I doubt if most readers of OffBeat who don’t make their a living as a musician understand what it’s really like to be a musician, or a songwriter, or in a band.

When I was growing up, my parents always told me, first of all, that I should never follow a creative path in work: it was too unstable and hard to make any money. Then, they told me that getting involved with a musician romantically was bad news (same reasons).

Gee, I didn’t listen to them: married a musician (didn’t last) and followed a creative path.

Oh well.

Getting involved in this business opened my eyes quite a bit on what it’s like to be a musician, or any artist or creative person, for that matter. If you don’t create (make music, play live), you don’t make a living. There’s no safety net.

I remember quite distinctly when I spoke to R&B legend Tommy Ridgley when he was hospitalized for cancer. He was talking to me about not being able to stay in bed. He had to work, he said. Because if he didn’t he couldn’t pay his rent. The man was dying, dying, and all he could think about was getting out and performing because he needed money to pay his rent and buy food.

I thought that was so terrible and sad, and that conversation gave me great empathy for musicians. Tommy wasn’t a profligate. He was a hard-working man. But he got sick, and everything went to hell. When musicians don’t perform, they fall on very hard times.

Now there’s such a thing we used to call “mailbox money.” That was royalty checks made from the music you’d written and/or performed that was played on the radio, on recordings, on television, in the movies, etc. But those days seem to be over for most musicians. The advent of the internet and streaming services that provide musicians with little or no royalties for their performances now dominate. When the internet first started taking over music distribution and listenership, many musicians and songwriters were dumbfounded how little they were being paid for their creat  ive output, compared to what they used to make. The attitude towards compensation for creativity has always been sort of shaky, but in the last 15 to 20 years, the general consensus is that “music should be free for all.”

All well and good if you’re the listener, but what if you’re the creator of the music and this is how you make your living? Shouldn’t musicians and songwriters still be able to make a living from their music?

Most musicians now realize that the revenue stream from music and songs themselves has dried up; now you make money from touring, performing and merchandise sales. Plays on Pandora, Spotify, etc. and YouTube just don’t pay. Musicians are really being screwed (do I need to say anything about photographers, writers and artists whose work is on the internet and is downloaded free by hundreds of millions of people who take advantage of the “free for all” mentality that rules the webosphere). It’s sad, actually.

The music industry relies on royalties generated by the licensing of copyrighted songs and recordings as a primary form of payment for musicians and songwriters.

It’s coming to the point where major artists and the music industry as a whole is paying a lot more attention to copyright and digital royalties. Over 180 artists recently signed petition to submit to Congress to revamp the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 so that artists will be able to stop the bleed in royalties (it’s about time). YouTube seems to be the worst offender, at this juncture.

Do you think all music should be free and accessible to the public? Or are you willing to pay something to have your music on demand?