-
Which artists?
Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
10-20-2024 07:39 AM
-
They didn't pay any of the artists. The dude who wrote for them or whatever wrote an article on his time there. Albert King wanted $500 to which he "politely" told him they didn't pay any of the artists interviewing in their magazine. Albert King said "you sell your magazine for money, I want 500 copies". Hence, no Albert King interview. I'm with Albert, no pay is a scam. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
The "Golden Era" of Guitar Player Magazine
-
It's standard practice to pay money for folks writing tuition columns etc, but not for interviews. Interviews are a situation where both the magazine and interviewee benefit. The magazine gets sales from having the famous muso on the cover; the famous muso benefits from the free advertising the interview brings for their new 'project'. This is very standard practice in print, TV etc.
-
Dang I wish I had thought of that—writing for Guitar Player—back in high school when I was envisioning a career in journalism. Jas Obrecht’s experience sounds like a dream job to me. Originally Posted by DawgBone
Last edited by Doctor Jeff; 10-21-2024 at 08:04 AM.
-
Seconding CliffR's post. I spent three decades as a freelance magazine writer, and to my knowledge, interviewees were never paid for the interview--though I'm assuming that when music was printed, the relevant person or organization got paid. (PROs and publishers can get very cross about such matters.) It's my understanding that in the straight-journalism (as distinct from, say, the UK tabloid) world it's considered ethically quesntionable to offer or give compensation for an interview.
Between 1992 and 2009 I did profiles, features, and how-to pieces for Acoustic Guitar, and many of them involved interviews with the artists. There was never any discussion or expectation of payment for the interviews, though I'm sure that somebody at the AG office was in charge of clearances and permissions for the tabs that were often part of an artist profile.
If Albert King thought he should be paid for an interview, that was up to him--though it suggests that he didn't know how the business works.
-
The way the yellow press works is much more immoral than to have a promo effect through an unpaid interview in a guitar magazine (or the magazine for stage equipment and event technology I worked for for a short while until i was fed up with rephrasing pre-written advertising copy from advertisers into short messages, which was the bulk of the work).
Recently the racing driver Ralf Schumacher came out as a homosexual and made his love affair with a man public. Then I remembered that maybe 15 years ago a friend told me that he was told by a friend who worked at the German yellow press "news"-paper BILD that BILD keeps a list of kompromats with which they blackmail celebrities to get exclusive interviews. Among other things, he had heard from her that Ralf Schumacher was gay and had married a prostitute as a pretense. As I said, I heard that about 15 years ago. The only person I know of who didn't allow himself to be blackmailed was the Bavarian comedian and actor Ottfried Fischer. One day a video of him with two prostitutes surfaced and he sued BILD and won.
-
You guys can stump for the once cherished guitar rags all you would like. If you ain't getting paid you're getting taken advantage of. This is the kinda stuff that let's you know the industry is a joke. You'd be offended if someone asked you to play for free but somehow this is ok. They had an ideal business model because they used the musicians as a sort of slave labor and still profited. You go ahead and lament. I'm celebrating another shitty club owner being forced to close their doors. *shrugs
-
So they don't pay people they interview. That's not surprising, given that it's considered unethical to do so by many journalists. In point of fact, few magazines and even fewer independent / freelance journalists pay subjects they interview. Media pay authors for articles, and those are the artists whose livings depend on publications. Most also pay for exclusive photos (especially if they commission them) that accompany the articles, and those photographers are also dependent on those outlets for income. But paying an interview subject would be a potential conflict of interest because any statements in the article could well have been made to benefit the pubnlication if they paid the subject. Originally Posted by DawgBone
Read that article you linked more carefully. Most of GP's direct interview subjects volunteered to be interviewed - and the best of the best were among them. Albert King was an anomaly, and I think he was being unreasonable. Performers benefit from interviews. They get free publicity, and if what they say is interesting or otherwise valuable to readers, they'll garner more followers. Those with signature merchandise, guitars etc will sell more of their merch. If Albert had endeared himself to the readership and said in an interview in GP that he had some ideas for a signature model V, Gibson might well have made it, and he'd have gotten paid for it. I suspect that his response to GP's request for an interview was the same one he had to any such offers. This would explain why he had virtually no signature items to market. Among many "signature" guitars on their website, Gibson has multiple signature Vs, Fender currently has 75 "signature" guitars on their website. King was a great and well known blues artist, and I've often wondered why there was no AK V. Maybe now I know.
-
DawgBone: Here's how my segment of the journalism world worked. I wrote for (in addtion to three acoustic-music magazines) a bunch of computer and tech-biz magazines, a newsstand office-products magazine (Home Office Computing), and a handful of niche-interest magazines. I've done dozens of product reviews and overviews with never a hint of editorial interference or pay-to-play. (Though I know there were some common corrupt practices in the consumer-electronics press back in the day. I have no idea of how Guitar Player behaved in the gear-review department.)
I've conducted hundreds of interviews for a range of magazines, and here's what I understand of the business model and incentive systems at play: Magazines need material, readers are curious, and artists and other product producers want exposure. In the interview or feature situation, the quid is access to the subject (to supply the raw material for the piece) and the pro quo is the attention generated for the subject. For an artist (or a luthier or a gear producer), interviews, profiles, and features serve as marketing. For the magazine, interviews are turned into copy, which fills the pages--which are paid for primarily by advertising dollars.
Everybody in the business knows this. I was paid for my skills, time, and effort. The editors, printers, and distributors (including the USPS) were paid for theirs. Readers paid a portion of the costs (subscriptions and newsstand sales do not nearly cover production/distribution costs) and were entertained or enlightened or whatever. Advertisers paid for space. And the artists got attention--which, had they been regular advertisers, would have cost them cash. That was (and remains) the deal. Nobody was getting ripped off. (Though writers seem to, as my father used to put it, suck hind teat.)
Things are apparently different in the tabloid world, but I sense a different set of incentives there.
-
I don't appreciate people in the music business playing the "exposure" card because that is a card played way too often and is used to prey on hopes and dreams of people trying to climb a broken ladder. Further, getting an interview in a guitar magazine isn't very good exposure at all. That's G3 tour level attendee stuff. Nobody cares, it's not circulated enough in the general public. That Albert didn't have a sig guitar.....well, a whole ton of great players don't have sig instruments and it's not cause they weren't willing to interview for free. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
It was a bad business model and now it is a failed business model. Glad to see it gone.
-
Print mags are no longer a viable business model, with the possible exception of esoteric formats and content that appeal to small and exclusive groups of readers willing to pay the cost of keeping them around. It’s as simple as that. Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
Yes, I get it. But I'm still glad to see a bunch of gatekeepers who demanded freebies from musicians going belly up. If I had known that then I wouldn't have bought a single issue because I don't support "exposure" gigs or pay to play stuff in any form. Grifters. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
-
Methinks thou doth protest too much Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
I don't break out the glad hand for shitty venues that don't pay so why would I for a magazine that didn't either. In my world everyone gets paid something for their efforts, even if a good will offering is all I can afford, which really doesn't matter much unless you are a musician who is sick of not getting paid by abusive venues and greedy band leaders. Paying an artist for their time is hardly a revolutionary expectation so it doesn't matter to me what the industry practices are. So I celebrate the death of venues and publications who make money without paying the artists featured therein. Industry scabs. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
Methinks thou doth protest too much
-
There’s nothing to demand. The artist gets an interview request and either accepts or rejects it. Originally Posted by DawgBone
I remember when Jas Obrecht first published an extended version of his ‘78 interview with EvH. Obrecht ended up playing basketball with some kids backstage who asked him why he was there. He said he was scheduled to interview Pat Travers, who had decided at the last minute that he had better things to do. So the kid says something like man, I wish someone would interview _me_. Obrecht asks who the hell are you? Kid says I’m Eddie van Halen. Obrecht rolled tape, the interview became a classic, and they became lifelong friends.
Travers refused, fine. Eddie asked for it, fine. Apart from ethical considerations there’s no way guitar mags can afford to pay for interviews. Margins are negligible.
-
Of course I know that there are things that have become naturalized and are difficult to overcome, but I think it is absolutely legitimate to question the conventions, as DawgBone does here. Unleashed neo-liberal capitalism (which is now in free fall and therefore lashing about) has tried to sell us for far too long that its way is the only way and that there is no alternative. I have great respect for anyone who is prepared to swim against the tide and thereby oppose the proclaimed “end of history”. (Dawgbone might want to contradict me and say that the end of history was announced in an old book a long time ago. But that's not what I mean. I'm talking about so-called historians and sociologists who think they have to proclaim that things can't get any better than they are now. Which is true for a small minority that stands on the shoulders of the rest of the world.)
I have already mentioned above that I gave up my job at the trade magazine because I was fed up with constantly rewording pre-formulated advertising copy very little and selling it as newsflashes. Doing such things I can't look in the mirror in the morning when I'm brushing my teeth without feeling ashamed. And being able to look into the mirror has always been the most important thing in my life ...
"I wouldn't slave for beggar's pay, likewise gold and jewelsBut I would slave to learn the way to sink your ship of fools"
ROBERT HUNTER for THE GRATEFUL DEAD
-
I have given interviews for magazines, newspapers, television and radio. Not once was payment a consideration. Interviewees are not paid. Accusing these guitar magazine publishers of being grifters is very unfair. They were simply following industry practice. And why should anyone be paid to promote themselves?
-
The artists being interviewed ARE "getting paid for their efforts": the exposure leads to more awareness and more listening/streaming (back in the day, record sales).
But I'm with you on not playing free gigs. That's different. Playing a gig at a local bar is not comparable exposure to an interview in a magazine that reaches tens of thousands of music fans (in our case, guitar players).
-
This arrangement is not exclusive to musicians, or even print media. If George Clooney is interviewed on a talk show, he's not being paid, he's promoting his latest movie. Likewise the coach appearing on morning radio to talk about his team's performance the day before is doing it for free, because I guess it's expected by the fans.
-
Practically everyone i know that is trying to have a carrier going is paying someone to handle publicity and promotion. Last time i asked (which was a few years back), the cost for national US promotion (interviews, articles, etc.) in the Jazz genre was about 5k$ for six months, and it was something utilized by players you 'd see in the cover of Jazz Times etc. So in the real world artists pay for the interviews, not the other way around.
Printed magazines are remnants of an era past unfortunately. I had a subscription to Guitar Player, Guitar World for years, than after maybe a decade i checked some issues and it was only advertisements with minimal promotional interviews, not really something worth paying for.
-
Yes, they were following industry practice. Like Harvey Weinstein and others who run casting couches and want freebies from the actors and actresses. The artist is always at the bottom and this is "just how the industry works" is what we are told. I am suggesting maybe it's time for a change to the "industry standards" across the board. Originally Posted by Litterick
And whoever mentioned publicists......well, they are running about 1500 bucks per month here so good luck with that. You're basically paying them for the keys they hold and nothing more. They are also grifter/gatekeeper types who have the personal connections to raise your profile and so demand a pretty penny for connecting you to that world. The reality is you can do most of what they do yourself except you don't have the names and numbers and some of those people will not speak to you without you having gone through one of the gatekeepers so you are kinda in a bind when you are netting 1500-2000k per month via gigs and the publicist wants all of it. I will celebrate when that system collapses also.
-
Like so many other discussions here, this thread and the one on the shutdown of Guitar Techniques are more revealing than their OPs expected. Both start with a post lamenting the loss of a valuable resource. After a few similar posts, it forks into “good” and “bad” opinion subthreads.
Many of us (myself included) brought the perspective of those who benefitted greatly and will miss what was lost. We got knowledge, insight, and a lot of pleasure from those mags. They helped us develop as guitarists, musicians, and members of our musical community. No one claimed they were morally superior paragons of business virtue. We were just talking about our own personal experiences, which were good memories for us. This glass is more than half full.
But after a few posts, someone drags the discussion to the path less traveled and paints the same thing as an evil horror to which we should all bid good riddance. At best, this glass is half empty. Interestingly enough, the “bad” line doesn’t seem to recognize any value at all in the subject in focus and paints it to be 100% horrible and worthy of extinction.
Those who follow the “good” fork most often acknowledge that it wasn’t all good. But the “bad” forkers never see beyond some self-perceived insult to themselves, their judgment, their beliefs, etc. So they devolve into profanity, insults, and an us-versus-them stance.
Very little in the real world is purely good or purely bad. It would be great if we could all acknowledge and fight the bad while still enjoying and promoting the good. But once you call someone scum and express great joy at their bad fortune, you kinda lose yourself in the hate and forfeit any chance you had to make things better. Of course, this assumes that you want to make things better.
-
An important part of Western democracy is the press holding politicians accountable via interviews and investigative journalism. It goes without saying that money changing hands for political interviews would not be conducive to honest reporting. That being said, I recently watched the most excellent Frost/Nixon movie, where Frost and his TV company did indeed pay Nixon a huge amount of money for the privilege of conducting the interviews.
-
When I first started playing I read Guitar Player and Guitar for the Practicing Musician for a couple years. I learned a lot from both of those magazines. There were articles on how to avoid getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and other overuse injuries, and there were articles on lesser known guitarists (Hans Reichel, for instance, but a lot of others). Mike Stern was on the cover of one. There was an entire issue on MIDI guitar.
Last edited by supersoul; 10-21-2024 at 03:37 PM.
-
I used to write articles for Ed Benson's Just Jazz Guitar magazine. Ed did not pay me (or any of the contributors), but I did use my negotiating skills to get some free gear to demo so it worked out just fine for me. If I liked the gear, I would write a complimentary article. If I did not like the gear, I would send it back. In retrospect, It was a lot like playing an "exposure" gig though it certainly worked out for me and Ed both. Everybody uses everybody in human society. It has been that way since the days of the cavemen.
But the fact is, only old folks want print media (for the most part). Young people want their information delivered digitally. And perhaps, that model is more ecologically sustainable? I prefer reading a print magazine or a book to reading stuff on a tablet, but truth be told, I am one of the old folks.
The times, they are a'changin'. Get used to it.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos