What They'll Never Tell You About the Music Business

by Peter M Thall

  ❏ Each commission agreement should provide that the premier performance (and subsequent ones, of course, as well) be in a hall subject to a performing rights society license for the PRO of which the composer is a member (ASCAP) or affiliate (BMI or SESAC). (Non–United States composers’ performing rights societies license their works, by default, through ASCAP, unless otherwise instructed specifically by the composer.)

  ❏ Finally, it is incumbent upon the composers’ publishers to ensure that their performing rights societies are advised of the live performance of a composer’s work—especially the premiere performance. Performance fees may be small, but they add up. The publisher will probably know the idiosyncracies of each performing rights society’s rules and regulations insofar as they relate to crediting performances of a classical composition. ASCAP likes to receive an actual copy of the program booklet (or if necessary, just the program) because it needs to be able to (1) verify that the performance took place and (2) comprehend where the work for which performance royalties are sought falls within the repertoire of the particular program itself. For this process to be effective, of course, the work must first be properly registered with the composer’s (and publisher’s) society. Those who do not have outside music publishers but “do it themselves” should be very careful to follow the PRO’s rules in order to generate funds that are, in a word, waiting for them to collect. Commission agreements should include a clause requiring the commissioner to provide a program booklet to the composer or the composer’s publisher. If the composer is a performing artist as well, his or her agency should request the program as well so there are two chances for the composer to notify his or her performing rights society of the fact that a performance took place.

  One last comment on this subject: where a composer can establish that a work has been performed at a variety of venues, but the performing rights society does not pay much in terms of royalties (for what can be a variety of reasons), good communication with the society and its affiliated foundation will often result in an “award” on an annual basis of several thousand dollars which is paid to the composer in recognition of the composer’s serious effort in making a mark in the classical music performance field—if not one that yet has generated any significant performance royalties in the ordinary course. As for ensuring that the composer’s works are actually registered (1) in the US Copyright Office and (2) with his or her performing rights society, the composer or his or her representative should regularly (once every year perhaps) double-check with the society and the Copyright Office records (both available free online) to ensure that the composer’s works are being administrered properly. The administration of copyrights may seem to be not a big deal, but it is. Significant potential revenues are awaiting payment to composers, but these payments will not be made unless their works have been properly registered with their PRO. Copyright registrations are essential for a variety of other reasons, all of which significant.

  CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT

  At one time, classical management was really mostly about booking. With the voluminous increase in talented and accomplished singers and the numerous alternatives available today to disseminate information about young artists, classical management companies today must do much more than arrange bookings. They must use public relations (worldwide), publicity (radio, TV, magazines, newspapers), records, videos, creative types of demos, and a large number of other tools—in particular the Internet—to assist an artist in building a career. They do, however, still act as booking agencies, which is why they must be licensed by their states as employment agents. (By the way, just as in the popular music business, not only are many managers who seek and obtain employment for their artists not properly licensed, but if you were to ask them if they were licensed, they would not even know what you were talking about.) For this two-pronged service, a classical manager customarily charges a 20% gross commission rather than the 10% that a traditional booking agent charges. This standard is not followed in the area of the classical music business specializing in vocalists, where multiple performances are the norm, and the gross income is naturally higher than for a single recital or performance with orchestra. In these situations, the management commission is usually 10%.

  The Big Agencies

  The world of classical management is hard to penetrate; most people do not know how, or to what extent, managers are successful—or unsuccessful for that matter. As with personal managers in the popular music field, one of the great strengths of classical managers is their relationships with the buyers of talent, but as with managers in the popular music field, this is also one of their great weaknesses. Yes, you want them to have access to the opera companies and orchestral managers as well as to the record companies. Yet you do not want to think about whose interest they may have at heart when you learn that they are spending winter and summer holidays with the very same people. You begin to wonder whether there might be a conflict of interest present here—albeit not an official, actionable one.

  Classical managers represent conductors of great orchestras; presumably, then, they have unlimited access to those conductors, to whom they can offer their instrumentalists. Do they? Of course they do. Will they? Should they? You figure it out.

  One of the problems that I alluded to earlier (see chapter 5, this page) is that often an artist does not know whether a big agency is using its clout for him or her, or for other artists. Certainly large agencies are involved in more “action” than smaller ones. They deal with more people more often because of their volume of clients and the multiple attendant deals. But there is an intriguing flip side. The large agencies are so big that some of them actually break themselves down into divisions, even within disciplines. Ostensibly, these divisions are set up to create “boutique” units within the larger institution, but many feel that as a matter of practicality, this approach does not work. In many cases, each division continues to grow until it is so large itself that any benefits that were sought are lost, if not totally forgotten. Even if the divisions remain relatively small, they rarely communicate among themselves—often distrusting one another—making it impossible to generate the very synergy that attracted the artist to the big agency in the first place. In fact, such synergy turns out to be a myth; there is no more spirit of cooperation within the agency than there is between Warner Records and Warner/Chappell Music—notwithstanding their fervent claims to the contrary.

  Not only do these divisions distrust each other, but, where the disciplines are different, they do not understand each other. Having no taste for embarrassing themselves by admitting their own limitations of knowledge and experience, they decide not to talk to each other. Part of this results from natural competition, part from poor management at the top. Some of it is just plain neurotic. But the consequences for the individual artist are unfortunate. The artist is unable to see how he or she fits into the agency’s operations, and is unaware and uninformed as to the available opportunities—which indeed, for reasons that will never be disclosed, may never have been presented to the artist at all, but declined out of hand by the agency.

  Is Smaller Better?

  In the classical music world, as in the popular music world, many new small management boutiques have begun to spring up. In both instances, it is extremely difficult for any young artist to find a professional that will put the resources of the management office behind the artist for free. That is, if there is no income, there is no commission. Under these circumstances, a small management company, even more than a large management company—notwithstanding its ambition and the fact that its heart is in the right place—will not be able to pay its bills. But unlike the popular music business, where artists can self-book at the important start-up venues, if there is no classical manager to book dates, there will be no dates on which the artist can build a career and reputation. (This is where a recording contract can make a valuable contribution. Once a classical artist has been signed by a record company, competent management will b
e more open to the possibility of working with the artist. At the same time, of course, record companies know who the effective managers are and can recommend them.)

  The music world has changed a great deal in the last forty years. The big management agencies, like any institutions that try to do too much for too many, are perceived by many as being waterlogged. Of course, they probably always have been, yet several of them are still here whereas most of the artists who complained are long gone. Still, many feel that these institutions have lost their ability to take care of the needs of artists—in particular new artists—many of whom are being drawn to small boutique agencies headed in large part by refugees from the big agencies. Smaller agencies often gain their credibility by beginning as small service agencies in the public relations/press/publicity area. They are assigned work by the larger agencies, and may eventually inherit the larger company’s artists when the artists see what life might be like with someone who is paying attention. And maybe the boutique manager even loves the music the artist is creating. The large agencies, in fact, have a reputation of not even understanding the music, the heritage, the difference between good and bad, on-pitch or flat. What they do understand is power and influence, and they usually have the instincts to spot a remarkable talent in the bud.

  Will the boutique agencies get too big one day? Probably. But in the meantime, there is an acknowledgment by many artists that smaller is better and it is their own talent and hard work rather than the contacts and power of their manager that will determine the success or failure of their careers.

  Assessing Classical Management

  At their best, classical managers, like personal managers in the pop world, open doors and facilitate and develop relationships. They create possibilities for the artist—recording, performing, and others. They take charge of the business of music, thereby allowing the artists to do what they do best. But—and I have seen this time and time again with artists from every genre of music, and classical musicians are no exception—too many artists abdicate responsibilities they should shoulder themselves. Yet classical artists, like all artists, are ultimately responsible for the decisions affecting their careers. If an artist chooses the wrong representatives, they should be replaced. An artist who does not question the advice he or she is given is responsible for any negative consequences.

  The reason this is of particular relevance to the classical music business—and why I am emphasizing it here—is that the classical music industry is so small that a dent in a classical music career is communicated with the speed of light to all of the people who can harm an artist. A poor performance or a poor review gets telegraphed throughout this relatively small business, which is fraught with jealousies and envy. Generosity and sympathy for artists who have had an off day are not sentiments that one finds in the classical music industry. (“Yes, the orchestra is good, when Mr. X is not conducting.” “Did you notice that she won’t even attempt to sing the high C in the aria at the end of Act 1 of La Bohème?”) Performing in a poorly directed or conducted program—or even simply being miscast—can ruin a classical singer’s career. The “high society” of Monday Night Opera-goers is only a cracked note away from throwing rotten tomatoes and eggs at the culprit. The same holds true for instrumentalists—some of whom do not know when to stop performing certain repertoire and do much to destroy their reputations in a fraction of the time that it took to build them. Decisions have more immediate impact than in the popular music business and alternatives are far fewer in the event an error or stupid mistake is made. No wonder classical artists tend to leave all of their decision-making to the managers. They do not really want to know. If they did, however, maybe they would have fewer complaints because they would understand the lengths to which their representatives have to go to set the table for them.

  So, it is not easy being a manager either.

  PRESENTING THE SINGER

  Many of you are familiar with the Grateful Dead and Phish, the touring acts that actually encourage(d) their fans to tape-record their performances. Well, in the classical music field, this kind of taping is so prevalent today that many concert halls around the world have simply given up trying to stop it, and people arrive not just with hidden DAT recorders in their vests, substituting a microphone for a lapel flower, but with actual camcorders that they place on their shoulders as the concert begins and do not put down until the battery starts to beep. Some say that on any given night at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York, at least five first-class DAT tapings are going on.

  Now DAT taping of concerts is against copyright law (and most likely a violation of the terms of the performer’s and the ticket buyer’s contract with the venue as well), but it does provide a neat answer to a pervasive problem in the classical music world. Given the large number of competent singers and instrumentalists in the world today, how does one present an artist to a record company, manager, or buyer of talent? One obvious answer is tape the artist’s recitals and concerts. Once you have a DAT tape of the artist’s recital or other performance, you can then burn a CD containing a selection of these performances and off you go with a convincing package. While this action is obviously not one that an attorney can endorse, it is certainly an attractive alternative to sitting and waiting for the phone to ring.

  As in the popular music business, another route would be to make a demo recording of the artist—you know, an aria with piano background or something similar. But this kind of product simply cannot compare with a DAT recording of your artist singing with the renowned Metropolitan Opera Orchestra!

  There is another possibility, however, which is entirely legal: recording with a great world-class orchestra for little more than the cost of a good demo. How is this achievable? Well, given today’s extraordinary technology, one can record an orchestral program without the singer. Then the tapes can be brought to a high-end sound studio, where technicians can actually reconstruct the sound texture of the original recording environment. Add the singer’s voice, and voilà! A fantastic recording that would never be available to an up-and-coming artist.

  Then there is Music Minus One (www.​musicminusone.​com), a company that sells recordings of a selection performed by orchestra, jazz group, or chamber ensemble, minus the solo part—either instrument or voice—which the user, with their permission, then adds. This alternative does not run afoul of copyright or other laws, and the background orchestral tapes can be used over and over again by more and more artists, as long as Mozart’s, Verdi’s, Puccini’s, and Rossini’s tunes have resonance. As their website announces: “Your Orchestra Awaits.”

  MUSIC EDUCATION

  What can or should be done to “hook” today’s youth on classical music? Educators will talk in terms of the educational matrix: the system. Make music part of the curriculum, they say. Others say this is not enough, that love for music is more effectively nurtured if it is introduced in a way more central to the students’ “lives and feelings.” Presumably, that means private instruction.

  In my opinion, a three-pronged approach is best—emphasis on music in the home, private instruction, and expanded programs of music education in schools. The reality is, however, that as more and more parents defer to the schools for all kinds of learning and introduction to new things, emphasizing music in the schools is probably the most practical way to inculcate a love of music—especially classical music—in young people. But once schools accept that this is their obligation, we need to consider what the overall goal should be. Knowledge? Inspiration? A level of performance ability so that the child can function in an ensemble such as a high school band or orchestra? Or a dance band or trio? Or, simply, pleasure?

  Whatever the goal, a preoccupation with making sure that all students have a common level of achievement in the arts is no more practical or wise than insisting that all students develop scientific skills. It is not always appropriate for all children to be strongly pointed toward one field or another. Nevertheless, it is the careful and
effective introduction of the subject that is key to students’ future passive or active appreciation of what the arts can bring to their lives.

  Music education, like needed medication or nourishment, must be served up on a regular basis. The best music programs begin in kindergarten and develop in an age-appropriate manner with the students being invited to experience new and broader challenges as they grow older. By fourth grade, instruments are traditionally introduced and the beginnings of dramatic musical performances (for example, musical theater productions such as Annie or Pippin) are presented. The most financially sound schools can follow this pattern to the letter; most schools cannot.

  There is an assumption that well-to-do suburban and ex-urban communities offer what is not available in the inner cities. Except in very few situations, this is not true. Seldom do these school systems have the money or the trained personnel to provide the resources necessary to achieve a high level of teaching. But there are other resources.

  In New York City, for example, where I live, the Department of Cultural Affairs has a program that helps schools present live performances in schools. As many adult music lovers will attest, their motivation to pursue music as a avocation or a career was first fueled by hearing a particular live musical performance—whether in school or at a concert hall or watching one of the Live at Lincoln Center performances on PBS.

  We have heard a lot in recent years about the incredible work of faith-based institutions in lending support to local, state, and federal governmental efforts to help people in need. Among their services, in some instances, is the introduction to young people, at the grassroots level, to the richness that music can bring to their lives. As one example, in 1995 the United Jewish Appeal Federation of New York established the Music for Youth Foundation to support and advance music education programs in the New York City metropolitan area. It has since expanded, through a partnership with the National Foundation for Advancement of the Arts, and now provides annual cash scholarships and educational opportunities for young people—both individuals and groups—nationwide.