> > Musical revenues are not something I know huge amounts, but > > this seems > > to me to be a model which drives the musicians very very hard. To > > earn money to live they have to perform - and they'll need > > to do it a LOT. > > But to prepare their next album, they'll need to stop performing > > because they'll need to write their album. > > And is there not a finite amount of gigs people will attend? The > > number of people who go to a gig a week isn't that high. > > Where does this model leave people like Kate Bush - internationally > > regarded and loved, but who hates doing live performances, > so doesn't. > But aren't you just looking at the top end of musicians? > Even for recording musicians quite a number of them aren't > making much (or indeed > any) money on their recordings. Artists could also sell > recordings themselves presumably signed although this will > probably not add much to the value long-term. We could > completely go over to a gift culture - there would still be > plenty of people who would like to reward artists.
I did have top end musicians in mind, but I'm also keeping in mind a certain band of musicians who now sell their music themselves - retain the distribution and costs and so on. Sometimes people who have grown disgruntled with, or who have been dropped by their record label. Artists for whom the album sales and live music income (which lets face it, often isn't much either!) combined help pay their way. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
