Another rich person moaning they can't make ends meet (Sheryl Crow)

[Coventina]

Sheryl Crow’s Financial Woes: ‘It’s the End of the Music Business as She Once Knew It’

Nine-time Grammy Award winner Sheryl Crow claims she’s hustling to make ends meet because no one buys records anymore.

Now the “All I Wanna Do” singer, 62, is forced to sell her hit songs, like “Soak Up the Sun” and “Everyday Is a Winding Road,” for TV commercials — just to stay afloat.

While her 1993 debut studio album, Tuesday Night Music Club, sold more than 15 million copies worldwide, her 2019 release Threads moved a mere 40,000 copies as music fans flock to streaming services like Spotify, which shell out just $4,800 to for a million spins.

“You cannot make money,” the hitmaker said on an episode of Bill Maher‘s “Club Random” podcast. “It makes me sad and sick. I hate it because, for me, when you sold records, you knew you had your people.”



https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/sheryl-crows-financial-woes-its-the-end-of-the-music-business/

**************************************************************************************************

A quick Google reveals she's worth $70 million.

Somehow, I'm able to keep a roof over my head with a tiny fraction of that amount.



on edit: shortened for copyright

[wendyb-NC]

1. Good grief, $70 million

And she can't make ends meet? Oh my.

[democratsruletheday]

76. what a joke...

her music sucks anyway IMO. I'm sure Maher sat there and lapped it up. Not a fan of his either.

[we can do it]

2. Boo fucking hoo. You're lucky you made $70 singing.

[mopinko]

9. no shit. musicians i know

r lucky to make the same money they were making in the fucking 80’s.
$600 is considered big money. most work for tips.

[underpants]

3. As I've understood it, the industry is set up for musicians to have to tour to make money

I get how record buying has changed. Sheryl might, at this point, own her songs but the publisher makes most of the money off sales. The musicians tour to make money for themselves and that promotes the music which makes the publishers more money too.

“The Outlaws” (Willie, Waylon, Kris, etc) broke this mold and Nashville never forgave them.

At least that’s how I understand it works.

[LuvLoogie]

28. Fuck the suits.

Skimmers and takers

[jcgoldie]

45. Les Claypool recently explained it thus...

25 years ago in the music industry artists made their money selling albums. They toured to get people to buy the albums and they sold some t-shirts at the shows for a little extra. Now its completely the opposite... artists number one moneymaker is the merch... they tour to sell the merch and they make albums to put out songs that people will come to see live where they will buy tickets and merch.

[SouthernDem4ever]

51. Explains why ticket prices are so high

but I guess the size of their productions have increased exponentially which must cost a lot.

[residentcynic]

57. True but...

I have to believe things were better for consumers and the artists when we paid for albums but could go see a top act for under $20.

[jcgoldie]

72. Well that and ticketmaster has a monopoly...

So they markup everything 50% with fees then buy up the tickets with shell companies and rescalp them.

[raccoon]

116. Yeah, ticket prices are so high I said the hell with it a few years ago.

[samsingh]

133. she has a good point - and other artists just starting out will be more heavily impacted.

[Johnny2X2X]

4. I think she has a great point

These streaming services are ripping artists off. A million people listen to your song gets you $4800?

I think this article is putting words in her mouth or taking them out of context. She's obviously not complaining about this just for herself, but there are thousands of small bands who can't monetize their talents anymore because of services like Spotify. Streaming completely changed the game and artists are being taken advantage of.

[Elessar Zappa]

34. Yes.

It doesn’t hurt artists like her who’ve already made it but it makes it almost impossible to make money as a start up band unless you’re able to successfully monetize on one of the social media sites.

[harumph]

42. I agree - she makes decent points about how difficult it is for recording artists.

Should we disregard what she has to say only because she made it big before it went to shit?

[demmiblue]

61. +1

[MorbidButterflyTat]

124. I agree.

After dodging multiple pop-ups at the link, what's clear to me from the gossip site is an unnamed "friend" is making and I guess "moaning" about her "friend's" supposed finances. Ugh, I wasted ten minutes.

Creative artists expecting to be paid for THEIR WORK; how awful!

[Unwind Your Mind]

169. I agree too

She’s not talking about herself. She’s talking about the industry

I’ve enjoyed her music since that first album, she puts on a great live show and she seems like a decent person.

She has 30 years under her belt, she has every right to speak out

[FakeNoose]

177. Spotify, Sirius, Prime and other legitimate streaming platforms aren't ripping off the artists

They honor copyrights and pay artists for their content.

The theft happens on the bit torrents, where filesharing is rampant and free to anyone who dares to download. Bit torrent platforms give away the artists' content (songs and performances) and nothing is paid to the artists. The torrent platforms are pirate-y operations that often hide out in eastern European and Asian countries. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies try to shut them down but it seems to be a losing battle.

[appmanga]

183. The streaming services are ripping off the artists...

...by well underpaying the amount radio and other media has to pay.

[sakabatou]

5. Oh, poor, poor, millionaire

I think I only listened to one of her songs (and liked it). Other than "Soak Up the Sun", I have no experience with her music.

That being said, streaming has screwed artists and other people over.

[Ping Tung]

6. Maybe she should consider going into Bible and shoe sales.

[Abolishinist]

108. I'm sorry, but you've just touched the surface as to the vast universe of

products available for her.

Big time #1 - Steaks. Then of course magazines, water, wine, vodka, airlines, universities, furniture, a book on gold advice, cologne, chocolate bars and more!

Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

[BobTheSubgenius]

130. I reached the nauseum long before the infinitum.

[lame54]

7. Yet a few individuals at Spotify are soaking up all the cash...

But that's ok somehow

[Chakaconcarne]

8. She's lucky... newer musicians, not so much.

I still buy albums from my favorite artists, even though most of the time I listen to them on a streaming service.

I have so many CD's that are still in plastic wrap....and when the zombie apocalypse happens, I'll be able to play them.

[SouthernDem4ever]

54. Got all mine too! Now I need a solar solution to make sure I'll have power.

[brush]

102. Not good for new acts.No more incentive for start-up bands like...

the Beatle, Rolling Stones, all the Motown groups, Simon and Garfunkel.

Tower Records is long gone too.

[speak easy]

165. " Not good for new acts", like Billie Eilish or Olivia Rodrigo for example?

[brush]

180. Yeah, what's the incentive now if you can't make money now with a start-up band?

[Tommy Carcetti]

10. She's not necessarily wrong, in a certain way.

Obviously she made a ton of money when she first started out because people were buying physical music. And hopefully for her sake she invested it well.

But the music business is not the money maker that it was ever since physical media went by the wayside.

Yes, you can still make money from downloads and streaming. But a) you don't technically "own" those downloads and streaming b) most music can easily be found free on Youtube or similar websites.

I'll be honest, I never bothered with streaming because most everything I can pay to stream I can also find free on Youtube.

I did like buying CDs because buying CDs (and cassettes and records before that) was fun and special and you actually got a real ownership interest in it. But there's nothing really fun about streaming a song.

[Johonny]

12. I agree

She's correct in general. There's lots of YouTube videos talking about the end of the record business. Mostly middle class session musicians, techs, producers are taking it on the chin. Music, rock music especially, are taking it on the chin. Her, however, can actually make a living. As touring is a huge industry if you're famous.

[Captain Zero]

38. I think it's fun to stream an artist live

Like I never made it to a Linda Ronstadt concert or a Grateful Dead concert. I can do that streaming. I also have an amp hooked up uto my TV and can select speakers or headphones so the audio is so much better than attending live would have been. It's something to consider. I worked in the backrooms of the music business too, so would have been nice not getting laid off in 2006 as well. I just couldn't believe how the major companies couldn't figure out a streaming model before the physical product model went away. Duh, but then Sears and Roebuck couldn't figure out how to switch from a catalog to an online model either.

[Johonny]

98. The argument is as Ive heard it

They probably could have dealt with streaming if a convergence of things hadn't basically all happened rapidly in succession.

A) The greed of the old system made labels slow to want to change

B) telecommunications act suddenly merge most independent local radio into two national blocks programed by a few people. Since most acts broke locally this ended the local-regional music programming and channels for artist to break out.

C) fewer programmers meant labels trying to find acts that sounded like acts that were being programmed. More sameness, less variety. Everyone wanted next boy band. Turned fans away.

D) pro-tools made it easier to skip session musicians and mix up bad artists. Sampling meant no need for artists.

E) Internet led to death of music magazines. MTV then dumped music. Thus, two more ways artists got discovered around path of the Uber programmers died.

F) General decline in album quality. If everyone sounds the same and singles targeted at programmers became more important, no need for a good album. If the album is one song deep, why buy albums

G) Social media, which started as celebrity blogs and really blossomed as albums died, simply make it easier to sell promote someone already famous. It's easier to make a kid famous from Disney's album than discover someone.

[Straw Man]

113. Yes.

Obviously she made a ton of money when she first started out because people were buying physical music. And hopefully for her sake she invested it well.

That's most likely the way it went for her. Then there are artists who perhaps never reached her level of success but used to be able to rely on "mailbox money" from royalties on songs they wrote years ago, songs that were still selling as compilations, "greatest hits," etc. Depending on the artist, that may or may not have been enough to live on. But when streaming hit, it dried up to virtually nothing, leaving some of them virtually destitute.

[shrike3]

119. The musicians I know make nothing from streaming

Some are very talented songwriters. In a different era, they'd have major labels after them.

I buy CDs from them because at least they'll have a few bucks in their pockets.

[MineralMan]

11. Has Beens Have Always Done Poorly

And that's the thing with that one. How long ago was "All I wanna do" came out? I mean, really...

I just checked. That song came out 30 years ago.

[BannonsLiver]

32. Not true at all

Kiss, The Rolling Stones, James Taylor, Aerosmith, Duran Duran, Madonna, Motley Crue, Elton John and on and on and on are and have made loads of money without having current chart success by touring. I know most of these are after your time but they’re doing pretty well for has beens.

[MineralMan]

69. None of those were ever has-beens. Nope.

Sheryl Crow? Not so much.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

128. She put out an album two weeks ago

She was having hit singles and gold records ten years ago. I saw her new single getting a lot of attention a month ago.

[MineralMan]

132. OK.

[Sugarcoated]

144. Sheryl Crow is not a "has been"

[MineralMan]

145. OK

[Sugarcoated]

151. A lot of misinformed comments

and frankly, bitter

[BannonsLiver]

140. I don't think you're up on the music scene past and present TBH.

[Mr. Evil]

71. Motley Crue's Carnival of Sins tour

in 2005-06 was extremely successful. First saw that tour in New Orleans in 2005 and then after they expanded the tour in Baton Rouge about a year later in 2006. It was incredible and both shows were the most fun I ever had at a concert (if anyone couldn't have fun at a Crüe show, they've got serious issues!). At the time Nikki, Vince and Tommy were all in their late 40's and Mick was in his early 50's. They made about $45m (after expenses) on that tour (+ or - wherever anyone gets their info). And this was 19 years ago. They recognized a changing landscape long ago. Plus, bands on tour have almost total control.

[Captain Zero]

40. If Crow has 7 mil then,

She should easily be able to live out her life on 3.5 mil and pass on 3.5 mil to some heirs. Most regular people would jump at that deal in a heartbeat.

[mtngirl47]

53. Seventy Million----$70,000,000

She should be ok.

[shrike3]

120. Crow's made a lot of great records.

More than a few hits.

I guess you could call Zappa a has-been because he churned out albums when no one was buying them. Had very few "hits."

[MineralMan]

122. Yes. I'd call him a has-been, even though I'm a big fan.

[shrike3]

123. You do you.

[MineralMan]

134. I always do.

[Voltaire2]

139. Zappa is dead, every dead person is a has been.

[True Dough]

153. I believe I first heard that

at church: "In the name of the Father, the Has Been and the holy spirit."

[shrike3]

154. I was referring to the time when he was alive and ignored but still making records.

[Voltaire2]

162. Zappa and the Mothers of Invention were never 'big' they were always eclectic.

Describing him as a 'has been' at any point in his life is sort of missing the point of what he was doing.

[shrike3]

174. I did not call him a has-been. Another poster did, so take it up with them, please.

[tinrobot]

13. Doesn't matter how much money she has, she's still being ripped off.

Sure, Sheryl was very successful in her career and made millions off of her albums and CDs. That doesn't excuse the fact that services like Spotify are making billions off of her creative output while paying bargain basement rates.

And what about all the artists who don't have millions and are also being ripped off? Who speaks up for them?

[BlueTsunami2018]

14. She's right about the business, musicians are fucked and it's wrong.

I thought Lars Ulrich was full of shit twenty years ago when he was on his Napster crusade but he turned out to be 100% right. Musicians can’t make it anymore, record sales are a thing of the past, the venues are now cutting in on merch and gate takes and there’s no way for young artists to make their way. Underground bands can’t afford to tour.

It’s all bad what these greedy pieces of shit have done to one of the great American industries.

[shrike3]

121. Absolutely. I know plenty of musicians. Some of whom are very talented.

One has done well on Twitter, believe it or not. He's connected with other musicians and gets invited frequently to play in festivals in different parts of the country. Gotten fans, sold some CDs. Still can't make much money, though.

[maxsolomon]

15. When she sold 15 million copies of her debut

CDs were wildly overpriced - profit margins were just ridiculous. I just found sealed 1989 Beatles CDs in a thrift store with $18.99 price tags - that's like $40 today. no clue what she got paid per disc, but times were good back then for big sellers.

now, she probably makes most her money touring. it's ticket prices that have gotten ridiculous. Amy Poehler & Tina Fey just came to Seattle for a show; tickets were $240. for COMEDY. please.

[Sympthsical]

16. But she was the only one getting paid!

[WarGamer]

17. thats why so many artists are touring like it's 1979...

[shrike3]

118. Also, why tickets cost so darn much.

They don't make money from records anymore; they make it from concerts.

[ScratchCat]

18. A few things

Musicians rarely make tons of money off album sales because their cut of the total price the consumer pays is very small. In a traditional distribution scenario, the artist or band is getting a couple bucks total at most. The price that Best Buy or Walmart pays the distributor is like $6-$7 a CD. Half that is the cost of production and whatnot. Then there are other parties who get a cut as well(producer, engineer, etc). At the end of the day, the artist gets $1 to $2 per record if they are lucky.

Owning publishing rights to your music used to be where the bulk of the money was made(and that is how record companies would screw artists by offering them a deal which included like a $25K advance in return for them giving up their publishing and/or merchandizing rights. For instance, Kansas never had the publishing rights to "Dust in The Wind" because Don Kirshner required all publishing rights to sign them.)

Touring has always been where the money is. Every musician will tell you this. Its even more true today with the crazy prices some artists can get.

Lastly, those "Net worth of celebrity" lists and such are a shot in the dark at best. Crowe is not likely worth $70 million. I've heard Allan Hunter mention a google search of his name and net worth on Sirius XM and he had a good laugh and said "I wish".

[pstokely]

107. Best Buy doesn't even sell physical media anymore (other than video games)

and other place have cut back their selection

[shrike3]

155. I don't know if you remember The Romantics. "What I Like About You" and others.

A lawyer who'd grown up a fan read a story about them and found out they were doing jobs like moving furniture. He figured something had to be wrong and looked into it. Their manager screwed them out of rights, including mechanical -- used to be there was a royalty involved in the pressing of a record. Alson, when a song was played at a ball game, there was supposed to be a payment to whoever held that right. Tons of things they didn't know about and manager took advantage of that. Lawyer got those rights back for them for free and made their lives much better. Of course, now that everything's streamed, those rights are certainly gone.

Don McLain kept every right available to him for "American Pie." "People ask me what the song means," he said. "It means I never have to work again." (Which is as likely for a musician as being hit by a meteor, but you understand what I mean.)

[julmur]

19. Milwaukee irish

Haven’t cared for her since she partnered up with kid rock

[Haggard Celine]

37. I didn't know she partnered with Kid Rock.

I can't stand that motherfucker! I listen to the radio in my car, and there's a station down here that plays a lot of Kid Rock. I change the station every time one of his songs is played. That doesn't affect what they play, but at least I'm not listening to that shit. Who buys his music? It boggles my mind that there are people buying his 'music' and attending his concerts.

[rockfordfile]

20. I think she's correct

Now today's "music" is crap. Rap and hiphop and others is imo junk. Taylor swift music is imo junk. Today's music is the worst ever.

Music from the 50s -90s is just on another level than today's music. I mean artist from then still Rock & Roll better. L.A Guns, Def Leppard, Pearl Jam, and Green Day etc.. It's not even close.

[mwb970]

29. "Taylor swift music is imo junk."

I disagree 100%.

[TexasBushwhacker]

103. Taylor Swift music is...

POP!

Have I ever been a big fan of pop music? Not especially, but I don't care if others like it. Taylor's fans seem to love her and so far she seems to be scandal free.

However, I do think that streaming and digital downloads kind of destroyed the music business because it made it all about making "hits". Listeners could just download those singles, not buy the whole CD. So blame iTunes and Napster, and I blame Clear Channel/I Heart Radio for destroying radio.

Oddly enough, vinyl LPs are now outselling CDs, so some folks still want physical media, still want the whole album.

Sheryl's probably just pissed she has to open for Pink on tour.

[Blue_Adept]

50. lololol. Someone needs to get off the top 40 channel

There's so much great music out there but just like in years past, you have to look for it instead of being spoonfed whatever is put on the top 40.

[rockfordfile]

79. Top 40?

Really? pos like "Bad Bunny" ? You've got to be a idiot to pay to go to that.

I went to a true band concert "38 Special". Or a Stevie Nicks concert. It's not even close, not even in the same league.

No today's "music" is a pos.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

135. How many members were still around in that bloated corpse of 38 Special??

I'm sure there's a bar in Sturges that needs a second-rate Skynyrd during biker week. Gotta keep living off the memory of your dead brother. The REALLY rocked with that massive top-ten hit "Love Needs a Second Chance."

[rockfordfile]

167. 38

38 Special rocks it just as good as ever. They certainly are better than what's at Coachella.

[Elessar Zappa]

146. Get off my lawn you kids with your terrible music!

Same thing people said about 60s rock.

[rockfordfile]

166. I don't think so

No "today's music" is junk. The bar is set so low for "today's music". Coachella ? really At least 90% of that "music" is crap.

[GenThePerservering]

74. And while you're at it

Get off my lawn!

[twodogsbarking]

89. That says it all. Thanks.

[Wednesdays]

81. Kids these days...

[Celerity]

97. smdh

Now today's "music" is crap. Rap and hiphop and others is imo junk. Taylor swift music is imo junk. Today's music is the worst ever.

You are adopting a hagiographic 'trapped in time like an insect in amber' aesthetic and then making derogatory broad-based blanket statements that would never hold up to scrutiny by people not locked into that same negatively judgmental prison of a lens.

This part especially is just so antagonistically presented, especially in its scope and universality:

Today's music is the worst ever.

I am still one (even after being here coming up on 6 years) of the youngest (I am 27 now) regular posters here, but you do not see me going around and trashing everything of a Gen X or especially 'Boomer and before' cultural ecosphere, be it the music or the people themselves. The same cannot be said for many of the older posters here when it comes to anything of a newer (and especially current) vintage, including our cultural outputs, our concerns, and us even as political actors.

Finally, in regards to music, I adore 1970s and early to mid 80s punk (and new wave, post punk, industrial, etc), so I am certainly not limited in my musical scope.

example:

Stiff Little Fingers – Tin Soldiers (1980)

Label: Chrysalis – CHS 2424
Format: Vinyl, 7", 45 RPM, Single, Blue Label
Country: UK
Released: 16 May 1980
Genre: Rock
Style: Punk

[rockfordfile]

168. No "today's music" is crap for the most part

Today's music is mediocre. Worst ever.

[Celerity]

171. No it is not. You clearly are just bent on making derogatory universalised comments that would not withstand scrutiny

from a wide-based group of critics and everyday people from a plethora of backgrounds and age groups.

I am sure I would find a fair amount of the music you revere to not be my cuppa at all, but I do not feel the need to make inflammatory universal condemnations.

[rockfordfile]

175. No

Look I'm sure there's some bad music in those years. Even those bad songs are better.

Today's music- It's low-level. The only bubble is "today's music". "today's music" is Jurassic.

[Celerity]

181. No. You are just using your personal prejudices to effect ageist, falsely universalised smears and attacks.

It is agent provocateur methodology, as evidenced by you going up and down this thread having go after go, repeating the same inflammatory rhetoric to multiple posters.

It this type of 'everything good, worthwhile, or positive in nature happened long ago and so much of everything and anything current (far too often including us young folk in general) is shit' bollocks that truly makes me wonder why I bother with this extremely skewed (age wise) board. The intolerance here is on display far too much at times.

Despite the fact there are many many wonderful older folks here, this is NOT a safe space for us younger folk on far too many occasions. That is why there is hardly any of us here (and dog knows I have tried to get dozens from my social and age set to come and join DU, but to a person they tell me thanks but NO THANKS).

The hostility towards current culture, newer social constructs, and younger age cohorts in general, from some very vocal and relentless voices here, is a constant and pernicous background drumbeat. It is just so frustrating that it continues. It is the epitome of intolerance and lack of acceptance.

I feel attacked (indirectly for the most part, but it still cuts close to the bone) far too often, and also feel a dispiriting weight upon my shoulders to constantly be my cohort's defender and positive example. It is exhausting and mentally/emotionally taxing. I am sick of it!!

[XorXor]

101. Grandpa, is that you? :P

God damn whippersnappers and their new music like *checks notes* Pearl Jam....and....*checks notes again* Green Day. These middle-aged kids have no idea what good music is!!!!11!


*I'm saying this in a good natured way. Please don't take it the wrong way.

[pstokely]

109. I'll stay off your lawn

&ab_channel=%22WeirdAl%22Yankovic-Topic

[ramen]

125. The only way one could reach this conclusion is by not listening to enough music made after the 90s.

There is so much out there. If you do some digging then you will surely find other great music that you love. Musicians didn't suddenly lose all brain and motor function en masse in 1999 or in whichever year anyone's dividing line lies. It is more likely that what you are experiencing is a marketing/industry related problem.

[rockfordfile]

172. No

The bands of those years are still making music. The new music from those bands and artists are easily better. "Today's music"' is crap. It's on such a low-level.

Any one song from any of those artists from those years are better than any of the crap from "today's music".

[yourmovemonkey]

142. You're a victim of merging media empires.

I am blessed to live in a market that still has one of the best independently owned, operated and programmed alternative pop/rock radio stations in the country. WEQX is run out of a residential house in Manchester Vermont, and they are still capable of reaching an audience that can break new local and regional artists. They've been doing this for 40 years!
They program local and new music shows, and have an online "listener's advisory board" where people can provide feedback on programming. This is how radio used to be when they were responsible to their listening area!
I'm nearly 60 years old, have played in bands all my life. I know some of the members of some of the groups you listed (because we're about the same age...lol), and I can tell you that there are some amazingly talented new artists out there.
Jump off the corporate music train and try streaming WEQX. You might just hear something new that you can get excited about.

[speak easy]

182. "Now today's "music" is crap" vs Olivia Rodrigo (Live)

good music is out there if you know where to look. Olivia's Guts (2023) was a Billboard No.1.

All American Bitch (2023)

Stick Season -Noah Kahan cover (2023)

Obsessed (2024)

[Abolishinist]

184. Wow, this group is right up there with Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones,

The Who, Beatles, Eagles, Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Bob Dylan, etc. etc. etc. !!!!!!!

SO much originality and talent! What an incredible guitar player, reminds me of Jeff Beck! Not to mention the drummer, John Bonham on steroids!

Just in case

[speak easy]

185. [snark] OK Boomer [/snark]

[Abolishinist]

186. A classic song about an event 54 years ago from today.

Try to top this with anything from the 80's forward!

[speak easy]

187. The Cranberries - Zombie (Northern Ireland) 1994

Not to top "Ohio ". No. Neil Young couldn't for the rest of his career.

[Gore1FL]

21. Seems like some investment advice might have been useful 30 years ago... nt

[DFW]

22. She had better prepare to live off her savings. Musicians these days get screwed out of their creativity.

Whatever they create, it's usually available for fractions of a cent to most of those who want to hear it. Touring still brings in some money, but the tours are really expensive to set up, and because of that, tickets for the public are not cheap.

I notice that at a tiny concert venue in Truro, Massachusetts, near where I hide for my summer vacation, some really important names come by, such as Graham Nash. In the 1980s, when he was still part of CSN, he was filling Madison Square Garden. I've gotten to see Béla Fleck, Jesse Colin Young, John Mayall, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Dave Mason, Arlo Guthrie, some really class acts at this tiny tent out on the tip of Cape Cod. We have yet to see Cheryl Crow there, but maybe that is only a question of time (we should be so lucky!!). I don't care if her net worth exceeds that of Jeff Bezos--if she wants to come play Truro, Mass., I will be there!

[Trueblue1968]

23. Oh little Crow ... I wish i had your problems. My house is falling down.

[leftyladyfrommo]

27. Mine is, too. The cost of repairs has gone

through the roof.

My fridge quit. It's old. Do you know how much new appliances cost? I'm using a cooler for right now.

[Trueblue1968]

62. We need a new roof aand deck on our floating home

[meadowlander]

24. I think she's complaining about systemic issues that affect all musicians

not just the ones who have $70 million dollars.

The restructuring of the media industry and the shift to digital/streaming/on-demand has meant a lot of artists, who never made a ton before, are not making enough to continue in the industry. I have a relative who made a living as a writer full-time for 15 years who has now had to take a day job again because of changes in the way Amazon pays authors.

Even if you don't care about what that means for individual artists, you should care about what it means for art.

[progressoid]

36. +1

This

[ShazzieB]

43. Agreed.

[twodogsbarking]

25. The business model changed. Don Henley whines the same tune.

I can't put food on my table.

[obamanut2012]

80. It isn't a whine -- they are being ripped off

[twodogsbarking]

86. Sorry I am not a whine expert.

[LisaM]

26. I think they are putting words in her mouth.

I can't find any evidence she actually said she is having trouble keeping a roof over her head.

I appreciate when successful artists understand that up and comers and those who are actually struggling are getting ripped off by streaming services. They have clout and if they don't speak up, who will?

I despise the streaming model.

[KT2000]

30. She is not a very good singer

so her songs are not going to age well with subsequent generations. She had her time, which I believe is the business model now.

[Straw Man]

114. Hmm?

She is not a very good singer

She may not be to your taste, but ... not a good singer? She got the gig with Michael Jackson when he was at the peak of his fame. I guess they couldn't find anyone better, huh?

[Bucky]

131. Are you kidding? She's awesome.

She writes great music and knows how to belt 'em out. If she went out on tour, she'd make serious bank.
She became rich & entitled by being a talented musician.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

31. Google searches for net worth are wildly wrong.

I don't know why we are shitting on artists who rarely get a fraction of what they make for big companies.

[ShazzieB]

44. +1

[demmiblue]

60. +1

[ProfessorGAC]

179. I Found 4 Different Numbers

30 to 70 million. The 70 showed up multiple times.
Given she's sold 50 million albums & holds writer's rights, it has to be in that range.
But, only she would know what the real number is.

[dwking66]

33. Interesting responses here

I will freely admit Sheryl Crow's comments are a bad look in light of her obvious wealth - but she is fundamentally correct about the ugliness of the music business.

It is also a bad look, and awfully surprising, to see some of the posts in response that shrug off the very real corporate rip-off of musicians by streaming services. My daughter works in music publishing for one of the top three companies and keeps me current with trends in the business, as my checkered past includes being a musician.

The pittance paid to unestablished artists is in line with the garbage deals made with blues musicians back in the Fifties. Many established artists can negotiate somewhat better terms, but even many of them cannot. The exploitive nature of the business hasn't changed, it has just become more efficient in its greed. With the change in how music is acquired and the slow death of competing platforms like CD, you must stream, or you don't get your music out in the world.

Worthy is the worker of his wage and so forth... I thought that was kind of foundational with Democrats. Am I wrong?

[meadowlander]

41. And if it wasn't a famous artist saying it, who would be paying any attention?

[demmiblue]

65. You are not wrong.

However, some conservative thinking does come to surface on occasion.

As does jumping on the bandwagon before really thinking something through.

[obamanut2012]

83. Seriously -- wtf am I raeding?

These comments are something else.

[Unwind Your Mind]

173. Welcome to DU

I like your writings

[keep_left]

35. Apropos of Spotify, didn't Taylor Swift pull all her material from that service?

I'm pretty sure she quit Spotify a few years ago.

Sheryl Crow might be a little guilty of having a pity party, but she's right about how much the business model has changed, and that it's unsustainable for artists. Whatever you think of Taylor Swift's music, she is extremely savvy when it comes to business decisions.

[pnwmom]

39. My take is she's not really complaining she's not rich enough. She's talking about the MUSIC INDUSTRY.

If it's this hard for an established performer, it's that much harder for new people coming up in the current environment.

[Arthur_Frain]

46. It sucked when the David Geffens of the world

ate up all the profits, and gate kept what artists got recorded at all. Still if you hit it big, the artist did stand to get royalties through cd sales and radio play.

Her point that streaming services pauperize artists is spot on though. Plus the minute you sign a streaming agreement you lose any control you might have had over your intellectual property.

It’s a horrible time to be trying to make money as a musician.

[TeamProg]

52. Yeah, but listeners / fans want and almost expect (!) music for free these days. She is largely wrong though, there are

people who DO BUY records these days, just not hers apparently.

[ZZenith]

66. Not anywhere close to what it was.

Total record sales of all forms - CD, vinyl, cassette, etc. is not even 5% of what it was 20 years ago.

[TeamProg]

68. 5% sounds about right, unfortunately! nt

[Arthur_Frain]

99. You're absolutely right.

They even brought back vinyl, and CDs are an obsolete technology already. I still like buying CDs directly from the musicians who come through town to do a show.

For my money, it’s worth it to buy my CD, I’ve had the streaming services delete or fail to offer a particular performance more than once.

[ZZenith]

105. You are awesome.

Buying a musician’s merchandise at the show is the last real way to support them. Touring expenses are ungodly these days so your ticket price is all going to that. Only way they can run a profit is in-person sales. We’ve come full circle back to the days of artists needing patrons to survive.

[jaxexpat]

47. Obviously, you're having difficulty coping with how primitive your lifestyle actually is.............

Thats' why there's a support group for deprived people like us and others. It's called the FOHKUA, Federation of Hard Knock University Alumni. We're here to help fellow losers adjust to their realities by encouraging them to see the world for what it is: a playpen for the top 0.0001% to play with us and care for us like we are their pets. The world value-of-life system is actually based on the fact: most pets are ignored most of the time, then die, mostly forgotten, forever, and on the other fact: the most abundant of living things are memorialized in the fossil record and make up the pavement base for our roadways. Good job! ancestors!

[TeamProg]

48. This is so sad, makes me want to cry! Leave Sheryl Crow alone!

[barbtries]

49. if she isn't living comfortably to say the least,

she fucked up somewhere down the line.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

55. Remember Napster?

It was confounding at the time that you could listen to new music, when you wanted, for no cost.

Clearly she and new to the business musicians aren't making the money they should. I make a point to purchase music of those I really love. But I get to hear tons of free music on Pandora, repeatedly. No limits. Maybe that should be a negotiating tactic. Limit the number of free listens.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. The "roof over her head" bit is from an anonymous "friend". "In Touch" doesn't have a great reputation

for honest reporting, so take it with a pinch of salt. In the actual podcast, I think it's just the actual quote from her in the OP (there are about 2 minutes, mainly of Maher bloviating and pointless reminiscing about an LA bookstore, between "sick" and "I hate it" ), though I'm not listening to over an hour of Maher to check.

However, she did start this (at about 5 minutes into the podcast) by saying "till Bob Dylan did the Victoria's Secret ad, nobody did advertisements or took money for anything except for playing music and selling records", which is dumb (Dylan did that in 2004). Did she not have a TV when she was growing up?

[Otterdaemmerung]

58. This ain't no disco!

This ain't no country club either.

[demmiblue]

59. Well, this is a bad take (not hers). n/t

[oasis]

63. Go Fund Sheryl. While she

still has a roof over her head.

[BigmanPigman]

87. That's what I thought too.

Maybe she'll follow Mary Lou Retton's going on TV crying she doesn't have heallthcare and set up a "go fund me". They have no shame.

[onecaliberal]

64. But astonishingly we are expected to live on 7.60 an hour.

[Abolishinist]

110. Really? What percentage of workers live on $7.60 per hour?

Thanks in advance!

[onecaliberal]

112. That is the federal minimum wage. Give or take a few.

There are people waiting table in the south for 2 dollars and something per hour plus tips.

[Bucky]

136. It's 7.25 per hour and 1.3% of workers were earning that much in 2022

Here's the link for that figure ==> https://usafacts.org/articles/minimum-wage-america-how-many-people-are-earning-725-hour/

The average American hourly wage earner is making $11.11 an hour, which would be at $22,000 if working full time and not getting a paid vacation. The $7.25 wage was set 15 years ago. If it'd been anchored to the federal CPI inflation rate, it would come out to $10.55 per hour today (or $31k per year).

Average one-bedroom apartments costs $1117 per month or $13,400 per year. That would constitute 61% of an average wage earner's annual salary (or 92% of a minimum wage earner's salary). As long as they don't drive, wear clothes, eat, or pursue any hobbies, they'll be okay.

[True Dough]

156. The U.S. workforce in 2022

amounted to approximately 164 million people, making 1.3% more than 2.1 million people. Not an insignificant number of folks trying to scrape by on a miniscule income.

[Abolishinist]

159. Your 2.1 million computation is flawed. The total U.S. workforce

is comprised of both hourly wage earners and those who are salaried. The 1.3% amount is for hourly workers only, representing 55% percent of all wage and salary workers. Of course, there could be those on salary whose computed hourly rate might be at or below the minimum wage.

The number, according to the article, is around one million, or .7% of the work force.

[Abolishinist]

160. My thanks to Bucky for giving some perspective to your statement,

the number of wage earners being paid the federal minimum wage is around 1.3%.

Also, you make it sound as though some who are paid tips are making less than the minimum wage, not true. Those who are paid the federal tipped wage of $2.13 per hour still have to be paid the federal minimum wage, i.e. if they earn less than this the employer has to make up the difference.

[onecaliberal]

164. Sure Jan.

You should talk to someone living it.

[multigraincracker]

67. Put all of that pain into

a new hit Blues record.

[bluesbassman]

70. She's not wrong. Nobody I know in the music biz is making money off recordings.

Sure, you can sell a few signed CD’s or some vinyl at the merch table, but it’s the rest of the products on the table and the gig money that sustains you. Touring is the only way to make a living and that means being on the road 200 to 300 days a year including traveling.

[RainCaster]

73. Taylor Swift is doing rather well at it, she's a billionaire

She's not my cup of tea, but lots of people are sending money her way.

[bluesbassman]

75. Yes, she has done very well, but something of an anomaly.

She tapped into a market that buys anything associated with her, including physical media. That just isn't even remotely common anymore. Still, her Eras tour generated $1 Billion, first tour to ever do that, so even she is generated a significant portion of her wealth from touring and the merch sales associated with it.

[NameAlreadyTaken]

77. Somehow Taylor Swift figured out how to make money.

[twodogsbarking]

88. Writing is part of it

https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-solo-written-songs-2023-7#i-heart-6

[Voltaire2]

141. She made her money before streaming.

Which is her point.

[NanaCat]

78. Don't assume her net worth is that high

First of all, those are usually guesses, and rarely aligned with reality. Surely you learned that from all these years of lies about TSF's worth.

But there's probably a good reason why she isn't as rich as you might think:

Christina Aguilera long ago revealed that her monster eponymous first album may have gone multi-platinum, with multiple hit songs, but she made under $150K off that first year's physical sales.

Blink 182, another massively successful band? When they were riding the high of having a Top 10 single and album, one of the members had to call his dad to cover his cell phone bill while he was on tour, because he couldn't afford to pay it himself. Even the per diem they received barely covered their meals.

The music business has long exploited the artists, raking in all of their creativity and labour, and giving back a pittance.

[obamanut2012]

84. No way is it that high

[MorbidButterflyTat]

91. This reminds me of an awesome, pissed off Queen song

from 1975 "A Night at the Opera," album. Nothing new about artists getting ripped off by suits.

Dedicated to...

...their original manager and Trident Studios owner Norman Sheffield. Gorgeous kickass song.

"Death on Two Legs" :

https://music.

Love it so much! Enjoy!

[tavernier]

158. The rest of Queen were a little hesitant to record it

but Freddie insisted. Queen got “royally” screwed by Trident and Fred wasn’t having it. They became quite savvy and protective of their work after that.

Yup, awesome song. I wouldn’t want to be his enemy.

[obamanut2012]

82. You know, rich people have a right not to be ripped off, too

Sheryl Crow is also not a "has been" like some posters have said.

Musicians are ripped off even worse now than they used to be, and Crow is bringing that to light even more. She has a right to be treated fairly -- I thought that's what we as liberals wanted? In addition, she is a liberal and has consistently mentored and helped younger artists.

Some of the comments on this thread are something else. They read more like Facebook comments than DU.

on edit: I consider her very talented but am eh on her music, so not some superfan, just a good liberal recognizing she is right.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

92. Agreed.

I've noticed more than a few comments on various threads that reek of nastiness lately.

I remember the backlash to Metallica when they dared to try to protect their copyrighted, creative property from Napster theft.

Sometimes people suck.

[Traildogbob]

137. 🤜🤛

My God I thought I was on Truth Social Seniors only forum reading some of this bitching.
And if you think there is no good music out today, maybe drop the GQP Shawn Hannity playlist bubble you are in.
There are unlimited musicians out there now, with genius lyrics and stories.
Void of “Yes Yea Yea, I will die without you, baby baby baby”. elementary songwriting.
I personally love Sheryl. And her and Lance were my Fav power couple as a musician and a bike racer myself. But hell, damn you Lance.
Streaming free and digital is a real rip off to musicians, but I am gonna continue discovering amazing talent, load it on my portable juke box (phone) and rock till I drop.
No more radio loud mouths between dings, no cassette and no skipping CD with a big ass player while I’m hiking.
Sheryl battled breast cancer adopted two baby boys that may have ended up in foster.
Plus she is a hard liberal. And Not Kid Rock, Ye, Nugent or Lee Greenwood.
In her early career, like many women, faught her ass off in a male dominated industry top to bottom, where women were not accepted as guitarist and vocalist.
She did work her ass off to get her money.
And yes, we all are facing the possibility of going bankrupt at any time.
My two cents. That’s all I got. Now I’m another broke musician.
Thank you Obamanut2012 for standing by her.

[republianmushroom]

85. How much money have you whizzed away, Ms. Crow ?

[twodogsbarking]

90. She needs to pack her lunch to save money.

Anyone out there ever do that?

[shrike3]

93. Try being an average working musician.

I know many of them. A few of them still put out CDs and EPs and I always buy them, even if I don't play the things. It's rough out there.

They make no money from streaming. I figure I'm at least putting a few bucks in their pocket.

[OldBaldy1701E]

95. Tried it for forty-seven years.

It was not easy back then. It has become MUCH, MUCH, MUCH harder since that time. Less than 0.02 percent of performers make a good living at it. It destroyed me. So, although Ms. Crow is doing okay even if she only has half of her purported wealth, she is an anomaly when it comes to the entertainment business. Because, it IS a business now. It used to be about art.

Those days are long gone.

[shrike3]

117. I can remember Alice Cooper talking about his early days.

In Detroit and Ann Arbor he was able to earn enough playing music to afford an apartment, expenses, a car. Iggy Pop and Bob Seger were in the same scene. Those days are long gone, he said.

The local scene is great and I feel lucky to see such talent on a regular basis. But it makes me sad that people I know would have gone a lot further in a different era.

I hope life has been good to you lately.

[JoseBalow]

94. I love seeing rich folk cry about losing money

Those rich tears just warm my heart

[GreenWave]

96. Oh the times, they are a'changing.

Some folks adapt.

[XorXor]

100. I'm not sure multi-millionaires are the best people to use when trying to highlight the plight of struggling muscians

Even if the case of them being screwed over is true, they are not sympathetic characters when they clearly have enough to want for nothing, but still claim they are struggling to get by the same way non-millionaires do.

[Silent3]

104. I'm capable of both agreeing it's a shitty deal for artists these days, and also not having too much sympathy...

...when someone either pisses away $70M or doesn't think that's good enough for a more than comfortable and luxurious life.

[All Mixed Up]

106. Sorry. I don't care how much her net worth is (and net worth is a garbage number anyway).

If she's being ripped off I promise you much less fortunate artists are as well.

[Norbert]

111. I can see her point

She is lucky to come at a time when you can sell millions of CDs and have the best of these songs played by radio stations all over the country. An artist today like Maggie Rogers, who should be making money hand over fist, and enjoy the same amenities, does not.

I get what she is saying and have agreed with her over the years on most things. She is probably coming to grips with the changing music industry going from record sales to ticket sales for making money. As with the sleazy hangers-on that helped themselves to hitmakers money back in the day, they have probably turned into sleazy ticket sellers and concert promoters. Shaming her for being a millionaire? Come on. We can do better than that.

[betsuni]

115. She doesn't make music all by herself, those employed in the music business are affected.

Like what Anthony Bourdain said about celebrity chefs being sell-outs, then changing his mind about trashing them because they employ a lot of people. It takes a village sort of thing.

Rich or poor, stereotyping people because of economic status is not good.

[Mike Nelson]

126. Oh, no!

... poor baby. Sorry, I can't help. I hope she has enough to eat. Nothing against her music, but I don't own any Sheryl Crow albums. Too bad she lost the $15 million fortune... but 40,000 units is pretty good. She should hold out for a bigger percentage. I have heard of her and think she could get a big enough deal to make a living.

[dlk]

127. In the music industry, as with many other artistic genres, it's the suits who enjoy the lion's share of the profits

Artists, understandably, aren't happy. It's their work product making the money. No one likes to be exploited.

[BobTheSubgenius]

129. Ahhhh. But how much staff do you have employed in your home?

Do you have a small fleet of exotic cars that need constant servicing and polishing, to say nothing of the fuel bills???

It reminds me of a conversation I was in many years ago. The person who made this comment was raised on one of the most prestigious streets in the city, and it was named for his great-grandfather. The mini-topic was the surprising amount of traffic at this ski resort during this late spring season.

"Well, there's now a lot more to do in the summer up here, and it's also the economy. In the past, people had their home in the city, their summer place in the Gulf Islands, and a ski chalet here. With the economy like it is, a lot of people can only afford one vacation property."

Said without a trace of irony.

[AnrothElf]

138. Some serious "Get off my lawn," and "OK, Boomer" vibes in this thread.

If some nobody had given the same interview, instead of some "has-been" (not my words... read the thread), then we wouldn't be reading about it on DU, at all, because that interview wouldn't have been published.

Crow is advocating for artists. Good for her!! I'm sorry that some of you seem to think successful artists are undeserving... You're clearly not artists, or you would have a helluva lot more compassion.

I've seen the same shitty attitude toward artists vis-a-vis "AI" "art" -- here and elsewhere on the supposedly "left-leaning" Interwebz.

Anyone who's every tried to work as an artist hears one thing from Crow. A lot of people who have not seem to hear something else, entirely.

Non-artists don't get it. Every once in a while you mean someone with the soul of an artist, but no talent. They might get it.

Artists, tho... artists get it.

Art is one area of human endeavor where there are DEFINITELY elites and the hoi-poloi. If you're a talentless hack, you're a talentless hack. Keep practicing! But nobody owes you shit.

If you "make it" you make it. If you made it on talent, that's apparent to everyone -- especially other artists. If you made it only because you were pumped relentlessly by the corporation that owns the production rights to your work... You're still a talentless hack, and while that might not be apparent to everyone, it's still apparent to other artists.

ART is not pleasant. It's not there to amuse the audience.

ART is dangerous. It's ephemeral. It mutates. It infects and metastasizes. It is not to be pinned down, or defined, or limited, or outlined.

So... "OK, Boomer"... we get it. You like Lynnard Skinnard (barf) or whatever. You had your say. Now I've had mine.

[Sugarcoated]

147. Ikr?

I'm an artist, musician and singer, thank you for saying all that.

[AnrothElf]

163. For sure... Artists get it.

I know I said, "OK, Boomer," but... It's a multi-generational phenomenon. Art history is replete with the ebb and tide of aesthetic, social, and political movements. Some talentless old-timers are always ready for another round of "get off my lawn". Used to be it was "The Academy", but at least the academy had *some* artistic sensibility, even if they disagreed with the vision of a younger generation.

These days it's even stupider... yokels being like, "I don't know art, but I know what I like."

Ugh... The response should be: "Nobody asked you! Nobody cares about your shitty opinion of the art and music that I love!"

Some are envious, I think, that they lack talent -- or that the world doesn't recognize their undiscovered genius. Who knows, but a certain sort of person loves to be like, "I could do that!" when they're looking at a Rothko...

"Yeah well, buddy, you didn't. You were too busy playing football (or whatever)."

Artists get it, though... because artists know how to get to Carnegie Hall... "Practice! Practice! Practice!" Because art is a lifelong endeavor. It's an identity, more than an occupation.

I know I'm coming off harsh on those criticizing Crow. Defensive, yes! Maybe because I've been dealing with the same shit my entire adult life, and I'm sick of it.

I stand with artists.

[sl8]

149. Not even from an interview.

Their source is an unnamed friend and one comment Crow made on Bill Maher's show.

[Mr.Bill]

143. It's beginning to look like

I was very lucky to keep every record album I ever bought since 1961. I have about 300 record albums, all in excellent condition. I have downsized my stereo rig over the years, but at 70 years old I have enough hard copy music to entertain me for the rest of my life, most of it from the 60s and 70s.

As for the price of tickets for concerts, some of the best musicians you will ever hear are playing in bars and night clubs, often with no cover charge. And better yet, now you don't have to prowl all the bars to see who the good ones are. Just look them up on YouTube for a preview. This is especially true if you live in a metropolitan area. I spent the 80s in the blues clubs in Silicon Valley and saw some incredible musicians you probably never heard of, often sitting with in 20 feet of the band. All for the price of a few beers.

[Jacson6]

148. The money is now in live performances.

Few people buy CD's any more.

[mahina]

150. I don't get self-pity from the message as much as a heads up about this change for musicians

She made her money before the change and that couldn’t happen now

[sl8]

152. Did Crow actually say that?

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2024, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Inhouse gives an unnamed friend as their source for that "keeping a roof over her head" quote, not Crow herself.

[gopiscrap]

157. so while she was reeling in the big bucks

she never set aside money for her later years?

[Sugarcoated]

161. People taking what "In Touch" magazine says seriously

And we accuse the other side of being gullible

[dawg]

170. Maybe now she understands how Kevin Gilbert and the other guys ...

in the Tuesday Night Music Club felt.

[IcyPeas]

176. She's talking about the music industry. But heres a tour of one of her houses...

From Architectural Digest...

[AkFemDem]

178. It's amazing how many people have an opinion without actually listening to the interview

1. She's right- digital sales don't benefit artists the way vinyl sales did and it does suck.

2. This is a woman who has donated MILLIONS to various charities including World Kitchen, children's charities and for breast cancer research- in fact, she's so invested in the area of breast cancer research she OPENED HER OWN CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION. What have you done lately?