Research Project

The Business of Making Music - An Insider's View

We will come back to the issue of property rights later in the project. First, it is worthwhile getting a bit of insight into what the music industry is like from the inside. Biz/ed interviewed a jazz musician who has had experience of the industry for many years.

Interview with Bill Bruford

Image: Bill Bruford. Copyright: Reproduced by kind permission of the Bill Bruford official Web site

Bill Bruford is a musician. Bill has been around the music scene for nearly 40 years and has seen most things that have occurred during that time. He has survived all the changes of fashions in music in one form or another and continues to make music that he enjoys. He made his name originally in the late '60s and early '70s with the rock group Yes.

Yes were one of the original prog rock 'supergroups'. What was arguably at the height of their popularity, Bill announced he was leaving and joined King Crimson. Bill has appeared on over 90 CDs and has now set up his own record label to market his products - Winterfold(http://www.billbruford.com/winterfold.html) and Summerfold(http://www.billbruford.com/summerfold.html) records.

Bill's career continued with a move to solo work, further work with Yes members, another stint with Crimson and a move back to his true love, jazz. Bill is currently leading a jazz group, Bill Bruford's Earthworks, that has had a number of incarnations since the mid 1990s.

Bill kindly agreed to answer some questions about the music industry and the position of jazz in that industry. Below is a summary of that interview:

Question: My understanding of the traditional image of the music industry is that an artist is spotted somehow, signed to a record label and given a contract for x number of records in x number of years for x amount of money. The studio pays for studio time, manufacturing, distribution and marketing of the output. How accurate is this view of the modern industry?

Bill: There is really no such thing as a 'standard recording contract' anymore. There are a number of very complex issues relating to contracts and there is a host of information available about this. Younger people tend to be more aware of some of the issues and the use of lawyers and professionals in discussions over a contract is more common than it used to be. Many people in the music business do have some background in the academic side of the industry and so have been made aware through their studies of some of these important issues.

It is often not what it seems either. Some artists may be appearing to be doing very well but some will be in significant debt and even after a record has gone gold this debt will still be there. For bands that appear quickly and disappear equally as quickly, the debt they can be saddled with can be a real problem.

For the record company the emphasis is on getting it right in terms of which artists 'make it'. Back in the '60s, bands might have been signed early in their career. Today it is more likely that a band will have been around for quite some time before they are signed up. If they struggle at an early stage and disappear then the record company will have lost nothing; if they struggle but survive the chances are that there is a market there and that the band have learned valuable lessons - a sort of unsupported apprenticeship. So it might be 6-8 years before a band gets some offer from a record company although the company might have been aware of their existence for some time as a result of the contacts built up during the band's 'apprenticeship'.

Part of the reason for this is that record companies need a return on their investment much quicker to be able to satisfy shareholders. High profile cases where record companies have signed 'big names' for lots of money but where the return has not been what was expected are more commonplace in recent years - Whitney Houston and Arista being one example. (See Wikipedia for a summary of some of the issues.)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Houston#Controversy_and_a_new_beginning)

To speed things up and make the deals tighter, record companies might now expect to get all the stakeholders together to get things clear - that will include the lawyers, publishers, A&R (artist and repertoire), manager and so on.

Image: Bill performing with the Earthworks - small cosy venues with 200 people have been traded for the 30,000 seater stadium gigs that marked his work with Yes, Genesis and King Crimson. But that is how Bill likes it! Copyright: Reproduced by kind permission of the Bill Bruford official Web site

Question: Can you clarify the property rights issue in music?

Bill: Again, this is a complex area but essentially the artist assigns the several rights arising from his/her work to a third party (record company, publisher, etc.) to exploit for a price over a period of time in a certain territory or territories, all of which are negotiable. A publisher will seek to sell the music for a commission and in return will keep the artist updated about the sales of the music made.

Keeping track of when and where music is used is extremely difficult and there have been problems in identifying who owns the rights to an artist's output. Robert Fripp's (one of Bill's colleagues in King Crimson) highly public dispute with the management company EG in the 1990s helped to establish the principle that the artist owns the rights to the music they have created unless they have signed it away in perpetuity. Many record companies seemed to assume that this was the case. (See Elephant Talk for a summary of the dispute.) http://www.elephant-talk.com/intervws/fripp-mo.htm)

It is the job of the publisher to ensure that the artist gets the returns from the music that they deserve. Their job is to collect often minute sums of money from across the globe in as efficient manner as possible. The artist is then sent a regular update of these sums in a publishing statement, which details the transactions recorded. Such a statement might include 'use of jingle on Radio xyz - 40p, 120 CDs of album x purchased by record store in Basingstoke - £35, sale or return of 50 CDs of album y from Ted's Music Emporium in Wigan - £20' and so on. (The artist pays for this service but for someone like Bill it is extremely valuable.)

(To give an indication of the difficulty of tracing when and where the music of an artist is played Bill recounted a story where he had flown to Argentina to do some gigs and got into a taxi to go to a hotel. On the radio a local station played a jingle that used a riff composed by Bill - it was highly unlikely that this had been paid for!)

If I tried to do the work of a publisher I would never do anything else. Indeed I could stop playing music and devote the rest of my days to securing what I am owed and make a comfortable living out of just that! If an artist is able to get 75% of what he is owed then he is doing pretty good. The market is so highly fragmented and international that getting what you are owed is really tricky.

Question: Is it correct to assume that big companies such as Sony BMG have significant ties with radio stations, and therefore will exert pressure to play certain types of music that they have invested in or from which they expect to make decent returns in terms of record sales? How does an artist in a 'minority' genre like jazz get exposure in such circumstances?

Bill: There is less payola than there was. (Payola is a process where record companies use inducements of different sorts - holidays, gifts, money, etc. - to get an artist played on a radio station or to appear on TV.) Many stations are now using automated techniques to help cut costs particularly at weekends and evenings. Getting exposure therefore is difficult.

Question: Would you agree with the industry view that the sales of popular records generate the revenue to release CDs of genres which are less popular, including jazz?

Bill: I would argue that a record company is trying to make a profit out of every artist!

Question: Have you any idea what radio airplay jazz commands or what proportion of total music sales is jazz orientated output?

Bill: Really difficult to say - Billboard magazine suggested that jazz accounted for 2% of music output.

Question: How does an artist in a 'minority' genre like jazz get exposure?

Bill: Getting the profile of jazz raised is difficult. Someone like Michael Parkinson might help in that he has guests on his show that are 'jazz' artists and the arrival on the scene of artists such as Jamie Callum, Norah Jones and Katie Melua have given jazz a bit of a boost. It does tend to focus on vocal jazz however with the view that it may be more accessible to the masses.

Question: For a new jazz artist - probably coming from a university or music college background what options are open to develop a career in the field? What are the normal routes through to 'success'?

Bill: The term 'jazz career' is really an oxymoron. There are probably only six people on each instrument in each country who can make a living from their instrument. The vast majority have to make up their income from playing all sorts of different music to subsidise their first love. This might include playing jingles for TV and radio, light orchestra work, backing musician on Top of the Pops, teaching or through income from past recordings. In fact it is highly likely that any serious musician would not refuse any offer to play whatever it was.

For young artists, progression is primarily through word of mouth. Appearing at clubs like the 606(http://www.606club.com/) in Chelsea, London helps to get you noticed. In general playing in London is the key. (Note the regional breakdown of the market in the tables earlier.) Many artists will do pub gigs for £50 to get playing, hopefully they get noticed. Attendance at live music events is growing and with a rise in attendances comes a rise in ticket prices. Arts centres are useful venues as they are partly funded by the government and can become a showcase for new talent. I have used a number of artists that I have seen or heard about appearing at clubs like the 606.

Question: How does working with someone like you make a difference to a young artist's CV?

Bill: It obviously helps given my past history and indeed a good CV may be more important than having a good degree. But in the jazz world today the level of musicianship is very high. Very few artists do not have a good grounding in music theory and the self-taught musician is relatively rare. Basically a musician has to be proactive - it is not a business for the shy!

When touring with a jazz band such as Earthworks, an artist might earn £250-400 per night with the less well-known artist securing between £100-200. Jazz musicians are far more mobile and not necessarily signed up to a tour. If I have a tour and my pianist can't make it for one night of the tour it is up to him to find a suitable replacement. The skills and talent of the modern musician mean that they are able to 'slot in' relatively easily but that is a testament to the level of musicianship in this genre.

Question: How different is the music scene in terms of opportunities for young musicians compared to the 1960s?

Bill: The 1960s was an uncharacteristic period - now is more the norm. The 1960s represented the time when the amateur was moving towards a professional set up. In the 1960s things seemed to develop in line with economic growth - disposable income rose, there was better access to equipment and more places to play but many bands operated at a loss, often £300-400 per night.

Then in 1973, the oil crisis pushed up the costs of vinyl and record sales slowed down. It is important to remember the distinction between a 'pop star' and a 'musician'. A pop star tends to be a recording artist but the longevity of such people may be a lot less, albeit they have their 15 minutes of fame. As I mentioned, the standards of musicianship are now much higher than in the '60s in general.

Handling money is now a very important part of the process. Musicians have to think where they will be in five years time and so must be aware of the importance in 'earning a living', hence the need for theory and an appreciation of a wide variety of music styles in your repertoire.

Question: Could you give us some outline information on performance fee structures:

• How are fees for a gig/tour organised?
• How much would a night gig make in terms of revenue?
• Do you get a flat fee or a percentage of the door?
• Who determines the fee structure?
• Is the situation different in the US and Japan?

Bill: For me I do focus on arts centres because of the fact that they are government funded in part. In general such a venue can seat around 200 people. The relationship between me and the promoter is quite important. They need to be confident that they can sell enough tickets to cover their costs and their job is to get the venue filled. If the venue is not filled then they don't get the best return. My knowledge of the area and the venue along with the promoter's is therefore quite important in making sure that everyone is happy.

I would rather be playing to a packed house of course than a venue with lots of empty seats, so making money for the promoter is vital. If 200 seats can be filed at £10 a ticket that's a revenue of £2,000. You can take off 25% for overheads leaving you with £1,500. Assuming there are 12 dates on the tour that's a total of £18,000. I have mentioned the payments to the other musicians so you can see that we are not talking about huge sums of money.

A rock tour would be a far more commercial venture in that the fee for the artists would be a percentage of the gross - especially in the US - but could be above that if the audience was bigger than expected. Often if a flat fee can be negotiated then that can make budgeting far easier but is obviously open to more risk if the ticket sales do not go as expected. As far as the US and Japan is concerned, I would use an agent to deal with it all as they invariably have the local knowledge.

Question: What is the role of a manager in the modern music industry - is it different for a manager of a popular mainstream artist to that of a less established artist in a less popular genre?

Bill: In terms of management, having a manager is far less common than it used to be. For jazz, person to person contact is preferable as the cost of getting the management structure right - legal aspects, administration, accountancy, etc. is relatively high and more risky. In addition, as mentioned before, managers do not want to be involved in breaking new artists or getting existing artists new breaks - it is too expensive and too risky.

For bands that do have managers their job is to co-ordinate all the component parts of the band's activities and for that they take a fee - normally around 20% of the revenues generated.

Question: What are the possibilities of the Internet for young artists - is this the way forward for jazz?

Bill: The Internet is certainly useful but it can be very time consuming! It helps to build up contacts and is a source of information for fans but the inevitable contact that it creates also is a disadvantage. Fans e-mail you and think that when they receive a reply that this represents a 'friendship' and that you are then obliged to respond in detail to every other request. This can become prohibitive in terms of time and is simply not possible to maintain.

The Internet does allow you to get information to fans quickly and globally. It allows the artist's work to get into the system by giving some work free and then hoping that these tasters will help boost sales. One other problem is that newspapers are now giving away freebies of CDs and it does mean that artists around the country are now having to compete against this as well as all the other competitive pressures in the music industry.

Question: For you is the development of Winterfold and Summerfold the way forward?

Bill: There have been a number of artists who have had problems getting access to their back catalogue form record companies - Prince is one high profile example and getting his back catalogue was one reason why he changed his name to 'The artist formerly known as...'. It tends to involve the payment of a sum of money to get out of contractual obligations and possibly some fee linked to future sales. For me, having this control means I can determine how things progress and develop. Managing myself takes up a huge amount of time often in simple things like communicating with manufacturers, distributors and the like to ensure that there are adequate supplies of CDs available for sale in the places that want to sell them.

Question: Were there no major labels interested in putting money into Bill Bruford and if not what is the hope for new artists?

Bill: As I mentioned earlier, the risks are high and many labels want speedy returns on their investment. Gwyneth Herbert is a good example of the problem. The growing audience for 'jazz', exemplified by the likes of Jamie Callum, Diana Krall, Katie Melua and Norah Jones, might be a signal that this is a market to be exploited. An A&R person at a record company advises investing money into a new talent - in this case a lot of money was sunk into promoting Gwyneth Herbert as a new talent in jazz vocals. It was not a success and the company lost money. It could have been that the time was not right, that the market had just one to many female jazz singers being introduced - whatever the problem, the A&R person would have been in big trouble!

Question: Do you still get royalties from Yes, Genesis and King Crimson work? How does this type of system work?

Bill: Record, publishing and performance royalties continue to devolve to the copyright holder until, I think, 70 years after death. These are paid biannually and do generate reasonably stable income streams. It is difficult tracing all the sums from the 90 odd CDs that I have appeared on - in some cases only on a few tracks as a guest - so the publisher, if they do their job well, is extremely valuable.

Image: Bill performing with Yes in 1969. Copyright: Reproduced by kind permission of the Bill Bruford official Web site

Question: How do endorsements help you?

Bill: Generally endorsements provide you with you instruments but you are not generally paid to play them as such. It can be very useful when touring because the company might arrange for instruments to be provided in different cities, which can be very advantageous and cost effective. It also helps them to get a higher profile in magazines that can reach a much wider audience and promote their products.

Biz/ed would like to thank Bill for taking the time to help in providing this insight into the industry. You can get more information about Bill's work and his music by going to his official Web site.http://www.billbruford.com/

Having read the interview a number of features come out of it. The music industry, clearly, has changed.

Index | Previous | Next