No Free Music Lunch for Indie Musicians

Ever since the release of In Rainbows, there has been a flood of posts claiming that music will soon be free... Really? Is that what an indie musician wants? Who's going to pay for the production of the music you want for free? For indie musicians, these costs are significant. For example, most good recording studios in the US charge at least $1,500 per day and you would be lucky to record an entire album in two days. Than you have to consider mixing, editing and mastering costs which add about another $1,000, so you are looking at a minimum of about $4,000 in recording costs alone. Sure, you can find less expensive studios and even inexpensive online mastering, but

you can also hear the difference with an engineer that is not as experienced. You could even record live or DIY in your rehearsal space, but the reality is that there are very few people that can make live recordings or "home studio" recordings sound professional.

So the question remains, how will indie musicians trying to make a career afford to live if they aren't getting paid for their own music they pay to produce? A lot of people seem to think that by simply giving away music, bands will actually have more people attend their live shows. Possibly, but as I've mentioned before, free music does not necessarily equal a larger fan base, especially since there is so much content available online from every possible genre you can think of. From my own experience as an indie musician with Rhythm Junction, there are a lot of variables that determine how much money one will make from a live show. For example, what city/venue you are playing? What other acts are performing the same night? What day of the week you are playing on? Are you headlining? How many people do you have to pay in your band (musicians/crew)? How far did you have to travel to play, and how far away are you from your core fan base? Etc. Giving away free music only slightly improves your odds of big revenue nights, as building a sustaining following for most bands takes years of hard work as evidenced by Ben Harper, Blues Traveler, and the Dave Matthews Band to name a few, and all of these groups allowed their fans to freely trade their live shows long before P2P sharing.

Live shows are only one part of the revenue equation for musicians, and there is only so long one can sustain playing 80 or more shows a year. Like a startup company, indie musicians need multiple revenue streams, and by demanding free music or pirating their songs, you are essentially cutting out one of their revenue streams, which in turn makes it more difficult for them to live. What would you do if your boss told you today that he is going to start paying you 1/3 less because he only wants to pay you for 2/3 of your time, even though he thinks you do great work?

Regardless, I agree with Seth Godin that music is going to be marketed and packaged much differently from here on out (a topic I will explore soon), and if your revenue stream from digital music sales is diminished, then you will have to find more streams. However, I also agree with Derek Sivers that people are willing to pay for the music they love, and this mindset will continue to create revenue for indie musicians. Thus, what will probably change and expand are the ways in which musicians make money from their music, as digital downloads are only one dimension. As always, I welcome your comments.

Peace.

Comments

[Luke]

One idea I have been looking into for adding revenue from live shows is recording both audio and video. These recordings can be duplicated on an as is basis and sold, but I have found here in Seattle that only about 50% of the smaller venues are so equipped.