A response to Irving Azoff

In a recent interview with Judd Apatow, one of the world’s most successful, and most influential artist managers, Mr. Irving Azoff (also the President of Live Nation) has said that “it’s way more difficult now” to make it in the music industry versus how it was in the 60’s and 70’s.   To the degree that I believe he is talking about, he’s right, but by and large I disagree.  The age of the huge rock band who is easily identifiable by everyone is currently dead.  Mr. Azoff says, “basically then versus now, you'd have one hit record and you could come to Los Angeles and sell out three days at the Staples Center - then it was the Forum, but now it would be Staples Center.  One you can't get a hit but if you do get a hit, you get to open up for somebody at a club.”  The aspect that I think he’s neglecting in all of this is that the music industry isn’t in the same state that it was during the golden age.  It’s more in line with what the industry was before the golden age, which was singles over albums.  If you had a successful single back in the 50’s and early 60’s, you weren’t necessarily headlining the Forum.  Probably, you were opening for someone at a club or a midsized venue.  The world, thanks to shorter attention spans and the internet, has moved back to a one hit wonder mentality.  Just because you are the biggest thing right now doesn’t mean you have any longevity.  Maybe I’m wrong but will anyone remember Rebecca Black or Psy in ten years, without a Wikipedia page?

I would argue that right now it’s easier to make a living in the music industry than ever before, but it’s harder to make a killing.  In his defense, I think Mr. Azoff is focused on the “killing” part because if you look at the number of laptop acts, it’s impossible to make the case that it’s harder on the whole to be successful these days.  With sites like bandcamp, iTunes, CDBaby, artists are able to get the same “shelf space” that back in day were only available to major labels.  Targeted promotion has become much easier with fans being able to opt in by “liking” on Facebook or following on Twitter.  A small artist can put up a single on bandcamp for free, see who is downloading it, from where and plan dates accordingly.  On top of that they can mitigate if not remove the middlemen along the way, saving significant percentages.  Since most of these artists are dealing with smaller (if any) budgets, the dollar here and the dollar there genuinely add up to a sum that can sustain a livelihood. 

Another interesting point that Mr. Azoff makes is about the effect of network television and how it has become the musical star maker with shows like The Voice, American Idol, etc.  It’s a very fair point but all of these shows focus on singing ability and not on songwriting or collaborative performance.  That being said there are enough success stories like Kelly Clarksen or Daughtry who have made nice sums of money.  Let’s not forget about William Hung who also made a name for himself through network television.  I think the logic is skewed.  I think Mr. Azoff is suggesting that if you win one of these shows, you should be the biggest star on the planet, which doesn’t make a lot of sense.  The argument should be, are people more willing to spend money on you based on your winning this competition. 

The other aspect that I think gets muddled is that I’m guessing Mr. Azoff is talking about bands when he’s referring to the golden age.  These shows are about individuals and not bands.  Big rock bands don’t really exist anymore.  I personally feel it’s a mix of several factors, such as: taste makers, talent/longevity, and advertising.  The tastemakers of the world like pitchfork and the blogosphere put a premium on being independent and part of the underground.  The coolness factor of being from Brooklyn and not getting radio play was a big part of the appeal.  Let’s be honest, 13-28 years are the ones buying music and going to shows.  If they are being told that things on the radio aren’t cool, they aren’t going to buy or attend.  On the talent/longevity portion, I’m not saying to become great it’s easier to be a rapper or DJ than to be a band but you do need more people to be in the same ballpark as you at more or less the same time.  An individual who practices writing and rapping will have an easier time than if only one band member is working harder than the rest.  Also, as a DJ or rapper, you are the songwriter.  If the band member who is working the hardest isn’t the songwriter, the band can only go so far.  The music industry has advertised in the same ways for decades, radio, posters and some print ads.  In a digital world where being seen as independent wins you cool points, these means just won’t work.  With that it becomes difficult to cultivate a mainstream fan base, especially when you consider that a band can do almost as well (if not better when you factor in the middlemen) on an indie label than on a major.  The casual music listener doesn’t care about what label the artist is on.  The hardcore listener does and major = bad, indie=good.  A band like Surfer Blood jumps to a major and leaves people scratching their heads while 20 years ago that leap would be the norm.

How does the trend of singles and no bands change?  Simple.  The model changes.  Majors are still built around singles.  They’ve always been about singles and they hid that through selling CDs for $18 when there would only be one good track on the record.  Profits are going to drop off when people are able to pay $.99 for that one track instead of $18 for the album or $7 for the CD single (remember those?).  Make the model an album model.  Complete, well thought out and well crafted albums.  One of my favorite records of last year was “David Comes To Life” by Fucked Up.  It’s a bit of a rock opera in the sense that it has a narrative that’s carried throughout but more importantly every track is good.  If bands start making full lengths that are great throughout, in time they’ll sell out the Forum or the Staples Center.  The last huge album that was solid all the way through on a major was American Idiot and that sold over 6 million domestically and 14 million globally, oh and it became a Broadway too.

Mr. Azoff talks about the fan’s perspective and how it’s more closely to them as compared to a sports team.  As with any music business article, here’s my mention of the iPod.  Judd Apatow jokes in the interview that Steve Jobs killed music, in actuality, I’d argue that he saved it.  The iPod has opened up people’s music collections and broadened horizons.  Growing up in the 80’s and 90’s, music separated rather than brought together.  There were the rock cliques with their subgenres of punk, metal, alternative and there were the hip hop cliques with their respective subgenres.  My point in all of this is that back then I’d agree with Mr. Azoff that people held onto whatever their music preference was tightly and flew it as a badge of honor.  Then the iPod came along and everyone started mixing and matching a little bit.  I think you’d be hard pressed these days to find anyone’s music collection that isn’t in slightest bit varied.  It becomes difficult to wave that flag as vehemently when you’ve been exposed to other things and like them as well. 

In summation, times have changed, it’s easier now to make a living as an artist than ever before, bands are dead unless they produce quality full lengths, the iPod saved music, and consumers have become more eclectic.