FEATURE:
What Is the Solution?
PHOTO CREDIT: @tijsvl/Unsplash
Financing Artists, Songwriters and Grassroots Venues
___________
ONE of the things that I cover a lot…
IN THIS PHOTO: Tim Burgess
on my site is grassroots venues and streaming. Both are in the news again because, whilst venues are shut and streaming sites are not providing artists and songwriters with enough money, there is a struggle that cannot only potentially impact the future of live music; it can also damage existing artists in terms of their ability to continue and survive. I want to draw from a couple of articles because, whilst there is determination from those in the music industry to see change, we need Government support and businesses to step up. The music world was thrown into chaos because of the pandemic. It meant that venues had to close and, for artists who gain a lot of revenue from gigs, they were forced to look elsewhere for a financial stream. In terms of streaming platforms, the business model still means that, whilst the companies earn a lot of money as companies, a lot of the money is going straight to the labels and not to the artists and songwriters. I know it is hard to divide the pie equally but, as the actual talent are getting paid far less than labels, it seems that 2021 is a year when change needs to happen very quickly. Musician Tim Burgess wrote for The Guardian last week. He outlined the extent of the disparity and issue:
“The basic point is that the UK music industry contributed an estimated £5.8bn to the economy in 2019, but artists are maybe not seeing as much of that as they should. Almost 5m vinyl albums were sold in 2020, the most since way back when we released our debut LP in the early 90s. There’s hope and excitement in the gloom, but there’s also an elephant in the gloom. That elephant’s name is streaming. To understand the issues better, it might help if we imagined trying to explain the way it works to someone back in 1995.
PHOTO CREDIT: @lastly/Unsplash
“OK, so for a penny under a tenner a month, you’ll have access to pretty much every record ever made, to listen to whenever you want. It’s like you own the music but you kind of don’t.” I’m guessing our person in 1995 would be mightily impressed.
There is much made of the sums paid to artists as a result of all this – yes, they get a cut, and millions of people stream every day, right? – right, but these sums usually go to 26 decimal places, and the first four digits are often 0.000.
Gary Numan recently said that he made £37 from a million streams of one of his songs. Again, he wasn’t griping about the money due to him, but painting a picture of what it’s like for a new artist who couldn’t hope to get a fraction of those plays. Let’s say 25,000 people streamed that artist’s latest track. As popular as that might make them seem, it wouldn’t buy them a coffee in the shop where they had to work a second job because their income from music was so meagre.
The thing is, streaming has taught us that people are willing to pay for music. Spotify had total revenues of $7.4bn in 2019. A lot of that money goes to major labels rather than directly to artists, so they’re part of the equation too. Tom Gray and the Broken Record campaign (pretty sure they supported us at the Rayleigh Pink Toothbrush in 1992) have done some sterling work in holding the platforms and labels to account, but it’s an uphill struggle.
PHOTO CREDIT: @hakimr/Unsplash
Julian Knight MP, chair of the digital, culture, media and sport committee, recently called in the major record labels to discuss streaming. He asked one of them whether they had cut royalty rates to artists after a deal with Spotify. He wasn’t happy with the answer. “You are in front of a parliamentary select committee now,” he said. “In the past, with the likes of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, we have found them to be frankly dissembling and not being in any way [clear]. So far I have to say you are beating them to the prize in terms of lack of clarity and lack of actual openness to a parliamentary committee.” I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t give me a lot of faith that they’re going to be open to changing things”.
I am not sure what the instant answer is regarding parity and something that will benefit everyone. I know that there are wheels in motion regarding discussion about streaming and improving the situation. With every new article and outcry from the music industry, it enforces the seriousness of how things really are. I am not sure what the long-term impact of the pandemic will be regarding musicians’ survival and streaming, but there is a growing desire for dialogue and action. Not only is there a massive issue concerning streaming and how it pays new and established artists; venues are also threatened right now. Two sources of revenue for artists are under threat right now.
PHOTO CREDIT: @bantersnaps/Unsplash
Many of the larger venues will survive and be okay this year. The same cannot be said for a lot of the grassroots venues. As this NME article shows, there is one politician at least who understands the gravity of the reality many venues face:
“Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has suggested that the “big players” of the music industry should pay a levy to support grassroots music venues through the coronavirus pandemic.
Speaking as part of Independent Venue Week’s Culture Panel last week (January 28), Burnham said the industry had a responsibility to protect beleaguered venues which have faced the threat of financial ruin.
“The industry has to pay a levy to support grassroots venues, because that is their talent production ground. They are the junior football clubs of the country. That’s where the talent comes through,” he said.
Burnham said that the closure of venues would be “like closing junior grassroots football clubs and then expecting English football to still be strong.”
Backing the idea, Music Venue Trust CEO Mark Davyd explained that a number of European countries tax the music industry to finance grassroots music development.
“We would rather see the industry organise itself into such a model,” he said, per the BBC.
PHOTO CREDIT: @overdriv3/Unsplash
“We believe the skills and expertise available in our industry could quickly develop such a programme to be an effective model of investment into new talent.
The MVT has continued to work to protect and preserve live music in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic, which has forced live music spaces across the country to close their doors. Back in November, the organisation launched a campaign to save 30 UK venues that were still in danger of being lost forever in the wake of coronavirus restrictions.
Having already secured over £80 million in donations and government grants this year through their #SaveOurVenues campaign – securing the futures of over 400 UK grassroots venues until March 31, 2021 – the MVT moved to aid 24 venues that have been “unable to access sufficient funding” and have been “added to a ‘red list’ of venues in imminent danger of permanent closure”.
Let’s hope that there is extra financing from the Government and bigger businesses to ensure that most of our valued grassroots venues will be okay. We all also hope that streaming sites look at how much they are paying artists and songwriters and, on that basis, alter things. I think that awareness continues to be raised but, beyond that, we all have our fingers crossed that there will be consultation and good news this year. Last week, NME published a piece of news that one hopes will be picked up by the Government:
“Leading figures across the live events industries have called on the UK Government to maintain the 5 percent VAT rate on ticket sales, which was introduced to help the struggling sector last year.
The new appeal has been delivered in a letter, signed by industry figures representing thousands of businesses across the UK, to Chancellor Rishi Sunak ahead of March’s budget.
The tax reduction was initially introduced in July last year, but the prolonged closures of venues due to the coronavirus pandemic means that they are yet to directly benefit. It is now feared that the VAT rate could now rise to 20 percent, striking a direct blow to beleaguered venues”.
One possible way that some venues may be able to open with a reduced capacity is through something called a ‘health passport’. This article explains more:
“After the coronavirus pandemic made the majority of live gigs impossible over the past 10 months – bar some socially distanced shows outside of lockdown – the industry is now looking for ways to reopen live music in a safe manner. Now, it’s been announced that start-up comany You Check will be trialling a new digital health passport app – collaborating with the Music Venue Trust and approved by the government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”.
The trials are currently planned at London’s 100 Club and The Exchange in Bristol for March with events at 25 per cent capacity with two sets of tests on the same people, before trialling at other spaces across the country with a hope to gradually building up capacity”.
It is good that there are developments an some glimmers of hope with venues at least. Whilst they may not be able to properly open until later this year, solutions are being discussed. I do have a fear for their solidity and safety if they cannot reopen fully soon, and if the Government does not pledge more financial support to ensure that live music can swing back post-pandemic. Artists and venues are facing a crisis right now and, with no confirmation as to when venues can reopen at their full capacity, let’s hope that those in power…
PHOTO CREDIT: @wesleyphotography/Unsplash
DO the right thing.