Live Music vs. Recorded Music

Live Music vs. Recorded Music Britain’s gone plural. UK scholars have led an academic turn away from the conception of a singular music industry towards thinking more expansively about music industries instead. In their pioneering article of 2007, John Williamson and Martin Cloonan outlined the importance of assessing each of the sectors that make up these industries. They wished to bring an end to the practice, fostered by record companies themselves, of equating the record business with music business as a whole (2007: 307). They maintained that this practice was fallacious and anachronistic. In particular, it provided a disservice to live music, which was underappreciated economically (2007: 314-15) and under-explored academically (2007: 313). This corrective manouevre was necessary. The 21st century has witnessed a rise in live music’s fortunes while those of recorded music have declined. In the UK, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has reported a fall in income from £1.17bn in 2000 to £839m in 2017 (with inflation these figures would respectively be worth £1.93bn and £867m in 2018) (Green 2018: 8-9). Compact discs are selling in fewer numbers and they cost less to buy. Piracy, downloading and streaming have each had impact on the price of recorded music. Meanwhile, the cost of attending live performances has gone up. According to one report, ticket prices rose by 400 per cent between 1982 and 2016 (Curan 2016). In addition, there has been a sharp rise in the number of music festivals and events taking place. The years 2003-2007 witnessed a 71 per cent increase in the number of outdoor music festivals in the UK (Anderton 2008: 39-40). Live music companies are heading the music industries. The UK Live Music Census notes that ‘the largest entertainment company in the world, Live Nation Entertainment, owns both the largest live music promoter in the world, Live Nation Concerts, and the biggest ticketing company in the world, Ticketmaster’ (Webster et al. 2018: 26). Live Nation’s CEO, Michael Rapino, was number one in Billboard’s ‘Power 100’ list for 2018 (Billboard Staff 2018). He boasted that Spotify ‘spends a fortune trying to figure out how to get you spend $9.99 a month. I’m trying to get you to spend $190’ for a ticket (Billboard Staff 2018). It is claimed that while ‘streaming has revived the recorded-music industry, touring [has] put far more money in artists’ pockets’ (Billboard Staff 2018). The corrective manouevre has also had results. It has led to some excellent studies of live music in Britain, which have helped to inform legislation and policy in this field (Webster and McKay 2016; Webster et al. 2018). These studies have not been restricted to economics; they have also explored the aura of live performance in the age of digital reproduction. Cloonan has documented ‘live music as ideology’, charting the belief ‘that in an age where everything was reproducible live music remained the ultimate un-reproducible experience’ (2013: 83). Respondents to the UK Live Music Census argued that live music is ‘better’ than recorded music, because ‘the experience is authentic’ and is ‘different each time’ (Webster et al. 2018: 29). Performance has been placed first; recorded product is secondary. To a certain extent, this academic turn has been mirrored within the UK music industries. Prior to 2007, the general health of these industries was measured by the well being of the record business. There was little reporting of live music figures; it was record company statistics that dominated. However, at the end of the noughties, PRS for Music (the UK collection society for composers and performers) began to enumerate all music industry sectors in the UK. They first presented their findings in The ‘R’ Words (Page 2008) followed by annual Adding Up the Music Industry reports (2009-2012). Since then it has been UK Music, the ‘campaigning and lobbying group, which represents every part of the UK recorded and live music industry’ that has compiled these figures (UK Music 2018a). They first totalized business sectors in The Economic Contribution of the Core Music Industry in 2013, which has been succeeded by their Measuring Music series (2014-to date). The PRS for Music and UK Music statistics appear to back up British academics’ claims. Live music is ahead of recorded music. The first Adding Up the Music Industry report demonstrated that recorded music was worth £1.309bn in 2008, declining six per cent year-on-year, and that live music had advanced past it to £1.39bn, enjoying thirteen per cent annual growth (Page and Carey 2009: 7). By the time of the final PRS for Music report, the fortunes of recorded music had increased slightly, reaching a figure of £1.112bn, but live music was now way in front: it was evaluated at £1.624bn in 2011 (Brookes 2012: 2). Curiously, the first UK Music figures placed live music behind recorded music. A later ‘Measuring Music’ report attributed this downturn to the London Olympics and Paralympics, which meant that several ‘large venues were put beyond live music for a long period’ of the year (UK Music 2014b: 18). This analysis would appear to support the suggestion that live music revenues are dependent on a limited number of major events. They used a different methodology to PRS for Music, arriving at totals for 2012 of £662m and £714m respectively (UK Music 2013: 34). By the following year, live music was again triumphant. It reached £789m via a 26 per cent increase in box office takings (UK Music 2014b: 10). Over the same twelve months recorded music fell to £618m (UK Music 2014b: 10). Streaming has aided recorded music, which was worth £640m in 2016 (UK Music 2017: 11). Nevertheless, this was only two-thirds of the value of live music, which reached £1bn in the same year (UK Music 2017: 11) Academics have, in turn, used these statistics for their own ends. They have been employed, albeit cautiously, as evidence of the worth of live music (Webster et al. 2018: 17; Wikström 2013: 58; Williamson and Cloonan 2013: 13, 21). Adding things up is never straightforward, however. In the first instance, it is not easy to reconcile academic and music business objectives. PRS for Music and UK Music have been driven by the need to present an inter-related and cohesive music ‘industry’ (still using the singular) whereas Williamson and Cloonan stress ‘the reality is of disparate industries with some common interests’ (2007: 305). The organizations’ standpoint is tactical, yet it is not entirely mistaken. The record industry and the live music industry are connected. Live music continues to drive the sales and use of recordings, just as recorded music prompts ticket sales for gigs. It could be argued that the 21st century has witnessed the two fields becoming more monetarily entwined. Although the amounts have been reduced, record companies still provide funds for tour support (IFPI 2016: 6). Mirroring this, many artists have been subject to 360° deals, whereby the record company is granted a share of live performance income. Nevertheless, the academic imperative is not wrong either. There are fundamental differences between the live and recorded industries. As well as have differing perspectives they are evaluated in ways that are ontologically distinct. The recording industry is assessed in relation to the sales or usage of things (the money generated by recordings); the live music industry is gauged in terms of events (the overall trade that a performance engenders). It is therefore a complex process to add up the numbers themselves. In combining live and recorded figures, PRS for Music and UK Music have not compared like with like. They have made their own decisions about what should be included in each of these fields, as well as determining the manner in which the figures are presented. These numbers warrant closer inspection. Their identification of live music’s victory over recorded music has been reported widely. Among the media institutions that have repeated this ‘fact’ are the Guardian (Topping 2009: 9), The Times (Foster 2009: 15), the Financial Times (Bintliff 2010), the BBC (Savage 2017), Music Week (Jones 2014: 7) and Billboard (Smirke 2014). We need to assess, therefore, whether this claim is correct. In addition, the compilation of these figures serves specific purposes for PRS for Music and UK Music. Thus, we need to inspect their categorizations of ‘live music’, ‘recorded music’ and the music industries as a whole. Finally, these figures have been employed to advance an argument that performers earn more from live music than they do from recorded music (Bintliff 2010; Foster 2009: 15). It needs to be asked if there is anything in the numbers that supports this case. In the following I will address the statistics of PRS for Music and UK Music by raising four questions. What is the purpose of their reports? What do they include in their totals for ‘recording’ and ‘live’? How is the statistical information categorized? Are performers able to assess their share of the money? I will conclude by contemplating further research in this field. PRS for Music What is the purpose of their reports? PRS for Music’s reports were initiated in 2007 in response to the emerging global financial crisis. In The ‘R’ Words: Recession and Royalties, the organization asked ‘If the UK economy is about to enter a downturn what does this mean for music?’ (Page and Carey 2009: 1). This document was aimed at the ‘music industry’s various stakeholders who find themselves in an unprecedented state of transition’ (ibid.: 1). In order to counter ‘Armageddon-style hysteria’, it chose to depict the musical world as an eco-system in which ‘value doesn’t just disappear; rather some will be lost, some will be displaced and some new revenues will enter the industry’ (ibid.: 1). Its message was the old saw, ‘don’t put all your eggs in one basket’ (ibid.: 5). The statistical reporting was also an advert for the virtues of PRS for Music, an organization that is adaptable to diverse streams of income. During this period the collection society administered performing and mechanical rights income for UK songwriters. It gained revenue from multiple copyright uses that could be made of songs: live performance, record sales, broadcast, public performance, sync rights and so on. Thus it benefitted from presenting the UK music industry as an inter-related system in which there will always be revenue for composers. This ethos informed the subsequent Adding Up the Music Industry reports. PRS for Music did not expect live income to advance past recording income, however. One reason for tabulating the two fields was to test an assumption that recession would result in ‘less demand for expensive concert tickets, and relatively more demand for CDs’ (Page 2008: 2). The initial analysis in The ‘R’ words placed recording music ahead of live music. In 2007 the former was worth £1.392m and the latter £1.078m for (ibid.). In the first Adding Up the Music Industry document these positions were reversed. Although this result challenged their initial thesis, it was regarded by PRS for Music as evidence of the virtues of their methodology. Their tallies were able to demonstrate a ‘changing of the guard’ (Page and Carey 2009: 1). What do they include in the totals for ‘recording’ and ‘live’? The PRS for Music recorded music figures are derived from BPI statistics representing ‘revenues generated across all formats’ (Brookes 2012: 3 note). Their live music figures also concern revenues, but are derived from estimates (ibid.). PRS for Music focused on turnover so that they could identify markets that were ‘growing, stagnating or shrinking’ (Page and Carey 2011: 1). As a result, the recorded music figures include the income that goes to the retailer, as well as the mechanical rights share (the royalties that are due to the composers and publishers of the song). Similarly, the figure for live music includes the share of ticket sales that will go to the ticket agent and also the performing rights royalties for composers and publishers. In this respect, the focus on retail provides for some equivalence in the live and recorded music figures. There are also some correspondences regarding what is being sold. The recorded music figures document acquisitions of a product that has been made by musicians: the recording itself. The totals are comprised of sales of physical recordings and digital downloads, as well as income from streaming subscription services. The live music figures illustrate consumers’ spending on events. Here too they are buying something that is created by musicians: PRS for Music add up the sales of tickets for performances. Their live music figures expand beyond this however, to incorporate ‘on the night’ spending (Page and Carey 2009: 3). This ancillary income includes expenditure on food, drink and merchandise. By the conclusion of the series, the money spent on public transport and parking is tallied as well. It is difficult to calculate how much ancillary spend is worth, as PRS for Music do not provide precise figures. There are some clues, though. The final report notes that festivals and arenas each accounted for ‘around 25 percent of the market’ and that ancillary spend at these events was equal to ‘95 percent of the average face value ticket per person’ (Brookes 2012: 3). Spend at other venues was equivalent to ‘between 35 and 50 percent’ of the ticket price (ibid.). It would appear that ancillary income was worth at least a third of the money spent on tickets (see Laing 2012 for a global calculation). The PRS for Music live music figures also include secondary ticketing, enumerating the resale of tickets for profit. In 2011 this trade was worth £208m, representing thirteen per cent of the total live music figure (ibid.). Although the report notes that secondary ticketing is ‘legitimate under UK law and is an established practice’ (ibid.), it is nevertheless contentious. There has been a professional trade in block buying tickets and selling them at inflated prices. PRS for Music included these figures in the belief they would offer a ‘smoke signal’ regarding economic downturn (Page 2008: 3). If live music was a luxury good, secondary tickets were even more so. This ‘ultra sensitive market’ would indicate ‘movements in consumer confidence and demand’ (ibid.). In the event, the secondary market prospered in the period 2007-2011. Although the inclusion of secondary ticket sales and ancillary spend might be useful in identifying economic trends, they are not helpful when it comes to drawing comparisons between live and recorded revenues. The live figures expand beyond the sales of music but the record figures do not. Recorded music does, nevertheless, generate ancillary spend of its own. The retail trade in physical recordings prompts parking and public transport expenditure; it also encourages sales of merchandise, food and drink. There is in addition a second-hand trade in records that has parallels with the secondary reselling of tickets. Figures are not available to illustrate how much the recorded music figures would rise if this income were included, but it is possible to calculate the decrease in live music figures if ancillary spend and secondary ticketing were removed. In 2011, for example, PRS for Music’s live music total would dip below £1bn, putting it behind the £1.1bn generated by recording sales. How is the statistical information categorized? At the highest level, the PRS for Music reports are split between business-to-consumer (B2C) income (the music that fans pay for) and business-to-business (B2B) income (the music that fans may receive, but which is paid for via transactions between businesses). PRS for Music wished to illustrate how the economic downturn ‘might affect consumers and businesses differently’ (2010: 2). It was felt that a lack of financial confidence and job insecurity would negatively affect consumer spending. PRS for Music believed that, in comparison, B2B income would be less exposed to recession (Page 2008: 2). This appeared to be borne out in the results. B2C income rose by 10.7 per cent between 2007 and 2011; the increase in B2B income was 48 per cent. One consequence of reporting revenue in this manner is that, while live and recorded revenue is outlined, the third major stand of the music industries – music publishing – is not given a total of its own. This could be considered odd, given that PRS for Music looks after the rights in compositions. Yet there was method here. It enabled PRS for Music to demonstrate the variety of their revenue streams. Music publishing income is spread across various B2C and B2B categories. The members of the society could, in theory, locate the best baskets for their eggs. Although the PRS for Music reports proclaimed that live music had risen above recording, they reached this conclusion using B2C figures alone. Nevertheless, as they were keen to point out, an increasing an amount of live and recording income was being derived from B2B activities (Page and Carey 2011: 2). Moreover, their decision to split income into B2C and B2B had more impact on recorded music than it did on live. As the collection society noted, record labels were ‘reallocating their resources into B2B markets’ (ibid.: 7). If we look again the 2011 figures, the B2B category includes at least £281m that could be reattributed if a broader definition ‘recording’ were employed. This is made up of £79m that was earned via performing rights for recording artists (the money paid by broadcasters and public premises for the use of recorded music) and £202m of direct label revenues (including the record companies’ share of performing rights income; synchronization fees for the use of recordings in films, television programmes, games and advertising; multiple rights income from 360° deals; and money from ad-supported streaming services). The figure for live music, meanwhile, is deprived of approximately £43m, as the B2B figures absorb £35.1m that businesses spent on sponsoring live music events and £8.5m that they spent on event creation. The B2B figures also include mechanical and performing rights income that could be reconfigured under the headings of ‘recording’ and ‘live’. Regarding the 2011 figures, this would include a substantial amount of the £448m that is attributed to PRS for Music. The report details £101.6m that the society accumulated because of ‘recorded music’. Recordings also contributed to some of their other income streams: broadcast & online, public performance, and international. It should be noted that live music also generates broadcast & online income for composers and publishers, albeit that it is recorded music that dominates when it comes to the income generated by radio, television and the internet. Recorded music also makes up a significant proportion of the music publishers’ direct income. Out of the £210m that is allocated to them in the 2011 report, £48m comes from sync rights. If we further reconfigure the figures for 2011, so that both recorded and live music include B2B income, while ancillary spend and secondary ticketing are removed, we end up with totals of approximately £987m for live music and approximately £1.139bn for recording. Thus it could be argued that throughout the 2007-2011 period, recorded music was more prosperous than live music. This result is, of course, as questionable as the totals provided by PRS for Music. The live music industry and recorded music industry are dissimilar entities, thus there is no ‘correct’ way in which their revenues can be compared. It should nevertheless be noted that PRS for Music betrayed doubts about splitting income along B2C and B2B lines (2010: 2; 2011: 2). Furthermore, it is unlikely that anyone would employ this means of adding up the music industry today. Ironically, this is because PRS for Music were correct in their predictions that increasing amounts of income would be derived from B2B sources. Their reports coincided with the first impact of streaming services on record industry revenues. Streaming is mentioned briefly in the first two reports, but greater note of it is made by 2012. The B2C/B2B reporting method employed by PRS for Music allows the money from streaming subscription services to be captured as part of the B2C ‘recorded music’ figure, but the money from ad-supported streaming services is obscured under the B2B heading. As streaming has subsequently become the most important source of income for record companies it would now be untenable to exclude any of it from a recorded music total. Are performers able to assess their share of the money? PRS for Music embodies the close links between composition and performance. Its members derive income from ‘performing’ rights. In addition, many of its composer members are performers. The organization targets its literature accordingly; it is addressed at musicians as much as it is at songwriters. The Adding Up the Music Industry reports, for example, give guidance to performers about their economic strategy. They are informed that they should no longer ‘tour at a loss to sell CDs’, but instead consider live music as the ‘main breadwinner’ (Page and Carey 2009: 1). Nevertheless, PRS’s for Music’s totalizing industry figures do not facilitate individual economic decisions. As we have seen, the results are skewed. The live music tallies incorporate revenue streams that are missing from the recorded music figures. Moreover, several of these revenue streams do not result in income for performers. This includes the money from secondary ticket sales and (for the majority of artists) ancillary spend on food, drink, transport and parking. In addition, there is difference when it comes to the division of live and recorded music income. Within the record industry there are common prices for many the goods (in particular the B2C products) and there are some common contractual policies regarding the percentages of revenue that musicians will be due (see ‘The Gold Disc’ in this collection). Thus, it is just about possible for musicians to use the recorded music figures as a barometer of their own income this area. This measure does, however, only apply to the ten per cent of artists who are not in debt to their record companies (see ‘One in Ten’). For the remainder, the only money they will see from their record companies is their personal and recording advances; they will not be receiving a share of royalty revenue. These non-recouped advances are not factored into the PRS for Music figures, raising further questions about their ability to indicate the economy of performers. The live music figures provide difficulties of their own. Although it is possible to construct a grand total in relation to ticket sales and ancillary spend, there is no commonality in the cost of events or in the artists’ share of the income. The distance between the rich and the poor is wider in live music than it is in recording (Wikström 2013: 59). This is illustrated in the reports themselves. According to the 2009 figures ‘the gap between the grass roots acts and superstars is widening’ (Page and Carey 2010: 5). In the following year the overall total for live music went down, principally because there were fewer stadium- and arena-filling bands on tour (Page and Carey 2011: 4). The year after there was a fifteen per cent increase in live music revenues, attributed to a ‘dramatic increase in stadium concerts’, including a major tour by the group Take That (Brookes 2012: 3). Performers operating further down the economic scale could not have used the live music totals as an indication of their own economic wellbeing. UK Music What is the purpose of their reports? In chronological terms, UK Music’s annual reports have picked up where the PRS for Music reports left off. They also have some similar aims: the PRS for Music reports chart the shifting eco-system of the music industries; the UK Music reports seek to ‘Understand the economy and its constituent parts’ so they can ‘Track trends’ (UK Music 2013: 7). The principal motivation is different, however. The PRS statistics were the product of a recessionary era. By the time of the first UK Music reports there were signs of economic recovery in both the general and music markets (UK Music 2014b: 1). The main purpose of the reports, as a result, has been to inform the British government how well the music industries are doing. UK Music have been motivated by what they view as an under-reporting of music industry income, exports and jobs by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). In order to assess economic contribution, the ONS allocates Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to different trades and professions. UK Music has found this problematic. In the first instance, music is grouped with the 'visual and performing arts’, thus its individual contribution is obfuscated. Second, many music industry occupations are not listed under visual and performing arts, thus their contribution is lost. Third, many music occupations are incorrectly coded and so their contribution is missing too. The great fear of UK Music is that ‘This imperfect data is used for policy purposes by the Government’ (2013: 1) They have therefore sought to rectify these problems. The organization has provided its own classification of music industry trades and developed its own metrics for calculating music’s contribution to the economy. UK Music wants the government to notice the successes of the music industries. They also want to work in partnership with the government to ‘Design public policy best able to secure desired outcomes’ (ibid.). It should be noted, therefore, that the rival economies of the live and recorded industries are not UK Music’s focus. What do they include in the totals for ‘recording’ and ‘live’? The UK Music reports, like the PRS for Music reports before them, view recorded music as a product and live music as an event. Thus their live music figures include ancillary spend, but their recorded music figures do not. Beyond this there is a series of differences that reflect the different aims of the two organizations. Where PRS for Music chose to exclude B2B income from their live and recorded totals, UK Music wish to provide overall economic profiles for their music industry sectors. This means that recorded music includes record company income from ad-supported streaming services, plus all other forms of direct label revenue. Live music, in turn, includes a share of sponsorship income. It also means that new revenue streams are considered that are not featured in the PRS reports: recorded music houses online aggregators and the design and production of physical product and packaging; live music includes production services for live music. The figures for UK Music remain lower than those of PRS for Music, however. This is because they set their own categorical boundaries and employ a different financial methodology. There have been many attempts to define the component parts of Britain’s musical industries (Cloonan 2007: 67-102; UK Music 2013: 13). These all differ and they each have their biases. In the case of UK Music, their definitions of a ‘core’ and ‘wider’ music industry are reflective of their membership. The organization consists of the Association of Independent Music; the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors; the Featured Artists Coalition; the Music Managers Forum; the Music Publishers Association; the Music Producers Guild; the Musicians’ Union; Phonographic Performance Ltd; PRS for Music; and the UK Live Music Group. It is the activities covered by UK Music’s members that provide the ‘core’ of their music industries, and it is this core that is documented in their statistical reports. This has an effect on their recorded and live music figures. In its own mapping of the core music industries, the British government has sometimes included the retail of recordings (Cloonan 2007: 80). This sector is also factored into the PRS for Music analyses. However, the retailers of recorded music are not members of UK Music and nor are streaming companies. Correspondingly, the proceeds of these businesses do not form part of their statistical reckoning. Conversely, ticketing agencies are represented in UK Music (Paul Latham of Live Nation served as chair of UK Live Music until September 2018) and therefore the retailers’ share of ticket sales is included in their reports. Secondary ticketing is out, however. The profiteers in this field are not considered to be part of the music industry. As well as defining music industry income differently to PRS for Music, UK Music have a different financial rationale. The Adding Up the Music Industry reports outline the total revenues of the industries. UK Music, in contrast, uses Gross Value Added (GVA) figures. This methodology is in keeping with their governmental target audience, as it is the means by which the economic contributions of different industry sectors are assessed. UK Music takes the revenue figures of live and recorded music, and subtracts ‘the cost of bought in goods and services used up in the production process’ (UK Music 2013: 9). What remains is the GVA contribution, which consists of the wages and salaries given to employees plus any ‘operating surplus’ (ONS n.d.: 6). This surplus includes financial charges, dividends to shareholders and capital investment. The choice of GVA reporting means that UK Music’s figures are approximate. GVA contributions are not calculated by analysing the accounts of individual companies. Instead a ratio is developed, which is then applied to all companies operating within a business sector. In line with their distrust of ONS accounting, UK Music has created a bespoke ratio for their reports. It nevertheless ‘averages across firms known to be in the music industry’ (UK Music 2013: 12). Consequently, UK Music advises against using their results to compare different music industries, such as recording and live. Their ratio is ‘bespoke to the core as a whole, not to the component parts of the core’, thus the results ‘may vary between the different elements’ (ibid.). How is the statistical information categorized? As well as influencing UK Music’s definition of the ‘core’ music industry, the membership of the organization shapes the way that it categorizes its reports. This categorization, in turn, has an effect on the live and recorded totals. Live music includes the contributions of music festival organizers, music promoters, music agents, production services for live music, ticket agents and concert venues and arenas. The live music industry operates under the umbrella body of UK Live Music and so its GVA contribution is combined. In contrast the recorded music figures do not include the contribution of music producers, recording studios and staff, even though they are a feature of the report. They have their own trade organization, the Music Producers Guild, and so are provided with a separate GVA contribution, which was worth £125m in 2017 (UK Music 2018b: 8). This method of categorization diminishes the share of income accorded to recorded music whilst bolstering the share given to live. There are further categorical decisions that affect the tallies of both industries, however. In the first instance, the copyright fees they have to pay to publishers are removed from their totals. This is in contradistinction to the reporting practice in the PRS for Music reports, but is reflective of the fact that UK Music includes the Music Publishers Association amongst its members. In 2017 the GVA contribution for publishing was calculated as being worth £505m (UK Music 2018b: 8). Secondly, UK Music includes organizations that represent performers and songwriters. As a result, these artists are also provided with a statistical field of their own. The money that they make from gigs and records is subtracted from the live and recording totals (UK Music regard it as a ‘bought in’ service for these industries). This figure does not appear to include non-recouped record company or publisher advances. They are instead regarded as part of the companies’ capital investment, alongside money spent on invisible imports and exports, marketing and promotion, and other aspects of A&R. In turn, the payments that artists’ make to managers, music agents and producers are subtracted from their own GVA figures. The end result is that neither live nor recorded music is shown to have the largest GVA contribution. This honour is instead bestowed upon ‘musicians, composers, songwriters and lyricists’. With a total of £2b in 2017 they are shown to have generated twice as much as the live music industry and three times the amount of recording (UK Music 2018b: 8). Are performers able to assess their share of the money? Although musicians, composers, songwriters and lyricists have their own field in the UK Music reports, there is no detail about the income streams that make up their GVA contribution. Therefore, there is no way of determining how much the live and recorded music figures would increase if they were to incorporate the artists’ share. The exception is the Measuring Music report for 2014, which includes some data from ‘Additional Analysis of Earnings by Music Professionals’ (UK Music 2014b: 24). Moreover, this lack of detail means that these artists are not in a position to compare their royalties with the GVA of record companies and live music organizations. Ultimately, UK Music’s figures are of little help for assessing the relative levels of income that can be derived from recorded music and live. They also make it hard for artists to question the justice of their pay. On first glance, it looks as though they are prospering ahead of recorded companies and live music organizations, as they have the largest GVA contribution. The Measuring Music totals can be recast, however, if we divide the contribution of each sector by its number of employees. For example, in 2017 record businesses generated £72,614 per capita, live businesses generated £34,579 per capita, and artists earned £21,941 each (UK Music 2018b: 8-9). Although these figures are indicative of the relative prosperity of each of these fields, it should noted that the GVA figures for artists are calculated differently to those for live and recorded music. The former are compiled on an ‘income’ basis and consider take home pay alone; the latter work on a ‘production’ basis and consider both wages and operating surplus (UK Music 2013: 10). UK Music wishes to present a unified front amongst its constituent parts. Its reports do not display or document any monetary issues amongst its members. Instead, when it outlines policy issues, these are usually located beyond the core, amongst their ‘wider’ music industry. In the 2017 report, for example, the main issue for concern is the ‘value gap’; the low royalty rates that record companies and publishers are receiving from companies such as YouTube and Facebook. Michael Dugher, the CEO of UK Music, stresses that ‘these platforms offer little adequate reward to the investors and creators of the “content”’ (UK Music 2017: 6). It is notable that UK Music depicts the plugging of this value gap within the recording and publishing industries as aiding live music as well. Dugher argues, ‘To reach the big stage you need to have a hit record and you need to be able to pay the bills’ (UK Music 2017: 6). More generally, UK Music’s reports outline a connected system in which success in recorded music precedes success in live music. Within this ‘sequential’ process ‘Musicians will typically be performing compositions that either they or another artist have recorded’ (UK Music 2013: 16). UK Music’s ultimate endpoint, nevertheless, is a source of income that abandons the boundaries of composition, recording and performance. They believe that the most successful artists are the ones that have become commodities. They are no longer selling music, but instead selling themselves ‘as a brand, reputation or image’ (UK Music 2013: 16) Conclusion It would be wrong to reject the findings of PRS for Music and UK Music out of hand. Their statistical data is useful and their reports do identify economic trends. They have to be evaluated on their own terms and from their historical perspectives, however. There is no single way of defining the economics of the recording and live industries. As such, these reports do not prove conclusively that one has ascendancy over the other. It would also be wrong to gainsay the suggestion that for many artists live performance now generates more money than recording. The increased number of tours, festivals and band reformations is indicative of this trend. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence from artists that says as much. Nevertheless, the PRS for Music and UK Music reports are not the place to turn for evidence. Their macroeconomic analyses do not satisfy microeconomic arguments. Instead, we must turn to surveys that have tackled this subject from the artists’ perspective. In 2014, UK Music accompanied Measuring Music with an Additional Analysis of Earnings by Music Professionals. It was found that musicians gained 26 per cent of their income from ticketed gigs, 25 per cent from non-ticketed corporate gigs, two per cent from public performance payments for recordings, and two per cent from royalties from record companies (2014a: no pagination). Singers gained 49 per cent of their income from non-ticketed corporate gigs, ten per cent from ticketed gigs, four per cent from record company royalties, and two per cent from public performance payments for recordings (2014a: no pagination). The UK Live Music Census of 2017 (see Behr et al in this volume) included a similar investigation. Its results showed that professional musicians earned, on average, 49 per cent of their income from performing and three per cent from recording; semi-professionals earned 23 per cent from performing and two per cent from recording; and amateurs earned 23 per cent from performing and one per cent from recording (Webster et al, 2018: 20). These results would appear to be damning for the record industry. In all categories in both surveys it was responsible for less than five per cent of artists’ pay. The results may have been different, however, if respondents has been asked to consider record company advances as an income stream. The other categories in the UK Music questionnaire were: payments for music tuition; session fees for TV, film, computer games; commissioning fees for composition (live and media); royalties and rights payments from PRS; royalties from music publishers; sponsorship/brand endorsements. The remaining categories in the UK Live Music census were: teaching; other music-related activity; other non-music related activity; session musician/singer; composing/writing. In addition, it should be noted that UK Music’s figures were derived from a different source to their revenue data in Measuring Music. The Additional Analysis survey was undertaken with 900 music professionals, representing just 1.3 per cent of the total number of musicians, composers, songwriters and lyricists enumerated in their main report. The UK Live Music Census drew on a wider pool of musicians and singers, collating the feedback from 1,598 respondents. It did take place at performance venues, though. What would the answers have been if it had been compiled at record company offices or within recording studios? More information is needed. On the one hand, it would be good to have work that outlines the revenues or GVA contributions of each sector of the music industries and provides details of the share that is going to artists. As well as helping performers to make career choices, this information would help them to address the equitability of their pay. On the other hand, it would be interesting to have questionnaires that address the intertwined eco-system of the music industry. Performers should be quizzed about their different income streams, but they could also be asked how their recording careers have boosted their live music revenues, and how their live music work has boosted their recording income. They could also be quizzed about the extent to which their income has been derived from self-commoditization. Which comes first, the basket or the egg? Works cited Anderton, Chris (2008), ‘Commercializing the Carnivalesque: The V Festival and Image/risk Management’, Event Magazine, 12:1, pp. 39-51. Billboard Staff (2018), ‘Billboard’s 2018 Power 100 List Revealed’, Billboard.com, 25 January. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8096144/billboard-2018-power-100-list. Accessed 26 January 2019. Bintliff, Esther (2010), ‘Live Music Boom Drives Off Recording Blues’, FT.com, 20 August, https://www.ft.com/content/c8ff8d50-ac85-11df-8582-00144feabdc0. Accessed 26 January 2019. Brookes, Nicholas (2012), Adding Up the Music Industry 2011, PRS for Music, https://www.prsformusic.com/what-we-do/influencing-policy/research. Accessed 26 January 2019. Cloonan, Martin (2007), Popular Music and the State in the UK: Culture, Trade or Industry?, Aldershot: Ashgate. Cloonan, Martin (2013), ‘Live Music as Ideology’, Situating Popular Musics: IASPM 16th International Conference, Grahamstown, South Africa, 27 June-1 July 2011, pp. 77-88. Curran, Shaun (2016), ‘Are Gigs Getting Too Expensive?’, Independent, 27 July, https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/are-gigs-getting-too-expensive-radiohead-bjork-beyonc-pet-shop-boys-a7158706.html. Accessed 26 January 2019. Foster, Patrick (2009), ‘Forget the New Album, Rock Fans want the Real Thing’, The Times, 14 April, p. 15. Green, Chris (ed.) (2018), All About the Music: Recorded Music in the UK: Facts, Figures and Analysis, London: BPI. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) (2016), Investing in Music: The Value of Record Companies, http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Investing_In_Music.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2017. Jones, Rhian (2014), ‘UK Music Market’s Worth Revealed’, Music Week, 19 September, p. 7. Laing, Dave (2012), ‘What’s It Worth? Calculating the Economic Value of Live Music’, Live Music Exchange Blog, 11 June, http://livemusicexchange.org/blog/whats-it-worth-calculating-the-economic-value-of-live-music-dave-laing/. Accessed 26 January 2019. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (n.d.), Annual Business Survey Background Information 2008 and Later, Newport: Office for National Statistics. Page, Will (2008), The ‘R’ Words: Recession and Royalties, PRS for Music, 16 September, https://www.prsformusic.com/what-we-do/influencing-policy/research. Accessed 26 January 2019. Page, Will and Carey, Chris (2009), Adding Up the Music Industry for 2008, PRS for Music, 20 July, https://www.prsformusic.com/what-we-do/influencing-policy/research. Accessed 26 January 2019. Page, Will and Carey, Chris (2010), Adding Up the Music Industry for 2009, PRS for Music, 4 August, https://www.prsformusic.com/what-we-do/influencing-policy/research. Accessed 26 January 2019. Page, Will and Carey, Chris (2011), Adding Up the Music Industry for 2010, PRS for Music, 4 August, https://www.prsformusic.com/what-we-do/influencing-policy/research. Accessed 26 January 2019. Savage, Mark (2017), ‘Seen a Gig Recently? You’re Not the Only One’, BBC News, 20 September, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41331692. Accessed 26 January 2019. Smirke, Richard (2014), ‘Value of UK Music Industry Grows to £3.8 Billion’, Billboard, 16 September, https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6251648/uk-music-industry-grows-value. Accessed 26 January 2019. Topping, Alexandra (2009), ‘Music Industry Back on Right Track, says Report’, Guardian, 20 July, p. 9. UK Music (2013), The Economic Contribution of the Core UK Music Industry, London: UK Music. UK Music (2014a), Additional Analysis of Earnings by Music Professionals, https://www.ukmusic.org/assets/general/UK_MUSIC_Additional_Earnings.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2015. UK Music (2014b), Measuring Music: September 2014, https://www.ukmusic.org/research/report-archive/measuring-music/. Accessed 26 January 2019. UK Music (2017), Measuring Music: 2017 Report, https://www.ukmusic.org/research/measuring-music-2017/. Accessed 26 January 2019. UK Music (2018a), ‘About’, UK Music, https://www.ukmusic.org. Accessed 26 January 2018. UK Music (2018b), Measuring Music: 2018 Report, https://www.ukmusic.org/research/measuring-music-2018/. Accessed 26 January 2019. Webster, Emma and McKay, George (2016), From Glyndebourne to Glastonbury: The Impact of British Music Festivals, Norwich: Arts and Humanities Research Council/University of East Anglia. Webster, Emma, Brennan, Matt, Behr, Adam and Cloonan, Martin (2018), Valuing Live Music: The UK Live Music 2017 Census Report, Live Music Exchange/University of Edinburgh/Newcastle University/University of Turku: http://uklivemusiccensus.org/#report. Accessed 26 January 2019. Wikström, Patrik (2013), The Music Industry: Music in the Cloud, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity. Williamson, John and Cloonan, Martin (2007), ‘Rethinking the Music Industry’, Popular Music, 26:2, pp. 305-322. Williamson, John and Cloonan, Martin (2013) ‘Contextualising the Contemporary Recording Industry’, in L. Marshall (ed.), The International Recording Industries, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 11-29.