17 Indie Artists on Their Oddest Odd Jobs That Pay the Bills When Music Doesn’t (not a poll)

boy, "permalance" sure is a depressing term

maybe stop listening to shit music idk

man I remember the Napster days and how everyone on it was like "this is awesome, I'd gladly pay for this if I could"...like, this was the era of the $17.99 CD with one or two good songs on it, massive amounts of re-issues and greatest hits, etc etc. tempting to blame the consumer but you can't really fault us for feeling ripped off. like you can't really blame people too much for streaming a boxing match when you're charging $99.99 for pay-per-view. I used to think that the industry punting the digital side for a decade-plus was the big culprit, but now that we have Spotify where an artist gets paid a quarter per 100,000 plays, I'm starting to think capitalism might be the real problem here

what is ADP

― blokes you can't rust (sic), Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:25 AM (seven hours ago)

probably about 30% - 40% of workers in the US have their payroll or (at least w-2s) processed by ADP -- in the company's own words:

"We are a comprehensive global provider of cloud-based human capital management (HCM) solutions that unite HR, payroll, talent, time, tax and benefits administration, and a leader in business outsourcing services, analytics and compliance expertise."

lisa germano used to work at Whole Foods in WeHo like 10 years ago maybe i saw her there but not being really a fan i wouldn't know. but it would be nice to think she sliced my bread or packaged up my scallops or something

― velko, Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:29 AM (seven hours ago)

I think my ex's brother worked at that Whole Foods around that time???! (not that you would have confused him for Lisa Germano ... like, maybe they were co-workers)

How far we've fallen since the '90s.

speaking of the 90s, the thing that's most "odd" to me about the jobs listed here, is that none of them are strippers / sex workers -- that was way more common in the 90s.

man I remember the Napster days and how everyone on it was like "this is awesome, I'd gladly pay for this if I could"...like, this was the era of the $17.99 CD with one or two good songs on it

I dunno, I kinda blame the consumer. I remember having that debate and hearing that line back in the day from friends who were students, working shit jobs, etc. And now 15 years later many of them have houses and good jobs and can afford a $17.99 CD or ten, yet they seem to have changed their tune on this point.

"Whole Foods is the he best dead end job in the world" is a joke I've heard among musicians.

The artists currently making the big/blockbuster releases are either already fully established or are moneyed enough to do it.

otm. It's actually become frustratingly difficult to find exceptions to this.

I remember an old interview about Interpol where Paul Banks talked about how he would take dead, deader, dead-i-er end office jobs so that he would be forced to make his band successful. I don't recall if he was a rich kid where that action plan actually had no consequences.

Interesting to see Cass McCombs here. He averages 1.2 million Spotify listeners a month. I was under the impression that the payout for that was around $7000 or $8000; not enough to be rich obviously, but would seem to support some kind of middle class lifestyle when combined with other revenue streams that come from being a musician (merchandise/physical record sales, syncs, money from touring if any).

Honestly, if so many artists are making nothing from 1 million g'damn streams a month, then I wish it were possible to organize some kind of recording strike like in the early 1940s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942%E2%80%9344_musicians%27_strike

I was under the impression that the payout for that was around $7000 or $8000

*I should clarify that I meant monthly payout for the streaming number, as obviously 7 or 8 thousand a year would be woeful.

Honestly, if so many artists are making nothing from 1 million g'damn streams a month, then I wish it were possible to organize some kind of recording strike like in the early 1940s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942%E2%80%9344_musicians%27_strike

― klonman, Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:01 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If this happened now, you would never see more strikebreakers in all your life

FYI

https://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/12/the-streaming-price-bible-spotify-youtube-and-what-1-million-plays-means-to-you/

Omg @ the rates for songwriters

Has anybody written a good book about the 1942/47 Petrillo strikes? I would love to read more about them. It is amazing that all musicians went on strike for over two years and you really couldn’t hear any new music (apart from reissues and acappellas). That would NEVER happen nowadays.

errr... ‘48, not ‘47.

none of them are strippers / sex workers -- that was way more common in the 90s

even if ppl would have publicly declared this, FOSTA/SESTA? also indie strip clubs are dead in Seattle and decimated in SF compared to the '90s aiui

$7000 or $8000; not enough to be rich obviously, but would seem to support some kind of middle class lifestyle when combined with other revenue streams that come from being a musician (merchandise/physical record sales, syncs, money from touring if any)

the $6,252/mo is not Cass McCombs the individual's income, it's the rights holder's gross. A quick squiz at Discogs suggests he only owns the publishing outright on one, maybe two of those nine records (so $625/mo if all the 1.2 million streams came from that one album), and the masters on none. with a four-piece backing band he'ss paying at least six people's wages on the road, plus all tour expenses, before he sees any touring income himself.

music industry's death seem greatly exaggerated

to put that chart in perspective, the 50% haircut roughly mirrors landline ownership.

How are you reading a 50% haircut? I'm looking at it on a phone but the 2017 figures look above 50% even relative to the 2000 peak, comparable to 1992 levels, and higher than 70s and 80s figures. Unless it's not inflation-adjusted? 90s was a bubble for the music industry.

It's led to more people becoming totally apathetic about a career in music or even wanting to make any music of real quality

he was serious

paul ponzi otm'ing any part of that post is truly water finding its level

"when there's no financial incentive artists just put out any garbage" is both historically untrue and capitalist bullshit

There's far too much music being made with a "this'll do" quality to it, because they can't be arsed, and because Spotify places any new release by Mr. Joe Experimentalbollocks-from-Coventry on the same pedestal as something of real quality, they don't feel any great need to be arsed

this is not a real or observable dynamic, everything you say is bullshit, please stop taking up so much space on this board with your fucking bullshit

Oh look, Brad's throwing their toys out of their pram because they don't like what they're reading. Tough shit.

You've be on your best behaviour for a while now, but you're coming out with some utter tosh itt.

Or, to put it another way, Lars Ulrich circa 2000 OTM.

... with all due respect, lol.

... ah you see, this is why people think you're a troll.

I'm in favour of people saying unsupportable nonsense on this board, but appropriate responses to being called on it include "oh rly? thanks for pointing that out" or "lol fair enough" or "you may be right but I'm going to continue thinking things I've made up based on no longer being a teenager but wishing nothing else in the world had changed, it comforts me" rather than "everyone else is the problem, not me"

no worries i expect to see some mathematical proof for the argument that popular music reached its apex in 1996 before the thread finishes

man I remember the Napster days and how everyone on it was like "this is awesome, I'd gladly pay for this if I could"...like, this was the era of the $17.99 CD with one or two good songs on it, massive amounts of re-issues and greatest hits, etc etc. tempting to blame the consumer but you can't really fault us for feeling ripped off.

Oh, I've no doubt some of the consumers on Napster adopted a "try before you buy" approach. Perhaps some did honestly wish they could compensate the artist if they came across something awesome, but couldn't afford to. C'mon, though, let's face it, most just wanted something for nothing. When the likes of YSI/Megaupload/Mediafire etc. appeared and Bittorrent became a thing it was game over.

gen z doesn't know what file-sharing is

so it's weird blaming something that is no longer relevant wrt the main consumer demo of popular music for its current state

gen z doesn't know what file-sharing is

― findom haddie (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, April 10, 2019 11:29 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag PostPermalink

Irrelevant.

The point is that it was (historically) the beginning of this whole mess, not that it's the current way people "consume" music.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gen Z were unaware as to what an expensive sounding, well recorded album sounded like either.

there was a brief window of opportunity when bands like Metallica probably could have monitized downloading by interacting better with their fans, but the end result likely would have been the same.

movie downloading does not seem to have made much of a dent on the bottom line, when superhero movies break a billion. I suppose if albums or new music felt like more of an event they might get similar results? The big names, Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Ariana Grande, that sort of act, seem to have really savvy teams that know how to balance conventional marketing with internet marketing and whatnot. The result though is kind of like hybrid, giant superstars hustling like grassroots acts.

fwiw my kids largely listen to music on YouTube.

When the likes of YSI/Megaupload/Mediafire etc. appeared and Bittorrent became a thing it was game over.

i doubt the vast majority of music consumers have ever used any of these.

Um

I align myself far closer to Turrican’s viewpoint than not, although for far different reasons and like it’s more complicated etc., and I’m surprised at your responses, Brad!

To say that “music these days is shit because nobody’s getting paid” is wrong; music is The Way It Is These Days because nobody’s getting paid.

This means: US or UK will not produce another Mark Hollis or Scott Walker with this current model

This means: we thankfully we be spared the vast amounts of coked-out-for-months-label-is-obligated-to-release-it-anyway releases that Too Much Money creates

This means: musicians will find new and ingenuous ways of creating capital-amassing product

This means: we may be forced to reconcile ourselves to the fact that “the current sound of nihilism” is reflective of the current economic model— XXXTentacion and his resultant success is fully a product of the nihilism that “no money and no privilege” creates and music to reflect that

The fact is that most of the music you love, Brad, relies upon capital investment and/or a particular level of privilege to get it to a level that you’d find digestible— unless, like me, you still have a 90s kid hangover and a taste for DIY and thus listen pretty-much exclusively to Tinashe’s self-produced material over her subsequent material

Music has changed (not for better, not for worse, it’s just changed) to reflect the fact that those of us who aren’t surviving largely on Arctic Monkeys Arcade Fire trickle-down and/or government-assisted grants, we just can’t actually make a living at this any more.

And as a result there is an incredible skepticism toward, and commodification of, musicians/technicians/engineers who actually do know what the fuck they’re doing— it’s like if tweecore became 100% aggressively politicized, and any semblance of “agency” is taken as a signifier of wealth

Unless you’re like Amen Dunes and hide your scion status or whatever

Me, I’m firmly in Camp Cass, kind of: recorded music as a saleable asset is a mistake, and culturally a net negative, and created a false economy in place of something that is inherently meant to be social and hobbyist. (I’m also 100% Team Fund-The-Arts, too)

The point is that it was (historically) the beginning of this whole mess, not that it's the current way people "consume" music.

historically the introduction of 33⅓ was the beginning of this whole mess

player piano music iirc

the error in turrican's theory is that we are saying that it equates file sharing with streaming because they are both digital distribution.... when file sharing is really the end of then not the beginning of now.

in file sharing there's still the idea that music has a monetary value, that it's something that you possess... either by buying it or stealing it. so yeah it is relevant that gen z doesn't know file sharing because they don't even have the idea of any media ownership, it's just as Bowie said, a utility... like turning on a faucet

It's both the end of then and the beginning of now - you cannot have an effect without a cause! The reason Gen Z wouldn't know file sharing is because of the changes to the industry brought on by... file sharing.

Brought on by technological change

And as a result there is an incredible skepticism toward, and commodification of, musicians/technicians/engineers who actually do know what the fuck they’re doing— it’s like if tweecore became 100% aggressively politicized, and any semblance of “agency” is taken as a signifier of wealth

this is totally otm and infuriating

This means: US or UK will not produce another Mark Hollis or Scott Walker with this current model

I was going to post something like this but decided against it because I assumed the response would largely be snark. You were smart to use two examples that are beloved by ILX; I was going to point out that under the current model we'll never see another Dark Side of the Moon, Rumours,, or any of the other coke-addled gajillion dollar records many of us still hold very dear

we won't see something like them but we will see something equally amazing

Yup. I mean, Daft Punk did the opposite of what many assumed they would on Random Access Memories. Rather than go for the kind of "in the box" production that already is sounding stagnant, they made an expensive, rich sounding blockbuster production.

Sadly, this is kinda an anomaly because - being a long-running act - Daft Punk had the money to be able to do it.

(x-post)

I'm worried we'll never see another Rigoletto

I know Josh is joking but it make u think

player piano music is a really weird artefact not replicated in history (as far as the top of my head is offering now):
- consumption was still social (as with the innovation of cheap sheet music enabling popular songs to be heard at home and in the pub)
- the "some musical ability" barrier of entry was removed
- but while some homes and many pubs already had a regular piano, possibly handed down over generations, the player piano was a wildly expensive & worse-sounding upgrade/replacement to a piece of hardware that was already extremely expensive when new

kind of like if Pono had been the next step after the CD player, without an ipod in between, but it only played 96kbps mp3s

not replicated in history - except for Conlon Nancarrow

we won't see something like them but we will see something equally amazing

― Dan S, Wednesday, April 10, 2019 8:45 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I have grave doubts