
Crowd Patronage: How A 400 Year Old Model Can Save The Music Industry - schlichtm
http://bryank.im/crowd-patronage-how-a-400-year-old-idea-model-can-save-the-music-industry
======
citricsquid
Music without the music industry (labels etc) is the internet without
aggregators (reddit etc)

What happened on the internet before content aggregators (or before you had
access to them)? you'd see a cool website and tell a friend the website
address or you'd send a link to a friend and they might pass it on if they
cared enough, they might not. That's a few people, unless the website was
seriously incredible it would never be seen by maybe a hundred people. Now
with sites like reddit a "pretty cool" website can be seen by millions of
people.

Music is like that. There are so many artists that produce great music but
nobody has ever heard of them because their "network" extends to maybe a
couple of friends and friends friends and some of their friends friends
friends, unless they get a big break (like shared by an already famous artist)
they'll remain pretty small, forever. I bet everyone here knows of an artist
they like but who couldn't make a living from their music, whether that's a
friend or someone they've seen in an obscure Youtube video.

The music industry (big labels) provide huge value to artists, so many artists
would never have the reach they have now if they didn't have labels. Would
Justin Bieber be known by hundred of millions if he was still making songs on
Youtube?

The idea that sites like kickstarter are the _future_ for creative endeavours
is partly true, they _can_ help fund _some_ projects and open up artists to
new ways to fund their work, but they can't replace the music industry. Very
few people care enough about music to not need to be told who to listen to, or
to invest in their favourite artists, they need to be given music to choose
from (see: top 40) and decide what they like and buy it.

Things like selling a CD for $10 or a download for $1 are what fund the music
industry, if the music industry dies so does the way we consume music. No
longer will we be able to just _consume_ , we'll have to find it too. I want
the option to seek out new music, I want the option to fund artists I love
that want to be independent, I don't want it to be a necessity.

    
    
        Music is so much more than sounds – 
        how else do you explain the Gathering of the Juggalos?
    

marketing

~~~
nostromo
I think labels adding value as curators is an outdated argument.

Music aggregators are everywhere now. HypeMachine, SoundCloud, even iTunes and
Youtube all help me find great music. Even Reddit itself has subreddits that
aggregate great music. Sometimes that music is curated by a label, oftentimes
not.

~~~
citricsquid
I think I explained my point poorly.

If you do not care about music enough to seek it out (which is most people)
and music is just something that's in your life when you're driving to work or
doing the cleaning you rely on the "music industry" to be _your aggregator_ ,
they make/take music that they know the average person will like (yay
formulas!) and deliver it to you through radio, television and all the other
places people listen to music.

If that disappears and music becomes something you have to actively seek out,
or find yourself disliking most of the music you're hearing on the radio
("this week on the top 40 from some website that people that care about music
visit...") you're just going to give up.

music is a part of our lives, yes, but not because it's something most people
are passionate about, it's because it's just something that is there. I've
started to enjoy music a lot recently, but for the majority of my life it
wasn't something I cared about at all, I would just listen to whatever was
popular and I was happy with that. My mother is the same, she'll hear a song
on the radio and like it and then go out and buy the bands album and listen to
that, she would never sit hunched over a computer trawling through websites
sharing different music, or flick through TV channels, or switch between radio
stations.

I used reddit as an example of a website that delivers content of a specific
type to people that want it. The example you're using (Soundcloud,
Hypemachine) would be sites like Hackernews, they cater to a specific
audience. Most people that use reddit are just idle consumers, they go to
reddit.com click the top 20 links, laugh at the cute cat pictures and move on.
How many ever subscribe to communities they care about? A relatively small
amount. That's the amount that would ever seek out music. (edit: I think a
good way to explain it in simple terms is: reddit is "my first internet
content aggregator", the music industry is "my first music aggregator")

How the system works now isn't PERFECT, but it's pretty great. Popular music
is distributed by big labels, they control what the average person hears and
"know" what most people like; people that want more than just the popular
music can seek it out and/or contribute through kickstarter (which is growing,
which is great). I think what the article describes is fantastic and it SHOULD
happen, but alongside big labels, not as a replacement.

Music should be paid for, music should generate revenue, artists should be
able to use labels to get big, but artists should also be able to stay
independent, make music for making music, have their fans fund what they want
to hear. That sort of thing is great, but both can exist at the same time (and
I think they will)

~~~
mixmax
_"If you do not care about music enough to seek it out (which is most people)
and music is just something that's in your life when you're driving to work or
doing the cleaning you rely on the "music industry" to be your aggregator"_

This is already beginning to shatter. last.fm, genius on itunes and many more
will just play music that you like based on some input. It works pretty well
now, in five years it's going to be great.

~~~
untog
They all require your input though. A lot of people listen to the radio-
something they have absolutely no control over. It's interesting to think what
will happen to them.

------
JumpCrisscross
TL;DR The arts used to be (like Mozart's time used to be) supported by wealthy
patrons who commissioned works that were subsequently enjoyed by the public.
The notion of music as a commodity to be consumed like sugar and paprika is a
modern one, and, M Kim argues, a historical quirk whose time has passed. We
should thus separate consumption from patronage, with the latter greatly
enhanced by crowd-funding technology, e.g. Kickstarter. Artists should raise
funds from crowds directly and then release their recorded music for free,
with private perks accruing to the patrons.

My comments:

I like the structure, but am concerned about the separation of consumption and
patronage. Our society has become far more consumerist since Victorian times
and ignoring that cultural shift could be problematic. I propose fortifying
crowdfunded patronage with a matching fund that would match crowd patronage
dollars.

In college I was cheap and pirated music. Now I care more for convenience than
a few dollars and so download my music via iTunes, where cover art, filing,
and synchronising is taken care of. I suggest adding an optional (or maybe
not) extra $1 (or whatever) to be directed into a matching fund. This fund
would then match, at a ratio to be determined after further thought (would
probably be a moving scale), crowd patronage dollars to artists. Thus, the
consumption and patronage are joined somewhat.

One could still have free music for those who value dollars more than time.
The downside is the iTunes of this analogy would be a power centre. That said,
it would be naive to assume any such system wouldn't concentrate power. It
might be good to have an iTunes figure opposing the Kickstarter one.

~~~
freshbreakfast
I personally hate anything that "feels" like charity to the artist, I don't
think that's sustainable. Even though I call this theoretical model "crowd
patronage", I feel it would only work if the fan "feels" like he's getting
more than some altruistic warm feelings of supporting something. They should
also feel the real value of relationship access. Just the illusion of having a
closer relationship to artist will only enhance the feeling of supporting the
artist. But at a minimum, there must be that value back of some sort of
relationship reciprocation. Does that make sense?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Without subsidy crowd patronage will tend towards normal patronage as it
exists in the classical arts (we still have patrons commissioning paintings
and sculptures, for example). Pure patronage ignores consumer demand for
music. Leaving money on the table deprives the artistic community potential
income, which limits its size, as well as creates an opening for a competing,
consumer-centric model to re-appear. I'm trying to find a way to merge those
two sources of revenues (consumer demand and patronage).

Moving towards music distributors being required, as part of the licence, to
divert a portion of revenues to matching patronage to artists would be an
alternative. That way, person A, who would have supported one project for $100
000 can now support two, with $50 000 each of matching funds (assuming 1:1
matching) making up the other half. The distributors could also dis-
intermediate the patrons, the difference between this model and the labels
being that the artist would have the freedom to distribute their music for
free as well.

Note that an un-intended consequence of this would be music losing mass appeal
and catering to the tastes of the patron minority. Given the state of popular
music I'm not sure if this would be a terrible loss :P.

~~~
freshbreakfast
I agree with nancyhua. I sort of use "patronage" as short hand, don't let it
confuse you. I think to the fan, they must not feel like it's pure
patronage... they should get some sort of concrete interaction or recognition
back from artist. There should be real value there for fan for this to sustain
as a model.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
That's not short hand at all - patrons of the arts, going back to antiquity,
generally got a private performance of the work they commissioned in addition
to the opportunity to fraternise with the artist. They typically also branded
themselves onto the work somehow.

My argument is there aren't enough dollars seeking that experience today as
there are consumption dollars (which the industry has gotten used to). In the
past, monetising that long tail of demand was prohibitive. Today it is not. As
a single example, I would never contribute to support a musician yet my
lifetime worth to the music industry is at least tens of thousands of dollars
(including concert tickets).

There is enough money in that delta to fund the artists, lobby legislators,
and enforce the status quo. That's the problem. If you aren't re-routing that
demand you're proposing a nice but idealistic hypothetical.

------
malkia
I've posted this before, but what Francis Ford Coppola said is very relevant
to the topic:

[http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-
Coppola-O...](http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O..).

"We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s
only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money.
Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state
or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had
another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But
I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five
in the morning and write your script. This idea of Metallica or some rock n’
roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore.
Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the
students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m
going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And
therefore, who says artists have to make money? In the old days, 200 years
ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel
with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a
musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would
say, “Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living
and money.” Because there are ways around it."

~~~
corysama
Did Coppola get his other job in wine before or after making tons of money
from his films?

------
brentm
This is being done right now it's just segmented and no real platform has
emerged as the place to do it. The real problem with the model from my
perspective is that in artists (and their label/mgmts) desperation to remain
relevant & earn a better living they are constantly on social media & watering
down their celebrity. Combine that with the fact that any cute kid on YouTube
can suddenly become a celebrity in his own right you have a) way more
celebrities and b) way over exposed celebrities. The internet has basically
commoditized being famous in some ways and in most artists desperation to try
and get 'bigger' and make more money they make it worse. There will always be
the massive artists where the masses go insane and people line up down the
block to video chat with. Those artists don't have a problem now. The ones
that are really in trouble are the every day middle of the road full time
working artists (selling 50-300K records). This kind of platform will not work
with enough scale & consistently enough to even begin a conversation about it
replacing old record sales revenue. I think he touched on the real key to the
long term music business which is embracing streaming and getting as many fans
as possible to listen to your music and care enough to go to your shows. Any
money a band makes from recorded music will forever be a bonus.

~~~
dmorgan
> _I think he touched on the real key to the long term music business which is
> embracing streaming and getting as many fans as possible to listen to your
> music and care enough to go to your shows. Any money a band makes from
> recorded music will forever be a bonus._

Why do people keep saying that? About the shows, I mean.

The reality is that most bands LOSE money on shows. Shows are historically a
loss leader for record sales.

------
freshbreakfast
Hey guys, I wrote this thing, and ready to discuss it here on HN. Come at me
with your best shot!

~~~
freshhawk
Great job. I am probably biased since this is nearly exactly how I see things
going (and want them to go) as well, but your explanation and the historical
examples chosen make a great argument.

If you are demanding I take a shot then I have a nitpick: First paragraph has
the Traditionalists, Incrementalists, Apologists, and Defeatists. What about
the school of thought that the widespread ability to freely share music is
inevitable and artists, as they always have, will find a way to make money
because people love music? What school of thought are you and I in?

Do you think this model will turn the music industry into even more of a hits
based business (like the app store model has done to software) or less of one?

I can see books moving to this model as well, but movies seem a bit more
problematic unless budgets fall drastically.

~~~
freshbreakfast
hey freshhawk. first of all, I'm totally jealous of your handle. Second, I
would say I'm not in any of those camps I define. I'm in the "crowd patronage"
camp ;-).

I think music will always have hits and superstars, whether the gatekeeper is
radio or internet. What we call "viral" today will be upgraded to how we think
of "hit" today.

Overall though, I'm more excited about the "middle class" of musicians the new
era of music industry can support. I personally think maintaining a profitable
and real relationship with your fans will require a lot less overhead in the
future. And, they can go direct to fan, which is beneficial for independent
artists, imo.

~~~
freshhawk
Yeah, I don't think we'll ever get away from hits and superstars, that's just
how humans behave.

I am excited about the possibility of a potentially larger middle class of
musicians as well but I can also see pressure from the need for virality that
works against a healthy middle class.

"You need to make the kickstarter music top ten page or else you make
_nothing_!" is something I can see happening. At the same time, it's unlikely
to be worse than the selling CD's model for those people so maybe that's just
complaining about it only being "better" instead of "perfect", which is silly.

------
aw3c2
I'd like to think that this would rather make artists more independant and
kill the music ___industry_ __.

~~~
freshbreakfast
I personally define "music industry" as whatever generates revenue for artists
and their managers. I do agree that there's a lot of old growth in the current
ecosystem of the music industry that's inevitably going to die off.

------
firefoxman1
You make some great points, but I think the "Internet Apologists" school of
thought is closer to your "Crowd Patronage" idea than you realise. As you
said, recorded music is fairly recent, but gathering around to enjoy a show
goes waaaay back...and I think it's a great business model going forward.

One great example of this in action is Hoodie Allen. He releases all his music
free on Soundcloud[1] and Youtube[2], where he funds/makes his own (pretty
impressive) music videos to gain his audience. No record label required. His
music is on iTunes, but I'm guessing the real money is made in concerts.

[1] <http://soundcloud.com/hoodieallenmusic>

[2] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t431MAUQlQ>

~~~
freshbreakfast
I actually agree with you, I'm an internet champion myself, so I didn't mean
to pigeonhole anyone. My main point was to say that increased revenue in the
concert and merch sector will not come close to replacing the gaping hole of
content revenue. We have to go one step further.

As for Hoodie Allen, I've actually talked to him before on the phone about his
Facebooking strategy! I like him, he's smart! He's definitely the type to
succeed in the new music industry. Check out the song "No Sleep till
Brooklyn"... my buddy Jhameel sings the hook on it!

------
aneth4
TL;DR Artists can use the Kickstarter model to collect from their most ardent
fans instead of trying to sell units to everyone.

I think this makes a lot of sense and can work in some cases, but it remains
to be seen what happens when the market is saturated with artists looking to
collect voluntarily from their fan base. I suspect people will fatigue from
the euphoria of being generous and the model will fade, but I hope I'm wrong.

~~~
rabidsnail
Each artist only needs a few patrons, so as long as the tail of patronage is
as long as the tail of consumption each consumer only needs to patronize (is
that the right word?) a few artists. I've seen this work for small indie bands
with small but loyal followings (ex:
[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/745015920/the-new-
giraff...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/745015920/the-new-giraffes-
giraffes-album)). Basically, it assumes that each band has a few people that
like them a lot as opposed to a lot of people that like them a little.

------
blargher
I can only wonder what copyright law might do to such a model. Would patronage
allow one to play the artist's music in a public space without prior
permission/consent? Think about all the recent political campaigns that used
songs in such a manner. Also, I wonder if the patronage model would make it
that much harder for an artist to sustain his/her career.

~~~
freshbreakfast
This is just my opinion, but I feel copyright will be less enforceable in the
future when it doesn't actually generate revenue. I have to think over time,
artists will not want to gate their content, and provide distributors free
access to their music to businesses and public spaces in exchange for them,
well, playing it and getting exposure. Just like they're doing now with their
fans. And all this will be accelerated when people stop buying music
altogether. This is sort of a stretch hypothesis, I'm actually not super
familiar with how ASCAP and BMI works.

------
transmit101
Great article. Have you read Musicking by Christopher Small? If not, you
definitely should.

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-
Listen...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-Listening-
Culture/dp/0819522570)

Also, it might be interesting to chat a bit more. Drop me an email - rob at
[see profile for domain].

------
blargher
@aw3c2 - I think it all depends on how you personally define the music
industry. In your mind, is the industry defined by the record labels or is it
defined by the community of artists?

------
NickKampe
Great write up! This is exactly what we're trying to accomplish with Listener
Approved - <https://ListenerApproved.com>

------
dougsharp
Bryan, you may get a kick out of drip.fm. It certainly satisfies the first two
prongs of your model (access+exclusivity).

------
Aloisius
Aren't Kickstarter & Indie-Go-Go effectively patronage systems?

~~~
freshbreakfast
Yeah I, would agree they're modern versions of crowd patronage. I do think
though that in the future, musicians will have a more fleshed out platform
catered to their needs. With their music, community, CRM admin, etc.

------
chris_mahan
Last paragraph:

And a few great customers is better then

THAN!

~~~
freshbreakfast
Good catch! Thanks, and fixed!

