, the pay's about the same as it was then! And I think everybody agrees that it's more or less impossible to make any money from recordings now.

It's encouraging to hear that at least some of those who can really hustle--teach, give lessons, write books, make videos, and play different styles of music in different bands--feel like there are plenty of opportunities out there. (If you're good!) But it's such a contrast to the way things were decades ago, and so different from most other professions.

 

When a teenaged Stan Getz got his first job working with Jack Teagarden, he got paid $70 a week. Which doesn't sound like much, until you realize that's about $1,250 in today's dollars. Of course, he was Stan Getz, but it shows you how much things have changed. Back in 1940, there were a lot of big bands that were working a lot of gigs, and they could hire people at weekly wages that were high enough that high enough that musicians didn't need to be in four different bands and writing jingles and teaching lessons on the side just to make ends meet.

I'm just a weekend warrior "serious amateur" myself, so I don't really know how hard it is out there for guys who are trying to make a living as musicians. But it sure seems like it's gotten harder over the years! I think that back before there was a television in every house, people went out more, and there were more clubs, more dances, and thus more gigs and better pay. Now that we've got the internet, social media, streaming video, and video games, it seems like people go out less than ever. From my limited perspective, it seems as if there's been an uptick in activity in the last couple years, but there's still less live opportunities than there were back in the '70s. And despite inflation, the pay's about the same as it was then! And I think everybody agrees that it's more or less impossible to make any money from recordings now.

It's encouraging to hear that at least some of those who can really hustle--teach, give lessons, write books, make videos, and play different styles of music in different bands--feel like there are plenty of opportunities out there. (If you're good!) But it's such a contrast to the way things were decades ago, and so different from most other professions.

A lot of truth in this post too. The young guys who are coming up now just accept that you have to hustle hard to make ends meet nowadays, whereas the older guys who were playing decades ago have seen the situation change drastically.

I've toured the US and I've toured Europe in what is essentially a "no name" band. Europe has ALWAYS been more successful regarding turnout than the US. I think the multitude of entertainment options that Americans have at home has really killed live music, for all but the mid-large to large-name acts. In Europe, people just seem to go out more and see what's going on in city centre... we made so many new fans over there, people who had no idea who we were but were just out to "watch live music".