Grammys: That’s Not MY Music Industry

Hi Jason,

Spot on.

Classic scenario: “What do you do?” “I’m a musician.” Puzzled glazing stare…
After the initial shock comes the inevitable follow-up question: “And, you can live off it??? I’ve never heard of you…”

I have to admit, it sometimes annoyed me in the past – now, it’s more a sort of amusement to me.

Due to such industry circus events like the Grammy’s and charts, most regular folks have the distorted view that this is it. The only option for a musician to “make it.”

Fortunately, there’s so many options available – as you said, it really is liberating once you realize it.

Thanks for the awesome post,

Marko

So true Jason – and nice to hear a positive outlook for once.

I think that the modern music industry has been distorted by the pop/rock explosion of 60s and 70s. The ludicrous amounts of money made by some of the bands (even though normally a fraction of what the record companies earned) and the dream of a rock’n’roll lifestyle have created false expectation amongst many musicians regarding success – even jazz musicians.

It’s not greed either that fuels this expectation, just the pervasive idea in modern society that success in the music business means private jets, dustbin bags full of drugs, endlessly nubile groupies and the adoration of most of the civilised world.

Whilst this is still seen as the ultimate success, many musicians will feel dissatisfied (even subconsciously) with anything less. This is despite the fact that the history books show that musicians have rarely been a rich demographic in any society. The superstar millionaires thrown up by the rock’n’roll explosion are an anomaly, not a norm.

Sometimes when musicians are doing OK for themselves (as Jason is), building and growing their personal business and maintaining a good lifestyle, instead of embracing that success they are haunted by the unrealistic success model of the past couple of decades.

Sure we’d all be millionaires if we could but, as this post rightly points out, we have the opportunity these days to build our own careers, on our own terms doing what we love to do. The fact that we may not ever own a private jet or have a swimming pool the size of a football field in our back garden does not mean we have somehow failed.

Should musicians, even great ones, really expect to earn hundreds of times more than nurses, or firefighters or teachers? Is what most of us do really that significant? When you look at it in that context the need to define musical success by excess seems just stupid.

I really believe that the grammys in their current form and the procession of manufactured ‘artists’ still topping the charts and living the champagne lifestyle are simply the result of the final throes of the traditional record industry.

I just can’t see that the interchangeable artificial boy bands and tuneless pop ‘divas’ many ‘real’ musicians abhor will still exist be a phenomenon in 10-20 years as the monopoly of the big labels and their strength in the marketplace continues to dwindle.

Good luck to those currently living that ‘dream’ while it lasts, but I am convinced that music is returning to what it always was – a more-or-less meritocracy fuelled by the desire of the listener to hear music that interests them.

So don’t waste time being bitter that you won’t get to snort coke off a pneumatic, barely legal teenager’s boobs in your stretch limo between parties as a result of your success; instead console yourself that with hard work, talent and persistence you live in a time where YOU can build your own career playing music that you love and believe in for the rest of your life.

And if that’s not a definition of success, I don’t know what is.

jason,
All I know is that I look forward to having jeff lederer and kirk knuffke do the suspended wrap choreography ala Pink on our upcoming tour dates.

SWINGING MAN!
M@

All good points, but it was preeeetty cool to see Herbie Hancock win the big kahuna last year, not gonna lie….

As a getting-older music fan, one thing I’ve noticed – Madonna always comes to mind – is that artists started getting glitzier and gimmick-ier as their voices were nothing special. Give me someone who can sing (!), who has a voice that drags me in and I’m a fan. Give me music that makes me want to move, that actually has rhythm (!) and I’m there. Have fun when you’re singing and engage your audience and I’m in. Congrats on what you do and may you find your dreams whatever they are!

A little later I’ll write a blog post about this topic…but the very best thing you can do to remedy this situation is become involved with NARAS. Agree the show was less than an honorable tribute the industry at large.

I agree with you. I am not bothered by the Grammy telecast’s glitz, because I don’t expect it to reflect anything other than pop music. I fully enjoy the eye-candy and the showmanship — because say what you will, every performer was an excellent showman/woman. I think it also may be a reflection of the moment that we are feeling economically depressed, so the telecast emphasized the fantasy more than in other years, similar to how movies in the 1920s showed rich people partying in mansions. Escapism.

Great stuff, Jason! I also make my living playing jazz. I’m self-employed, work from home and average between 30-40 gigs a month playing in mostly healthcare facilities, for seniors and for the infirm. I adore my work because I make people smile and feel better, doing what I trained for so many years to do, and they really appreciate it. I get paid a respectable wage and raised my two children by myself on that income, and they got to see me doing what I love. I’ve been making my living exclusively playing jazz for 13 years, and now I also offer a consultation (and sometimes workshop) called “Making a Living in Music Wellness” because I also enjoy empowering other musicians.