I enjoyed this article, reading it as I have after having read Ian’s enjoyable tome.
I’m a lifer (40+ years) in the wider music industry, navigating many ‘disciplines’ over time.
Now as a work-with (modern musicians are more inclined to a collaborative approach to ‘management’ IME) for low profile and aspirant bands the curse of mental (ill-)health is just differently dealt with. Not necessarily better, but certainly viewed a little more coherently. At least it’s discussed and options are available to help IF the musicians and their ‘parasites’ want it.
It’s true though that my lifetime disinterest in alcohol/tobacco/drugs is now the norm. At this level at least.
That’s good to hear Andrew - I wonder if because there is less money at stake people are less greedy about keeping the artists on stage at all costs. Or perhaps at a more grassroots level the people working with them are more likely to be friends/more emotionally invested
Aug 28, 2022·edited Sep 1, 2022Liked by Eleanor Halls
Hi Eleanor.
Certainly at the level I'm now working there is for all intents and purposes zero money. Certainly nothing that would constitute a profit*. So keeping people out there working will only generate a greater loss.
Nowadays, most 'managers' or 'work-withs' have side hustles (often elsewhere within the wider music industry) or near full-time trades or professions.
I was extremely fortunate in my first 25-30 years, working by chance with bands who made money and in consequence were able to pay me in some form or another.
I also never had a contract. I took the view - as did and do many I knew or know - that we worked together because we wanted to and when it stopped being enjoyable (however defined by each of us) we ended the relationship.
I took a break to do other stuff and when i started to become involved again - nearly 10 years ago...where did that time go? - I decided not to charge for my involvement, though I perhaps naively hope that if financial success were to come to one or more they would do the 'right' thing. Statistically it would be very rare!
I and many I know who are involved do so not for money but for emotionally and physically visceral reasons related to love of music, the musician(s) AND the industry (yes, I know, I know!), such that whether friends or not at the outset want to work together with a musician to help grow their talent into a sustainable future.
For a complex number of reasons related to the ease of recording and distribution I think it was more straightforward to have 'success' (however defined) prior to the internet and later social media.
Twenty + years ago you would quickly know if you had the determination and resilience to become a full-time musician - in the sense other than as a session or orchestra etc player - because invariably access to recording/distribution was controlled by gatekeepers very early in the music-making process.
It could be brutal and not 'fair' (but hello, life...) but you soon knew where you were so if you made it past the initial gatekeepers you had a way better chance of navigating a path forward.
Subsequent challenges still existed if you made it through the initial gatekeepers but the 'competition' was considerably less and the outlets easier to see and more straightforward to navigate.
It was still hugely problematic for the musicians to make money, even whilst the 'parasites' did, but far fewer people got into financial difficulty because of the gatekeeper issue. You couldn't spend your money because there wasn't a way to spend. You were locked out early on.
Now, the lack of gatekeepers at an early stage give hope to many many many more musicians that there may be a sustainable future or career in music. The gatekeepers - and parasites - simply come along later and hence come to people who are consequently ever more desperate and vulnerable, less realistic perhaps.
So many more musicians think they can 'make it', often long beyond when it should be clear they haven't got what it takes (whether by virtue of their personal characteristics or the songs) to make a sustainable career or future. I believe this confluence of factors has led in part to an unhealthy approach to trying to 'succeed'.
Certainly my experience is that a lot of musicians ('creatives' generally??, though likely any humans would struggle in this environment) simply don't have the necessary characteristics - musical, physical, emotional - to ride the music rollercoaster. It makes them sick.
Hope however seems to linger for so many that they will ignore the obvious - nothing they ever create will resonate with the (later stage) gatekeepers - and keep striving. Even when it impacts their health.
Anyway, I've bumbled on (work avoidance issues today!) and likely gone way off piste, so apologies. I've not answered your question - whether journalists are complicit - as I suspect there is a very nuanced interrelationship that actually starts with the musician(s) themselves being unrealistic. Others simply perpetuate that....often because of their own naïveté or unrealistic hopes and expectations!
Feel free to ignore and delete!
A
* Something that came home to roost in the 'pandemic' when the vast majority of musicians could not qualify for the SEIS simply because they'd not made a 'profit' in the relevant (or indeed any) financial periods.
Thanks for writing that Andrew, it was fascinating, am always so interested in the inner workings of the music biz. I’d never thought about your point around the gatekeepers early on being harsh but at least providing a reality check for the majority. It’s true that while social media democratises success in many ways, it leads to a lot of one hit wonders - virality often doesn’t translate to a sustainable career. (Ps hope those bands do do the right thing!)
I enjoyed this article, reading it as I have after having read Ian’s enjoyable tome.
I’m a lifer (40+ years) in the wider music industry, navigating many ‘disciplines’ over time.
Now as a work-with (modern musicians are more inclined to a collaborative approach to ‘management’ IME) for low profile and aspirant bands the curse of mental (ill-)health is just differently dealt with. Not necessarily better, but certainly viewed a little more coherently. At least it’s discussed and options are available to help IF the musicians and their ‘parasites’ want it.
It’s true though that my lifetime disinterest in alcohol/tobacco/drugs is now the norm. At this level at least.
That’s good to hear Andrew - I wonder if because there is less money at stake people are less greedy about keeping the artists on stage at all costs. Or perhaps at a more grassroots level the people working with them are more likely to be friends/more emotionally invested
Hi Eleanor.
Certainly at the level I'm now working there is for all intents and purposes zero money. Certainly nothing that would constitute a profit*. So keeping people out there working will only generate a greater loss.
Nowadays, most 'managers' or 'work-withs' have side hustles (often elsewhere within the wider music industry) or near full-time trades or professions.
I was extremely fortunate in my first 25-30 years, working by chance with bands who made money and in consequence were able to pay me in some form or another.
I also never had a contract. I took the view - as did and do many I knew or know - that we worked together because we wanted to and when it stopped being enjoyable (however defined by each of us) we ended the relationship.
I took a break to do other stuff and when i started to become involved again - nearly 10 years ago...where did that time go? - I decided not to charge for my involvement, though I perhaps naively hope that if financial success were to come to one or more they would do the 'right' thing. Statistically it would be very rare!
I and many I know who are involved do so not for money but for emotionally and physically visceral reasons related to love of music, the musician(s) AND the industry (yes, I know, I know!), such that whether friends or not at the outset want to work together with a musician to help grow their talent into a sustainable future.
For a complex number of reasons related to the ease of recording and distribution I think it was more straightforward to have 'success' (however defined) prior to the internet and later social media.
Twenty + years ago you would quickly know if you had the determination and resilience to become a full-time musician - in the sense other than as a session or orchestra etc player - because invariably access to recording/distribution was controlled by gatekeepers very early in the music-making process.
It could be brutal and not 'fair' (but hello, life...) but you soon knew where you were so if you made it past the initial gatekeepers you had a way better chance of navigating a path forward.
Subsequent challenges still existed if you made it through the initial gatekeepers but the 'competition' was considerably less and the outlets easier to see and more straightforward to navigate.
It was still hugely problematic for the musicians to make money, even whilst the 'parasites' did, but far fewer people got into financial difficulty because of the gatekeeper issue. You couldn't spend your money because there wasn't a way to spend. You were locked out early on.
Now, the lack of gatekeepers at an early stage give hope to many many many more musicians that there may be a sustainable future or career in music. The gatekeepers - and parasites - simply come along later and hence come to people who are consequently ever more desperate and vulnerable, less realistic perhaps.
So many more musicians think they can 'make it', often long beyond when it should be clear they haven't got what it takes (whether by virtue of their personal characteristics or the songs) to make a sustainable career or future. I believe this confluence of factors has led in part to an unhealthy approach to trying to 'succeed'.
Certainly my experience is that a lot of musicians ('creatives' generally??, though likely any humans would struggle in this environment) simply don't have the necessary characteristics - musical, physical, emotional - to ride the music rollercoaster. It makes them sick.
Hope however seems to linger for so many that they will ignore the obvious - nothing they ever create will resonate with the (later stage) gatekeepers - and keep striving. Even when it impacts their health.
Anyway, I've bumbled on (work avoidance issues today!) and likely gone way off piste, so apologies. I've not answered your question - whether journalists are complicit - as I suspect there is a very nuanced interrelationship that actually starts with the musician(s) themselves being unrealistic. Others simply perpetuate that....often because of their own naïveté or unrealistic hopes and expectations!
Feel free to ignore and delete!
A
* Something that came home to roost in the 'pandemic' when the vast majority of musicians could not qualify for the SEIS simply because they'd not made a 'profit' in the relevant (or indeed any) financial periods.
Thanks for writing that Andrew, it was fascinating, am always so interested in the inner workings of the music biz. I’d never thought about your point around the gatekeepers early on being harsh but at least providing a reality check for the majority. It’s true that while social media democratises success in many ways, it leads to a lot of one hit wonders - virality often doesn’t translate to a sustainable career. (Ps hope those bands do do the right thing!)