This rarely, if ever, covers the expenses associated with a live show. So whilst there is a live music renaissance, in many cases the beneficiaries are the promoters! I’m seeing committed bands working almost full-time on music, recording albums and touring extensively (at a loss even with well attended shows), who gain a reasonable following and yet for whom it will never become sustainable unless they make it big. The options remain of say working in a bar part time, managing to just get by and continuing to work on music, else giving up and moving on to do something else.

Whilst I’m not suggesting that just about anyone who picks up an instrument deserves to be able to make a living from music, artist reward is still a major problem. Unless that is you’re a major act. There is a huge inequality, with those at the top doing very well from live performance, E.g. Madge, and more or less everyone else below them being told to be grateful for getting to perform and to think of the money from CD sales.

The prospect of a world full of music that appeals to the lowest common denominator is a grim one indeed… It may never come to that, and my hope is that the same tools which render the hit makers redundant will also enable patrons to find new ways of supporting artists, and that the days of the promoter solely reaping the benefits of the live music renaissance are numbered.

The vinyl comeback is well under way in the indie rock scene, and vinyl always remained a staple in dance music circles. But I’d suggest that in most cases money is lost in its production. This may change if there is a significant growth in interest, but to be honest it is mostly seen as either an objet d’art (E.g. indie circles) or a specialist tool (dance scene).