MusicTank Blog

Andy Inglis: Beat Surrender? The Grass-Roots Live Music Industry Is Self-Harming

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 28 May 2012 11:35:00 +0100

On Satuday 26 May The Guardian ran an article (printed in The Observer the next day) titled ‘Beat Surrender: why the heart of British rock music is under threat. Across the country iconic venues where the top bands learned their trade are shutting down as rent rises and falling audiences spell crisis for promoters and future stars‘.

It looked at the plight of Edinburgh’s Bongo Club (their premises are owned by Edinburgh University, who want the building back for their own administrative purposes), The Horn in St. Albans (who’re suffering in the tough economic climate) and MAMA Group‘s Barfly in Cardiff, which closed in August 2010 (it’s not clear why it shut but it’s worth noting that MAMA have closed all their Barflys in recent years, with the exception of Camden, which looks a lot to me like a rationalisation of their business model).

In March 2011, the owners of London’s Luminaire venue took the decision to shut down. Announced soon after London’s 100 Club statement of their own plight (they were subsequently saved by a sponsorship deal from Converse), they chose not to state their reasons – “It’s been a labour of love for a while now, and at this point it makes no sense for us to continue.” – leading to the inevitable ill-informed commentary from industry ‘experts’, and a litany of ‘crisis!’ news stories in the press. I was Luminaire’s co-founder and co-owner, along with John Donnelly, and we decided to close the club while she still looked good, sounded good, and we still had the shirts on our backs. We realised it was inevitable way back in the Spring of 2010, and we set about planning a dignified and responsible exit.

Closing a small business is never easy; you have to deal with the effects of making a load of people redundant, along with yourself, and it’s not a pleasant notion to realise that you are, in part, to blame. It’s a position I found myself in. I identified ten factors, and you can debate all day which is the most prominent. Some small venue operators may recognise one or two of them:

1. In the six years between our opening and closure, the world completely changed. Here’s how
2. Brent Council were charging us almost four grand a month in business rates
3. Our mortgage lenders Allied Irish Bank very aggressively screwed us for more money as they suffered the consequences of their own mismanagement, despite us being quite literally years ahead of our scheduled mortgage repayments
4. The music industry – specifically some of the London-based national booking agents – never warmed to us, primarily because of our…
5. Location. After the demise of The National in 1996, people got out of the habit of visiting Kilburn for live music, despite being on two tube lines, two train lines and four bus routes into the centre of town. We heard of one agent who wouldn’t book his bands with us because it took him longer to get home in a taxi, just as…
6. The centre of gravity of London’s live music scene moved from Central to East, much as it did in New York, from the Lower East Side to Brooklyn. East London became where the industry wanted its bands to emerge from
7. Transport for London, whose engineering works routinely closed the Jubilee and Overground lines over the weekends, cutting us off from much of London. This went on for two years, with many promoters declining to book shows with us over weekends
8. The recession, making it harder for small businesses to survive, and many bars and pubs turned to live music, and hosting free shows which are attractive to those with declining incomes, dovetailing with…
9. The gradual collapse of recorded music sales, leading many to turn to the live industry to attempt to make up for the loss of earnings, increasing the pressure on an already over-saturated market
10. Me. I could have done more to engage with the live industry, particularly the booking agents, who now hold the power in our sector. But as I became exposed (and victim) to some of their questionable business practices, it became more difficult to keep quiet, and my outspoken attitude during occasional appearances at industry conferences and panels didn’t do much endear me to them

But back to the article.

The recession is indeed contributing toward a lot of closures, city councils could do more to support the arts on their doorsteps, and there are any number of other reasons why some small venues are struggling: leases tied to breweries making it difficult for tenants to turn a profit, competing venues in the area, staff and supplier costs, utilities bills, inability to run DJ club nights which can greatly increase bar sales, maintenance, conditions imposed on them by the terms of their license, opposition from neighbours, local authorities who don’t understand or value the arts… and on it goes. Each business is different. But it’s time we all faced up to the core issue which we have the power to affect: the grass-roots live music industry is self-harming, and we’re all complicit.

I worked out that we gave away somewhere in the region of £240,000 in guest list places over the six years of Luminaire’s life: 1,500 gigs at an average of £8 per ticket with an average of 20 people on the guest list each night. A very crude calculation, of course, but it’s purpose is illustrative. Guest lists aren’t inherently bad. They can be useful, they can actually generate income if you look after the right person, and they’re a nice way of saying thank you to someone who’s been kind to you. But guest lists are often abused. Guest lists are taken for granted.

We’re good at taking things for free, but we’re useless at putting back into our own industry. We take free CDs and MP3s (either stolen, or as gifts from PRs, labels or artists) and we’re great at taking guest list for gigs when we can afford to pay in. We’ve created a culture of not paying to get into a gig because “I’m the artist’s manager/agent/boyfriend” to flourish, when in fact we should take the opposite tact: small artist + independent promoter + independent venue + low ticket price = you should pay to get in, if you can afford it. It will make the next show slightly easier for the artist, promoter and venue to stage. Next time someone offers you a free CD, refuse it, or pay for it. Next time someone offers you guest list, buy a ticket. It doesn’t need to be a hard-and-fast rule; if you’re following your band around on tour, it’s going to get expensive if you’re paying every night. If the gig’s at The O2, fuck it; if AEG can afford to pay Beckhams wages, they can probably afford to swallow the cost of your ticket. Same goes for Live Nation venues. But if you’re earning, and the show’s £5, £7… buy a ticket, because that independent venue isn’t about to get any help any time soon from anywhere else, whether it’s from funding or from those who’re doing pretty well out of our business at the top end.

While every other European nation funds culture across the board (to varying degrees), the UK continues to throw money (primarily) at the high arts; opera, ballet, classical. The Southbank Centre gets £20 million a year in arts funding. Add to that their commercial income from tickets, drink, merchandise, hall hire etc, and from their private and corporate donations, and you can see that they’re doing far better than those who don’t have access to these funds. Now, The Southbank Centre is a world-class facility and London needs world-class facilities, but could we not give them £19 million instead and funnel 1 million into our globally-derided small venue circuit? £100,000 grand each for ten UK venues? £10,000 for 1,000 venues to fund improvements to their infrastructure and sound equipment? Can’t we do the same with The Barbican – another fantastic, world-class facility – who’re funded by the City of London Corporation and the Arts Council?

We could, but we won’t, because we don’t have to.

When London’s Astoria announced it was closing due to the Crossrail development, the press and audience were dismayed, but there wasn’t much of a noise made about it from the industry (they could use Koko, Shepherd’s Bush Empire, Electric Ballroom) and when Spitz and Luminaire closed down, the industry again had many other venues to use in their place, and indeed there are many more at this level (and more to come if the Live Music Act has the effect I fear it might). So while some artists and audience members (and indeed some industry) may miss a venue, ultimately its demise becomes an irrelevance as new gig-goers appear, and find their own ‘homes’; those venues that they will miss if they close down. London is a big place though, and there are many more rooms to pick up the slack. That’s not always the case in smaller towns and cities the world over. Even if the O2 closed, the industry would just have to use football stadiums. The bands would still play, the audience would still come and, in time, the O2 would fade to the back of our memories, as those kids who go to their first show tonight ask “What was The Luminaire?”, just as the kid who’s going out to Vice’s brand new venue Birthdays, or the Captain’s Rest in Glasgow, or Cardiff’s Clwb Ifor Bach may not have heard of the other venues which bit the dust in their town over the years.

Businesses are born, and live, and die, just as we do. It’s the conveyor belt of death, my friends, and we’re all on it. But until we fall off the end, we can choose how we live, and if we really do value our small venues, we can choose to support them using one very simple method:

Cash.

Andy Inglis - Co-founder, The Luminaire / MD, 5000

John King: Is There A Particular Ethnic Group Attending?

Jenny Tyler — Tue, 22 May 2012 10:20:00 +0100

Police forces in Bedfordshire, Essex and Suffolk have reintroduced the racial-profiling question “Is there a Particular Ethnic Group Attending?” to their Promotion/Event Risk Assessment Forms for music events.

In an 'intelligence' gathering move, more Laurel and Hardy than Holmes and Watson, Essex Police have reintroduced the music-profiling question “Music-style to be played/performed”, but assumed that the genre 'bashment' was a spelling mistake and have renamed it 'basement'.

The London Metropolitan Police were, of course, the progenitors of the Promotion/Event Risk Assessment (called Form 696 in London), and after much public outcry were supposed to have stopped ethnic-profiling and risk assessing of music events in 2009. The Metropolitan Police's Clubs Focus team has not let career-damaging accusations of racism from the music industry go unpunished, and have been wasting tax-payers' money behind the scenes in order to roll the Form 696 out nationally under the guise of best practice health and safety.

In part, this has been achieved by the manufacturing of a bogus academic legitimacy for Form 696. Take a look at question 12 of this (remedial level) “qualification” for Music Promoters devised by the British Institute of Innkeepers in conjunction with the Met Police Clubs and Vice:

Question: “Evaluating an event or promotion is important because…”

Answer: “The data collected can be analysed and used to improve future events and promotions.”

This is not the passing down of wisdom from a bona fide intellectual study; it is propaganda. One authority, the City of London Police, has made this worthless qualification compulsory for promoters.

The point of moving Form 696 into the realms of health and safety is to sidestep the evidential requirements of the Licensing Act. Form 696 can be applied anytime and anywhere, even if it is not a condition of a premises licence. Using this method, the Metropolitan and Hertfordshire Thames Valley Police cancelled the Official Mixtape Awards at the Watford Colosseum on 5^th April 2012. Police justification for their actions include: not being given proper notification of the event, that they were acting on intelligence received, and they did not have time to put into resources to deal with the additional people visiting the town centre. The requirement to complete a Promotion/Event Risk Assessment Form is not a condition of the premises licence of the Watford Colosseum.

Please refer to the links below this article, and note the frequent references by the police to the word “desk”. Form 696 is not the production of police walking the beat in the style of Dixon of Dock Green (or even Gene Hunt). It is a product of a self-inflicted desk-bound form-filling regime that prefers to cancel and deter events than to police them, oblivious to the economic cost of their actions.

Last week, Liberal Democrat Peer and author of the Live Music Act, Lord Clement-Jones, tabled four Parliamentary Questions concerning the spread of Form 696. The answer to this question “How many performers’ personal details submitted by way of a Promotion Event Risk Assessment Form 696 were recorded by the Metropolitan Police clubs focus desk in each of 2009, 2010 and 2011” (HL271) may finally wake the industry from its slumber.

John King - Professional Musician & Independent Campaigner

Sources:

Lord Clement-Jones Questions (HL270 to 273)

Official Mixtape Awards:
- Official Mixtape Awards Cancelled
- Police Cancel Official Mixtape Awards
- Official Mixtape Awards Has Been Shut Down by The Metropolitan Police
- Official Mixtape Awards Founder Speaks Out

#88 Newsletter Editorial: Riding On The Coke Tales

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 10 May 2012 12:10:00 +0100

The last fortnight has seen developments in the digital music world that, at first glance, appear to pull in different directions in terms of answering the challenge of growing the digital music market.

The stick approach: with the impending block of the Pirate Bay, traffic (and by extension infringement), supposedly rose massively (12 million extra visitors according to Torrentfreak). The BPI and allies apparently fell foul of what is affectionately termed ‘The Streisand Effect’- by trying to suppress or censor something, you make it stronger by drawing attention to it.

But that may be a short-termist take on events: the long term strategy is to re-condition the behaviour of casual/lazy file-sharers who head straight to the Pirate Bay to search for mainstream media like the latest comic book movie or Eminem album. By adding just a little bit more complexity, those fighting infringement can put off millions of the less-technologically able from obtaining copyrighted material illegally. The Pirate Bay traffic may be up for the time being, but it will surely suffer a drastic drop in the UK once ISPs implement the block. Technologically speaking, the block is not a sophisticated solution, and those slightly more advanced filesharers will always find a way around – there will always be a Pirate Bay equivalent – but it could be enough to dampen the level of infringement.

The last weeks have also seen a number of encouraging developments with the carrot approach; specifically with licensed freemium streaming services, the most significant of which could be the Coca Cola-Spotify cross-marketing deal.

The value of the partnership to Spotify can’t be underestimated. Coca Cola is one of the most recognised brands on the planet. Just imagine a Spotify logo on every can of Coke – just one possible component of a wider campaign. In an Olympic year, partnering with a major sponsor will surely give Spotify a major boost in public awareness.

Last Thursday, Deezer launched its API, aiming to broaden access to its HTML5-based platform, followed up by the announcement this morning of a key licensing agreement being reached with indie-label licensing agency Merlin.

Rdio, which some believe is the only real competitor to Spotify service-wise, quietly launched in the UK and France. This week, We7, seeking to differentiate itself from the on-demand crowd, launched the We7 Radio app, with the intent of capturing some of the casual consumers of digital music.

These are not, of course, the only important partnerships in streaming music –Deezer did a significant bundle deal with Orange, and Spotify with Telia and Virgin; meanwhile MOG is integrating with certain models of Mini and BMW in the states. Also of significance is other major brands’ desire to buy into the ‘OS for music’- McDonald’s, Intel and Reebok will be releasing Spotify apps, following on from major media players like Guardian and Rolling Stone. Let’s not forget Facebook plugging Spotify, iHeartRadio, Rhapsody, Mog, Mixcloud, Rdio, Deezer, Vevo, SoundCloud and more into its ecosystem.

Music = cool, so it is only natural that marketing departments of brands want to partner with tech firms that do the difficult stuff (getting music to consumers legally through ever-evolving computers and gadgets). In exchange, these services get to build reach and awareness well beyond the scope of their own relatively puny marketing machines.

All this activity suggests that those with faith in the emerging models are correct when they say that this has got to be the best way of stimulating consumer engagement with legal, licensed services that are, whatever the complaints about opaqueness, accountable to rights-holders and ultimately, the artists and music on which this industry is built.

There is some way to go, and many are impatiently waiting for streaming royalties to increase exponentially, but it is difficult to criticise the ambition and positivity that permeates Spotify and others’ brand partnership decisions.

BUT is there a blind spot in the growth of streaming?   MusicTank is set to publish a report in late Spring that looks at the spiralling energy costs of digital music with streaming at the fore. There will be a discussion at The Great Escape on Friday to look at the problem in more detail, including a video interview of report author Dagfinn Bach, President Bach Technology, and panel to follow.  This will take place at 4.10pm Friday 11th May at the Pavillion Theatre.  See you there.

Tom Quillfeldt and Sam Shemtob

Full Newsletter

Keith Harris: Drugs, Booze & Rock ‘n’ Roll

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 10 May 2012 11:22:36 +0100

In the past week I have watched documentary films about two of British rock's most talented and creative musicians whose careers were both cut short by drug induced psychosis - Syd Barrett founder and creative force behind the early Pink Floyd, and Peter Green who had the same role in the early Fleetwood Mac.

Both the bands went on to have phenomenal success in spite of losing their leading lights, but in both cases the surviving members are still troubled by regrets over not being able to either identify or help with the problems of their band mates and friends.

It is the nature of the business that whenever there is an “old boys” panel at an industry seminar it tends to be dominated with tales of the golden hay days of rock, and centres on the amazing drink and drug taking exploits of some renowned rocker or other, but it makes me wonder whether we have actually learned anything from these tales of the past?

How many of today's bands would know where to seek help for a band member in trouble with a mental health issue? Whether drink and drug induced or not, the pressures are still the same on the creative talent in the industry.

The death of Amy Winehouse last year brought on some brief industry soul searching, but as far as I can see not much practical industry response in terms of signposting and promoting the help that is available to artistes who run into trouble with mental illness. It strikes me that what the industry needs right now is creative genius, and when we find it we should take steps to look after it.

A couple of years ago at ILMC (The International Live Music Conference) a panel discussed this very issue, and an idea came up about placing notices backstage at all venues with the phone numbers of the various support services available. It seemed like a very worthwhile first step, perhaps through UK Music this kind of plan could be put into action?

After all not everybody can afford to check themselves into the Priory.

Keith

Keith Harris - MusicTank Chair / Keith Harris Music / Director of Performer Affairs, PPL

#87 Newsletter Editorial: Rays Of Light

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:55:00 +0100

It may just be the warmer weather, but there’s definitely a spring in the recording business’ step; people are making money. The latest IFPI figures don’t quite bear this out: despite digital growing to over 30% of recordings revenues, physical is still in greater decline. That decline is slowing however, and it looks like the worst of the bad weather will pass within the next one or two editions of the IFPI’s annual stats tome.

At least part of the growth is due to streaming services. With the licensing of YouTube (now the second largest search engine in the world behind parent Google) and the success of Spotify (at least in Europe – the US remains to be won over) we have a fully licensed infrastructure underpinning two of the most exciting streaming services around. IFPI figures show ad-supported and subscription services already account for 14 per cent of digital revenues, and that’s only going to grow.

YouTube alone has successfully replicated the entire broadcast industry for the Internet, offering advertisers pinpoint targeting while cutting down on the number of middlemen. So it’s not surprising there’s money to be made from popular music videos - especially when fans are putting the tracks up themselves!

Spotify meanwhile, is not only mastering its social integration, but has just released its first batch of record label apps - serving to navigate users through their catalogues, enabling them to discover, stream and maybe even buy old and new releases.

These apps, and the many more that are surely to come, are the perfect foundation for labels to do what they do best - connect fans with great music, new and old. And let’s face(book) it, Spotify’s social integration has helped create a ‘killer model’ where music fans are recommending great music for mates to play and pass on, propagating good music through the world.

But while Spotify apps enable trusted tastemakers to guide people through the millions of tracks in the catalogue, there’s still plenty of scope for traditional mobile apps (are we talking about traditional apps already?!) to really deepen the relationship between an artist and their fans.

Music Ally ran a Music Apps: Beyond the Hype event earlier in the month, looking at the progress of the app trend, still in its infancy. Again, the prognosis is positive. App analysis company Flurry’s data revealed that people are using music apps much more than they were a year ago, with usage growing by 530% year-on-year. What’s more, people are more willing to pay for music apps: 72% of the top grossing music apps on Apple’s App Store are paid apps versus just 24% for games.

The general consensus from the label reps at the event was that rather than reaching new fans, apps are more about growing a relationship with already engaged ones.

The event also saw EMI’s Neil Timegate presenting news on the Open EMI initiative of allowing developers to use a limited catalogue from EMI to create entirely new platforms for discovering music. Exciting times, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to innovation: last week’s MUSIC techpitch 4.5 event saw the latest music startups pitching in the hallowed offices of EMI music for the chance to win an investment opportunity (incidentally, this was won by easy-as-eggs text-based music service Music2Text).

And that’s just the stuff that’s public, there’s plenty more digital innovation going on behind the scenes (heard of QLabs anyone?). And then there are the Music Hack Day events, taking place around the world.

So while the wider UK economy might yet slip into a double dip recession, albeit a shallow one, the outlook for the recordings business is relatively sunny.

Finally, while Madonna’s new album (MDNA – see what she did there?), produced by William Orbit and Martin Solveig among others, is set to hit no. 1 in a cool 40 countries, we welcome Deadmau5’s recent slamdown for talking up drugs at her recent Ultra Festival show. He explained (backed up by Paul Van Dyk) that electronic dance music, which continues a meteoric ascent in the US, has got more going for it - and more to lose through negative association - than to be tainted by negative references from a 50-something trying to connect with a young crowd. She may be the queen of survival by reinvention, but she’s going to need some fresh inspiration, else her next album might be called Crystal Madge, or simply E.

Editorial by Sam Shemtob

Keith Harris: If It Ain't Broke Don't Sell It To Private Enterprise

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:55:00 +0100

I don't know Liz Forgan, Chair of the Arts Council. To the best of my knowledge we have never met. The one thing that I do know about her is that she has been doing a very good job.

How do I know that?

Because Jeremy Hunt, the Minister of Culture, says so.

So why is he effectively kicking her out of her job by failing to renew her contract? The answer is apparently to get someone in who can bring more private investment into the arts.

This seems to be a recurring theme with this government - find something that is working pretty well, and then dismantle it to bring in someone to open it up to private enterprise.

I am not too sure that this policy has served us too well in the past. Those of us who use the rail network to get into London will know that the policy of these efficient private services is to charge as much as possible and deliver as little as possible in terms of comfort and service.

Will private investment in the arts really look for cutting-edge work or emerging talent? Or will we see almost all of the funding going to big prestige projects with well-heeled audiences that the sponsors are keen to reach?

At the same time, it looks like the government feels it should be tinkering with copyright law so that private companies can more easily and cheaply get access to creators’ work to build the next Spotify or Netflix. Has it escaped their attention that the system which is currently in place allowed for the creation of Spotify and Netflix in the first place?

I am obviously not against private enterprise. Well-run private companies are obviously good for the economy and therefore good for us all - somebody recently told me that the Beggars Banquet group paid more UK tax and VAT last year than Google.

What bothers me is the idea of meddling with systems that work well, in order to incentivise unspecified private enterprise.

Andy Inglis: Live Sector Compliance

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:50:00 +0100

Health and Safety.

Compliance

Licensing authorities.

Bo-ring.

But not, it transpired, in the hands of our guest speaker Ross Allport, who brought the subject vividly to life with a wealth of personal experience and anecdotes.

From unhinged neighbours who accuse venues of raping the neighbourhood, to promoters who don't know the meaning of the word "capacity", we wandered around the world of temporary events notices, public disorder, fire-breathing burlesque acts and what happens when a load of Turkish restaurant owners arms itself to face down rioters.

But it wasn't all machete battles on Kingsland Road.

We found out that Morris Dancing is exempt from live music licensing. Then we got down to the serious business of engaging with police, local authorities and those living next door to you to stop problems before they happen, how far to take door searches before you start to really annoy people, and how to avoid being arrested for being in possession of a controlled substance when you confiscate a couple of grams of coke from one of your customers (bag it, label it, seal it in a box you've designated for the purpose, then call the cops).

As our towns get more crowded, and it gets harder to site venues away from residential areas (it's already pretty much impossible in the cities), operators are going to have to school themselves on all this, learn how to combat complaints that are vexatious, frivolous or repetitious, learn how to fill out the well-intentioned but outright racist Form 696, and teach our security staff to smile.

I wonder if, in this customer service business of ours, that last one isn't the most important.

Andy

Andy Inglis

RELATED CONTENT:

NB: Course student see your student resources page for further details

Andy Inglis: Learning By Example - UK & Overseas Case Studies

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:20:00 +0100

Circumstances conspired against us, and we had to swap the fourth and last lectures around, ending last Monday night with the last lecture of the course, despite returning this coming Monday with the lecture on compliance, health and safety.

Awkward, but the Republic will stand.

And so the class got to hear me tell the story of The Luminaire, and self-flagellate while analysing the ten reasons why it closed in March of last year (Facebook, Transport For London, Andy Inglis, hipsters etc.) and then a look at why the UK is the most important/arrogant music market in the world and why it doesn't see the need for state funding to help those out at the grass-roots level. Perhaps the Southbank Centre and Barbican could throw a few bones our way? They got around £30 million between them in 2010. How about ten grand for Brixton Windmill and The Lexington?

What's that?

You need to reupholster your seats again?

Oh.

Norway's doing okay though. Powered by natural resources they create winds to build the state-funding machines that blow their art around the world. Most European nations do it. A review in the NME still (inexplicably) carries weight abroad. But then most European nations value their art from the top down. We just seem to care about ballet, opera and classical.

Perhaps, in a world of diminishing returns, we need to look toward brands instead. Perhaps the audience are getting used to branding now. Perhaps they don't even notice it. Do those who go to the O2 Academy in Brixton flinch when they walk through the door? Do those who attend the 100 Club bristle when they think of all those Converse dollars helping to prop it up?

Na.

They just watch the bands.

Bands who've got an eye on the bottom line more than anyone, because - as Francis Ford Coppola the winemaker says (he uses his wine income to fund his 'hobby' of filmmaking)- "As we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?”

Good luck to us all.

Andy Inglis

RELATED CONTENT:

NB: Course student see your student resources page for further details

Andy Inglis - Selling The Gig: Ticketing

Jenny Tyler — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:45:00 +0000

Ticketing.

Festivals.

Fascinating.

From last week's marketing and promotion chat, where we analysed the very specific things we can do to better help our bands, and shows, to increase the chances of those we work with being exposed to wider audiences... to ticketing and festivals this week, where we all just stand there and, well, look at them, with a mix of awe, bemusement and - in the case of those national promoters (and, we have to assume, managers and artists) who're complicit in screwing their audiences - something between contempt and disgust.

We talked about the lack of new bands coming through the ranks to replace the 'old guard' festival headliners: those bands who were good in the '90s but should now be sitting with their feet up and a nice cup of tea in their hands. We call them 'heritage' acts, in the same way we call anything over twenty years old 'vintage'. The Cure and The Stone Roses are doing well out of this clamour for bands who'll look good in a large typeface at the top of a festival poster, as are those who never actually stopped touring (though arguably should). But - as Will Page from PRS said - what happens when their knees give out? Who's going to replace them? The Arcade Fire? Sure. Mumford & Sons? Maybe. Let's see what their second album does. Adelle? Apparently she doesn't fancy doing festivals. Perhaps she'll be persuaded by the enormous amounts of money artists are routinely paid for a few minutes work on a stage in a field. 30,000€ for a band who couldn't sell twenty tickets in the market they're booked to play? It happens. I've got first-hand experience of it. And as recorded sales continue to decline, artists and their teams have to look elsewhere to replace the income, and if they can squeeze 30,000€ out of a festival promoter when 3,000€ is a more accurate reflection on their worth, they're going to keep squeezing.

So, plenty money to made at festivals, then, and according to Channel 4's Dispatches programme, plenty to be made from throwing your ethics out the window. Who knew some of our national promoters were a bunch of breathtakingly greedy mercenaries? Quite a few people in the industry as it happens, but it's brushed under the carpet. Dispatches implicated the likes of SJM, Live Nation and others in the practice of giving allocations of tickets directly to secondary outlets like Seatwave and Viagogo, who then sell them on for often vastly inflated prices (and cream up to 90% of the profits), bypassing the primary ticketing sellers entirely.

Geoff Ellis - boss of Scotland's behemoth T-in The Park Festival spoke out admirably against touting in 2008 (here), and then, in the wake of the Dispatches programme, seemed to revert to the argumentative level of a six year old in a playground, blaming the government for not banning legislating against reselling: "We said at the time, if you don't legislate then the music industry will go into the secondary market." (full quote here) That's fine, Geoff. Go into the secondary market if you feel you need to, but your argument seems to be 'if the government doesn't ban it, we promoters reserve the right to screw our artists' fans with their pants down, just like others are doing, instead of thinking how we can do it ethically.'

Perhaps the Concert Promoters' Association could sit down in a room together, decide if they're okay with screwing their artists' audiences with their pants down, and if they are, have the balls to come out - individually - and actually say so. Then any managers and artists who're complicit might do the same.

I'll not hold my breath.

Andy Inglis

RELATED CONTENT:

Andy Inglis - Selling The Gig: Marketing & Promotion

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:30:00 +0000

Marketing and promotion this week, then, and as I was saying, the promoters among us rarely consider their market before they start promoting. They don't stop to think whether they should be promoting whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not there's actually a market for another skinny-jeaned indie rock band, or another '80s-influenced synth-pop band or whatever it is they're peddling. Or to put it another way: if there are no thirsty people in the room, why are they trying to hawk bottles of water?

But we don't always think of music as a commodity, do we? It's art, innit? Well aye, but it's a commodity too, and like any commodity, you need people who want to buy it, else you're going to lose money. Promoters are used to losing money these days. They probably always have been. It's pretty close to gambling. Put a ticket on sale, do your best to promote it and then... you wait and hope. There's plenty you can do to improve your chances though, from getting off your arse and doing your own flyering (or paying someone else to do it), to taking out expensive press ads in Mojo or wherever and hoping your intended audience actually buys that month's issue, gets around to opening it, gets as far as reading to the page your ad is on then actually spots the ad. Then acts on it. A bit risky, no? For a small promoter, sure it is. But don't worry: help is at hand in the shape of the 'national ad contribution' which agents will kindly let you pay them for a line in the ad they're running to plug the band's tour. Did I say "kindly let you in on"? Sorry. I meant "bully you into". In six years of running a venue I never had an agent (from one of the major, London-based agencies) who gave me a choice. Luckily there are many more outlets these days, thanks to the internet, though of course everyone else is using it. Facebook's become a platform for friends to advertise products to their other friends.

I don't live in America but keep getting event invites to shows in New York.

Enough already!

Promoting's hard enough without injecting abject laziness into proceedings.

Live Nation are right behind you.

Andy Inglis

RELATED CONTENT:

Dave Carroll: YouTube Sensation On MU's Policy for Instruments On Planes

netbanx — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:45:00 +0000

“We call on the UK Government to consider introducing a similar Act regarding instruments on planes as has just been passed in the U.S. Such a policy would make a huge difference to the lives of musicians, who often face a lottery when they fly with an instrument."

MU General Secretary John Smith

Nearly three years ago I wrote and produced the first in a trilogy of YouTube videos called United Breaks Guitars. Following a bad experience with United Airlines, where baggage handlers were seen mishandling our bands instruments, my $3500 Taylor guitar was badly damaged.

United would not take responsibility and so I vowed to respond creatively in a way that played to my strengths, which happened to be songwriting. The first video went viral in hours and became the #1 YouTube music video in the world in July of 2009, and my career expanded to include writing a book, writing songs for others, speaking engagements and the launch of a customer service resolution site called Gripevine.com

Recently I was told the US government made it compulsory that musicians be allowed to carry their guitars onboard all US flights. That lobby effort had been underway for a decade by the American Federation of Musicians and the President of the AFM wrote to me in 2009 to say that my video had done more to help the cause than they had been able to accomplish in the ten years previous.

"The new U.S. federal legislation says that any instrument that can be safely stored in the overhead compartment or underneath the seat may be brought on board as carry-on luggage. Additionally, the bill sets standard weight and size requirements for checked instruments, and permits musicians to purchase a seat for oversized instruments, such as cellos, that are too delicate to be checked. Existing law allowed each airline to set their own policy regarding musical instruments, and size – which is precisely the difficult situation that is currently the case in the UK." (MU)

I'm honoured that my $150 music video may have been a contributor to such a worthy piece of legislation. As I've said many times, our guitars/instruments are more like companions than pieces of luggage and because they are vital to the ability of many traveling artists to earn their living, they need to be treated with care and respect. The best way to ensure that is by allowing their owners to carry them onboard (or at the very least gate check them before entering the plane). It's one thing if my clothes don't arrive at my destination but if my guitar fails to make it my show, my livelihood and my whole reason for leaving home is in question.

Another issue is that musicians and artists are typically paid very little for what we do. Being forced to check our guitars and pay extra baggage fees is also an unnecessary cost to an already tight budget.

MU General Secretary John Smith says: “The main problem is the inconsistency between airports and airline staff. You might be allowed to take your instrument into the cabin with you at no extra cost, but then be charged an extortionate fee to put it into the hold on your return flight. This is particularly unfair given that most airlines allow sports equipment, such as skis, to travel for free. For a working musician, the fee can mean the difference between a concert or gig making or losing money – and that’s without even counting the potential cost of a damaged instrument.”

I applaud the Musician's Union in the UK for working towards a similar law there. One thing I've come to understand through the outpouring of support to United Breaks Guitars is that, as people, we have more in common than we do not and that musicians share the same love for their instruments, from San Francisco to Siberia, to Sydney.

Dave Carroll - Singer/Songwriter

Andy Inglis - The Lie Of The Land: Sector Overview

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:15:00 +0000

And so it begins again.

A room full of people looking to me for... well, I'm not quite sure what. I supplied plates of sweets to distract them, but still they looked and waited, and so I began to talk, and by and by some of them began to talk, and before long we were having spirited debates about the merits of Spotify and streaming in general, and what might happen to existing live venues if the new Live Music Bill brings about an increase in the number of rooms putting on gigs in England and Wales.

I've been following the developments in that regard for a while, but when learned men start talking about legislation, my eyes glaze over a bit. And when those learned men have been lobbying government for years, and so know - and use - the language of politicians, my eyes stop glazing, and close entirely, which is partly because learned men talking in the language of politicians is so boring, and partly because learned men talking in the language of politicians is apt to make me feel like I really don't know what I'm talking about. Which is partially true when it comes to understanding the potential effects of the Live Music Bill. The UK already has a globally-derided small venue circuit, partly because there's no funding or other financial support for those venues who would seek to improve themselves, and partly because many of them don't really care enough to change it.

I've got myself a reputation over the years for complaining about the UK live industry and generally being negative. But that's rubbish. I've been in the music business for 22 years (don't I get a page in Audience or IQ magazine for that?) and I still love enough things about it to want to continue, but really, it's in a pitifully-poor condition at the grassroots level in terms of the service and production offered to artists, and audiences for that matter, and the support (financial or otherwise) that the rest of the business gives it is pretty much non-existent. I'm looking at you, major booking agents, promoters and ticketing companies.

Put a little back now and again, eh?

That goes for stadium-touring artists too.

Most of you forgot where you came from.

We didn't.

We're still here.

Andy

Get Plugged In: Live Music, Promotion and Venue Management Course 2012

#86 Newsletter Editorial - Streaming, Stats & The Full SP.

Jenny Tyler — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:25:00 +0000

With Thursday’s debate almost upon us, it’s worth a quick recap of events in the world of streaming since we put the event together.

In terms of developments, most strikingly perhaps, a turnaround in the Coldplay camp saw their latest album Mylo Xyloto added to Spotify, Rdio and Rhapsody earlier this month. Their manager Dave Holmes was quoted just a few weeks earlier in Business Week, concerned that streaming services competed with download stores, though he did add that the album would eventually make its way onto streaming services. The release was a good example of windowing at work.

But does windowing work and does streaming from the day of release cannibalise download sales? Different labels we spoke to are seeing slightly different results, although most seem to be finding that there’s either no affect whatsoever on downloads, or that whatever drop takes place is more than compensated for by an uplift in streams.

Our enquiries are also showing that the recordings business is taking a rightly cautious approach to streaming, with the labels we’ve been speaking to - successful independents and majors - carrying out their own research into how streaming affects consumption across their rosters.

The streaming market is still really only in its infancy, with many services barely six month old in key territories, and reporting still only just beginning to come through. The good news is that the markets for streaming, and indeed for download, both appear to be growing.

One factor to bear in mind is that many people listening to an artist on streaming services won’t just play a track or even an album, but also stream other albums by the same artist. So an artist’s whole body of work might get an uplift from a new release – with an attendant uplift in licensing income across the catalogue.

We’re also seeing that in some cases, artists might be getting paid proportionately more of the label’s income from some streaming services than they would be from downloads. Generally, we thought we’d see labels pay artists for streams in the same sort of way that they’d pay artists for downloads – be that on a royalty basis for major labels and some large independents, or on a 50:50 net profit basis for most independents.

Interestingly, some rights holders will pay downloads on a royalty system basis, but pay for some subscription and ad-supported services like Spotify on a 3^rd party licensed income basis (and so split the streaming income 50: 50 with the artist). This means the artist gets proportionately greater revenue from those services than from downloads. We’re not sure how prevalent this is, but it is certainly interesting, especially when many artist managers argue that streaming royalties should be paid according to more of a radio model – with a 50:50 split of revenues between label and performers.

On the subject of radio, it would appear that some of the comparisons made in the press between streaming income and radio payments might be some way off the mark, as streaming would appear to actually pay a lot more per listener than radio play. This is only to be expected, as the listener is able to decide what they listen to and when on streaming services.

The considerable body of proprietary research that is slowly building among services, distributors and labels begs the question of whether it could be somehow aggregated and pooled for the benefit of others – such as those labels who haven’t got the infrastructure in place to carry out their own research, as well as artist managers and self-releasing artists?

Of course labels and services will understandably want to keep a good chunk of their findings private, but that would still leave a body of data that can be made available for wider benefit. At some point competition concerns would presumably come into play, but there’s some way to go before the business is going to be accused of collusion, and this sort of knowledge could help everyone involved find their feet quicker.

So hopefully, Thursday’s Can Streaming Go Mainstream? debate will be a step in the right direction with Mark Mulligan's keynote including extracts from MusicTank's recent findings. If you can’t make it along or are too late to secure one of the few remaining seats, the whole event will be streamed live here for paid-up members - a first for us - and a video and transcript made available post event.

Editorial by Sam Shemtob

Keith Harris: Form 696 Lives...

Jenny Tyler — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:20:00 +0000

Congratulations are due to Lord Tim Clement-Jones, The Musicians Union and UK Music for their recent success in carrying through the live music bill, making it possible for musicians to play in venues of up to 200 people without the venue requiring a license. It has been a long and certainly worthwhile campaign.

I do however remember the Oct 2009 MusicTank debate at which Lord Clement-Jones spoke in the early stages of this campaign, focusing as it did on the controversial police form 696 which required venues to provide names and addresses of performers in certain genres of music, specifically those which were identified as Black and Asian Music genres – ‘Urban Music’. The form even asked for the ethnic make-up of the expected audience.

The Department of Culture Media and Sport Select Committee had, in May 2009, issued a report calling for the form to be scrapped. Needless to say there was much back tracking by the police on the night and an insistence that the form was not intended in any way to be aimed at any particular sections of the music community and that the form was in any case voluntary.

We should remember that far from being scrapped, this form is still in use and is currently a condition of license for more than a 100 London venues as well as a standard part of a risk assessment in 21 London Boroughs.

British Black and Asian music has been one of the success stories of recent years, with the huge international success of Tinie Tempah and the significant impact in the US made by the likes of Jay Sean and Taio Cruz.

It seems almost perverse to be stifling the ability of other young urban artists to learn their craft by performing live. The live music bill is a huge success and all its supporters deserve a pat on the back for the effort that they have made to get it through, but let us not be lulled into believing that all is well in the world of live music - there is still work to do.

Keith Harris - Chairman, MusicTank / Director Performer Affairs, PPL / Keith Harris Music Ltd

Hamish Birchall: The Live Music Bill Clears Its Last Commons Hurdle...

Jenny Tyler — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:30:00 +0000

The Live Music Bill, co-sponsored by Lord Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP, cleared its last Commons hurdle on January 20th.

It is now on the home straight to becoming law. Two minor amendments agreed in Commons Committee must be ratified in the Lords, probably within a fortnight, and dates set for Royal Assent. Implementation will require secondary legislation. A lead-in period of several months is likely to allow time for the live music sections within statutory Licensing Guidance to be rewritten.

The Bill represents a historic shift in the treatment of live music under the law. The Licensing Act 2003, and many preceding Acts, embodied a presumption against most performances unless first licensed, on pain of criminal law sanctions. This harsh treatment, dating back more than 250 years, will end for performances within certain hours and to a relatively small audience. The potential risks are already regulated by separate legislation. While there were and are rational grounds for licensing large events, there is also a puritanical streak in English culture that was amplified by licensing legislation. That enduring tendency was expressed in often unreasonable objections to even the mildest live music licence applications, with absurd over-regulation and enforcement by many local authorities.

The Bill could easily have been sunk by a combination of tedious filibustering on Daylight Saving Bill amendments and arcane Parliamentary procedure. Indeed, it came very close to failing, not because of insufficient numbers in the House to carry a vote (over 130 MPs), but lack of time.

Debate started at 9.30am and had to finish by 2.30pm. The end time arrived and MPs were still on the Daylight Saving Bill. Many observers present thought the Live Music Bill had been lost. Lord Clement-Jones said: 'I was sitting there and I was absolutely, completely confounded. I had no idea what was happening when the Daylight Saving Bill was up.'

Then, as one observer in the public gallery put it, 'something weird happened'. MP Philip Davies, the last in a succession of honourable members grinding through DSB amendments, suddenly sat down as the Speaker, Nigel Evans, stood up and shouted 'Order, order'. The remaining private members bills titles were read out. Next up: the Live Music Bill.

There followed a short exchange between the Speaker and Don Foster, and the Bill was passed to a loud chorus of 'Ayes', with no objections. (View on Parliament tv, scroll to 4hrs 55mins)

The good news flashed quickly around arts and music media:

Deborah Annetts, Chief Executive of the Incorporated Society of Musicians, said: ‘I am delighted that today Parliament has shown support for music. The Live Music Bill is important to all musicians, whether rock, jazz or a string quartet, and across many settings, from pubs to village halls and hospitals.’

Jo Dipple, acting chief executive of UK Music, the UK commercial music industry's umbrella body, said: "This is a great day for music. The Live Music Bill will make a real and positive difference to lives of musicians. There is no doubt that the current Licensing Act has created needless layers of bureaucracy - making it complicated and expensive for pubs and other small venues to host live gigs. The entire industry would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP who have made this change possible."

John Smith, Musicians Union General Secretary, added:

"We are delighted that the Live Music Bill has finally made it through Parliament. It is a real achievement for a Private Member's Bill to get through and the MU would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster and all of the other MPs who helped to pass this Bill."

Heartfelt thanks is certainly due to Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster, the licensing minister John Penrose, many other MPs and Peers who have tenaciously campaigned within Parliament, especially John Whittingdale, Chair of the Culture Select Committee, also to the civil servants and lawyers who have worked hard behind the scenes on the bill, and indeed to the Coalition government. But the time is not yet ripe to celebrate. That should be saved for the day the new law comes into effect. And it will take many months, perhaps years, for the full benefit to be realised by musicians, venues and the music loving public.

The sharp decline of small gigs in pubs coincided with reform of entertainment licensing in 1982, when local authorities were given powers to set their own fees. These quickly rose by several hundred percent, and by 2000 the Home Office estimated fewer than 10% of pubs had entertainment licences, although all of them could still have one or two live performers (the 'two in a bar rule'). But even that modest musical provision was abolished by the 2003 Licensing Act, legislation that marks the high water point of regulation of live music through licensing. It was under this Act that even providing musical instruments became a potential criminal offence unless licensed. This ranges from pub pianos to instruments provided by schools for concerts. The Live Music Bill does away with that requirement.

One long-time campaigner asked me yesterday what I would do next. I am not against licensing regimes per se. Where there are serious risks to the public, inadequately regulated by separate legislation, prior public consultation may be necessary and proportionate.

To that end, perhaps MPs should be licensed.

Hamish Birchall, Musician and Live Music Campaigner.