Artist Management VS. Self-Management


            Being a creative artist has its share of difficulties.  To create and manage a career as an artist would require the expertise of someone who knows the business and financial aspects of entertainment business.  Hiring a professional in this field would allow the artist to fully concentrate on their craft.  However, there are people out there that will take advantage of those who are ignorant to these concepts.  More artists today are seeking to abandon the idea of the artist manager and decide to manage themselves instead.
            There are both advantages and disadvantages to having a manager as an artist.  As I mentioned earlier, the artist can commit to the development of their talents while a manager is responsible for the business aspects of their career.  Reputable managers also have knowledge of the necessary contacts and resources to expand the artist’s career, such as venue managers, promoters, and radio personnel.  Of course, there is also the risk of being taken advantage of by shifty managers.  This blog (Warning: Strong Language) demonstrates some instances where managers have exploited their artists’ lack of industry knowledge for their own benefit.  Colonel Tom Parker, the manager of Elvis Presley, was receiving over 50% of the artist’s earnings by the end of his career.  Bob Dylan’s manager, Albert Grossman, took a similar route and was reported to have taken 25% of the revenue.  The norm at the time of a manager’s salary was about 15% of the artist’s earnings.  Had the artists known that industry knowledge ahead of time, they could have better negotiated their contractual terms.
            Self-management seems to be the trend with most current bands.  Without a manager or record label, artists can have more freedom and control in the direction of their careers.  Bands have started turning to crowdsourcing to help fund their creative aspirations, such as filming a music video and recording their next album.  But, self-management seems to benefit those who have been in the industry and are knowledgeable in their business and finances.  Especially within the entertainment industry, credibility and knowing the right contacts are some of the most important factors in the success of rising artists.  In the case of Melissa James, even though she has already established her role as an artist and is known throughout the community, her credibility as a manager does not exist and has been dismissed by many industry contacts in her attempts to promote her new record.  And without being known by a strong fan base, methods like crowdsourcing would prove unsuccessful if nobody even knows the artist’s existence.  Taking on multiple roles as a self-managed artist can also take away from their craft, both time-wise and inspirationally.
            There are obviously pros and cons to each side of the artist management vs. self-management argument.  Artists can have the option of managing their own careers, but it would be more successful if they had help in developing their image and presence early in their career.  It’s always good to know basic knowledge of the entertainment industry, like the average percentage artist managers normally take from the artist, before establishing binding terms.  Then, once the artists see how the industry is run, they can better decide on how to continue their careers, whether it’s renegotiating a contract with a current manager or venturing out their own.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 28, 2013. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.

7 Responses to “Artist Management VS. Self-Management”