Final Summary
Research to Support Musicians in Austin
Introduction
This study evaluates the City of Austin’s support for musicians and the music entertainment landscape by examining existing arts policy, musicians’ perceptions of City services, their individual concerns and challenges, and then suggests changes to address those concerns. As opposed to existing studies, our research proposes new ways that city institutions or policies could more directly benefit local live music making. The analysis draws upon mixed-methods research including statistical and demographic surveys, interviews, and an examination of existing academic and policy literature related to arts management. The summary document is organized into four sections: (1) a summary of existing literature, (2) an overview of interviews with local musicians, (3) a discussion of musicians’ concerns or challenges, and (4) recommendations for changes to City policy. A final segment briefly describes musicians’ reflections on possible changes to City policy as regards music venues and mentions topics deserving of further discussion in future studies.
Outline
- Summary of Existing Literature
1.1- Greater Austin Music Census, p. 3
1.2- Historical Inequalities, p.3
1.3- Music and Labor Literature, p.6
1.4- How Musicians Get Paid, p.7
1.5- Music Cities Literature, p.8
1.6- Music and Sustainability, p.9
1.7- Local Non-Profits, p.10
1.8-Austin Festivals’ Support of Local Artists, p.10 - Overview of Interviews with Musicians
2.1-Demographic Data on Our Interviewees, p.11
2.2- Discussion of the Interviews, p.12
2.3- Annual Incomes, p.12
2.4- Average Pay Per Show, p.13
2.5- Average Performances Per Week, p.13
2.6- Experiences with Booking Agents and Music Venue Managers, p.14
2.7- Experiences with Non-Profits, p.14
2.8- Experiences with State, City, and Regional Arts Initiatives, p.15 - Musicians’ Concerns, Challenges
3.1- Income, p.16
3.2- Cost of Living, p.17
3.3- Housing, p.17
3.4- Health care, p.18
3.5- Retirement, p.18
3.6- The Costs of Creating, p.18
3.7- Booking Promotion, Advertising, Legal Representation, p.18
3.8- Career Advancement, p.19
3.9- Parking, p.19
3.10- Audiences, p.19
3.11- The Decline of Independent Venues, p.20
3.12- Concerns of Women, Minorities, p.20
3.13- Climate Change, p.20 - Recommendations
4.1- Structural Changes, p.22
4.2- New Revenue Streams, p.22
4.3- Increased Economic Support for Musicians, p.23
4.4- Housing Interventions, p.24
4.5- Ensure Live Music is Part of All City Occasions, p.25
4.6- New Performance Venues, p.25
4.7- Ensure Local Performers are Prominent in Festivals, p.26
4.8- A Centralized Website for Musicians, p.26
4.9- Training Programs, Workshops, p.27
4.10- Parking/Transportation, p.28
4.11- Closer Collaborations with Non-Profits, p.29
4.12- Collaborations with the Film Industry, p.30
4.13- Additional Community Input on Grant Awards, p.30
4.14- Climate Change Plan for Music, p.30
4.15- Topics for Further Study, p.31 - Summary of Existing Literature
1.1 Greater Austin Music Census 2022
The Greater Austin Music Census conducted most recently in 2022 provides useful information that has informed our study, primarily in terms of identifying broad trends in local music making. Administered by Sound Music Cities and supported by the mayor’s office and many non-profit arts institutions, the census resulted in a summary document, a longer “Data Deck” reviewing responses to a questionnaire at greater length, and a third document devoted to DEI-related topics. All results derive from an online survey filled out by over 2000 individuals associated with in the music industry in various capacities.
The Census provides a great deal of demographic data and general information about performers in Austin that help frame our study. It notes that the overall ration of male to female performers is about 2:1 and that roughly 60% identify as white, 15% as Hispanic, 6% as Black, 4% as Asian, and 4% as multiracial (Data Deck p. 35). The percentage of Hispanic and Black performers appears to be gradually increasing, as well as the involvement of women. Most musicians describe earning the bulk of their income from live performances, but many also teach, take jobs in the recording studio, or diversify their income in other ways, often by working outside the arts sector (p. 41). A majority work as freelancers. Performers have tended to leave the City of Austin lately because of the high cost of living, moving to peripheral towns such as Buda, Bastrop, Kyle, or Pflugerville. Perhaps for that reason, the live music making they take part in has been organized more regularly in venues outside of the City and less exclusively downtown. The most concerning trends noted by the Census include the fact that fewer young performers are choosing music making as a career relative to earlier decades, in part because of the difficulty of making a living in the arts. Additionally, the number of paid performances musicians take part in has dropped since the last census in 2014, in part due to the effect of Covid-19; almost 30% of respondents suggested that they have yet to achieve the same level of performance activity as before the pandemic (p. 43).
1.2 Historical Inequalities
Musical diversity in the Austin area derives from the layered presence of First Nation communities (Coahuiltecan, Tonkawa, Apache and Lipan Apache among others), Spanish-speaking groups, formerly enslaved and free African Americans, settlers from Central Europe and Germany into the 19th century, and continual waves of new residents throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. These groups have been differently impacted by structures of power, governance, unequal legal treatment, and varying degrees of access to economic, educational, housing, and health opportunities. Such uneven treatment alongside political and economic changes over time have impacted these groups’ creative and community-sustaining cultural activities. In all, Austin’s musical communities have a long history of diversity, yet their activities have received uneven recognition.
As shown in multiple studies, the impact of racial segregation and the city’s “1928 Master Plan” (link here for report; here for summary) have contributed to ongoing inequities in terms of housing, employment, education, transportation and health services into the 21st century, despite desegregation efforts. The majority of Hispanic and communities of color live east of I-35 or far north of the City center. Entertainment venues and marketing efforts have traditionally focused on white genres such as country and singer-songwriter/indie music. Genres such as Texas blues, jazz, and Hispanic genres (conjunto, mariachi) have historically been foregrounded less often as signifying Austin and/or Texas culture; resources supporting cultural development typically focus on central Austin and West Austin, which historically have been white middle-to-upper class neighborhoods.
1.3 Music and Labor Literature
While musical performances are highly visible, the extended labor and training that support professional musicianship and consume a majority of musicians’ time and effort (practicing, songwriting, learning new technologies, recording, disseminating works, grant-writing, negotiating contracts, travel to shows, equipment setup and breakdown) are typically uncompensated. Musical training consists of two forms of uncompensated labor: physical and mental mastery of specific music-related skills, and non-musical activities that facilitate performance. Musical skill-building requires countless hours of uncompensated labor to gain mastery of (an) instrument(s). In addition to an estimated 10,000 hours of physical and mental training, as Richard Sennett notes, aspiring professional musicians also spend time practicing on their own and with ensemble members, memorizing repertoire, learning and refining stylistic inflections, acquiring foundational skills for improvising (for some genres) and building and maintaining social networks with fellow musicians. In most cases, musicians are not financially compensated for such hidden labor; that is, musicians they only receive a payment per performances, possibly from royalties/recordings, and only in rare cases for pre-performance rehearsals. Most musicians must practice hours each day on their own and within ensembles in order to meet performance expectations. They cannot succeed professionally without doing so.
Musicians must train in multiple genres, perform for a variety of venues, and belong to several groups in order to receive adequate wages; very few achieve star status allowing them to rely on a single musical style, band, or genre. And they support themselves through additional music and non-music related work. Music-related activities they undertake for payment include: teaching, conducting, generating musical arrangements, transcribing, repairing instruments, recording, and sound engineering. Non-music-related jobs held by performers run the gamut from graphic design, administrative office work, construction, academic tutoring, food service, health services, and more.
1.4 How Musicians Get Paid
Austin musicians receive income from a number of revenue streams, both within and beyond the music industry. The 2022 music census identifies the most common sources of income in order of prevalence: local live gigs (local), touring gigs, merchandise sales, sales of recordings, teaching, songwriting, and studio and production work.
The model for live music pay varies. Some venues guarantee a flat rate per show, while others participate in revenue-sharing models, offering a percentage of the cover charge (“the door”) or alcohol sales (“the bar”). Both models have drawbacks. Guarantees are more reliable, since musicians are able to account for how much they will make for a performance in deciding whether or not to take the offer, or in budgeting for personnel, travel, or other related—and often hidden—costs. However, an especially busy night at the venue will not translate into more income for the band, and entertainment is often the reason people come to the venue in the first place. To address this, some owners offer a cut of “the door” or “the bar” to the musicians. The benefit of this is what some see as a more equitable relationship between the venue and the musicians hired to attract patrons. However, if the income from the show is lower than expected, bands can often make less than those with a guarantee — or nothing at all. In some cases, these arrangements often come with the stipulation that musicians help promoting the show and bring the audience; some venues even go as far as to force the band to pay the venue if baseline numbers are not met.
While many musicians still rely on live performances as their primary means of income from music, others include revenue from alternative sources, like “sync licensing” or through streaming platforms. A music synchronization license (“sync licensing”) enables musicians to draw income by allowing others to use their music in films, television shows, advertisements, or similar forms of media. For many musicians working in a city that lacks a substantial music industry infrastructure, sync licensing represents an important means of generating revenue from music, and especially in Austin given its prominence in the tech and media landscape. Since synch work involves creating music in your home studio and sending it to clients digitally, it can be done virtually and enables local artists to engage in national/international collaborations. Local companies such as SoundSync allow artists to license their work both within and beyond Austin. Austin-based composer Sam Lipman regularly composes original music for film and television for projects as far away as Australia. However, as a 2022 story by the Pause/Play podcast highlights, many musicians are unfamiliar with the processes and procedures of sync licensing and some see this lack of information as another instance of “gatekeeping” within the local scene.
For years, online platforms like iTunes (now Apple Music), Spotify, Deezer, or Tidal were touted as a place for musicians to generate income through streaming. Increasingly, these companies have come under scrutiny for the low level of compensation paid to artists as well as other exploitive practices. More recently, changes in pay policies — especially on Spotify — have demonstrated that streaming is not the lucrative revenue stream many believed it to be for most artists. Interviewees report little or no income from streaming and use it primarily as a means of driving brand recognition.
The City Council has adopted a standard pay rate for musicians who play for city-organized events. The current rate (updated 2019) is $200/hr. per person, though the rate changes with the addition of more musicians. The City Council has little power to enforce this pay scale beyond their own events, yet one hopes through their advocacy it will become a “baseline” level of compensation for all venues in the City. Unfortunately, interviewees report being paid substantially below this level for most live performances. As Covid began to affect traditional income , the City provided other resources to supplement the earnings of local musicians. Chief among them are the Live Music Fund (LMF) and Cultural Arts Funding Grants, both administered by the City of Austin and funded by a Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) created to promote local tourism. The creation and administration of these grants are not without controversy, primarily concerning whether funding should be used to sustain venues or be offered directly to artists themselves. In 2023, the LMF provided funds directly to 368 artists; the 2024 awards will also be available to venues and promoters. Non-profits are also a source of support to musicians, and organizations like Sonic Guild and Diversity Awareness and Wellness in Action (DAWA) provide funds to individuals in support of specific projects.
1.5 Music Cities Literature
Research on ‘music cities’ — cities which actively implement policies to sustain music ecosystems — is extensive. Entities such as Sound Diplomacy, the Center for Music Ecosystems, and Music Cities Network explore the economic impact of music and the frameworks used to sustain ‘music ecosystems.’ They include a variety of elements such as musicians, venues, music companies, publishers, recording studios, record companies, non-profit organizations, education programs, and other resources which function together to sustain live performance.
Whitepapers like the European Music Policy Guide make broad recommendations to governments in order to improve local music ecosystems. Areas addressed in the EMPG include equality, diversity and inclusion, climate action, providing access to jobs, job training, and music education, and promoting tourism and the role of music in the nighttime economy. Other reports like the Rescue Plan for London’s Grassroots Music Venues offer specific policy recommendations to help sustain grassroots venues in the city such as explicitly including music venues in city planning and offering them special zoning and tax credits or breaks. Global initiatives like World Cities Culture Forum consider the role of music as part of a broader arts and culture ecosystem within particular cities by looking at data such as creative industry employment.
In the United States, similar reports exist for cities of various sizes and stages of music industry development, ranging from major music industry hubs like New York City, Los Angeles, and Nashville to historically relevant music cities like New Orleans and Memphis, or others hoping to attract more music such as Huntsville, Alabama. We look to major hubs and historically relevant cities in order to gain lessons from their experiences.
Key areas of concern from both domestic and international studies include housing affordability, gender equality in the arts, education and training – or jobs and skills – for performers. Several studies recommend supporting more monetization and administration of music rather than just supporting music creation. Monetization opportunities may include publishing and licensing, which require administrative support and industry infrastructure. Another salient recommendation is to create music hubs or spaces that serve as both symbolic cultural centers and practical sites for musicians to access and share resources, training, and education.
1.6 Sustainability
In the last two decades, scholars have discussed the challenges facing music communities through the framework of cultural sustainability. Such writings dialogue with the notion of sustainability in studies of climate change, ecology, and other environmental sciences. According to the United Nations’ Brundtland Report, sustainable approaches seek development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Understanding unlimited growth as impossible given finite resources, sustainable development aims instead to find holistic and reproducible solutions to global challenges. Applied to music, sustainability discourses allow us to consider how to best foster robust and diverse music communities through grassroots activism, institutional collaborations, education, and other means. Music scholar Catherine Grant identifies five key domains through which individuals develop sustainable music cultures: systems of learning music, musicians and communities, contexts and constructs, infrastructure and regulations, and media and the music industry. Of these categories, studies of institutional infrastructure and regulations are particularly relevant to the concerns of the City of Austin.
Literature on the initiatives of governments and international institutions highlight how attempts to sustain traditions rely on a complex interplay of economic, social, and institutional factors. For example, several authors have examined UNESCO efforts to safeguard tradition and provide resources to musicians through its Intangible Cultural Heritage designations, noting how such labels confer prestige but can also have unintended consequences that negatively impact music communities. In the context of Texas, scholar Dan Margolies argues that the conjunto communities of the Rio Grande Valley present a model of cultural sustainability through the establishment of music programs in public schools, grassroots events, city initiatives, and robust public support via radio and social media. In doing so, the conjunto scene has established an institutional framework that fosters cooperation and inclusivity (particularly among young women). Drawing on such examples, our research team suggests that the City avoid projects of a competitive nature that put artists in a potentially antagonistic relationship with one another and instead seek grassroots support for all their initiatives prior to implementing them. The successes of cultural sustainability efforts like those discussed by Margolies highlight the need for not only financial support but also educational resources in the form of school programs and/or workshops, as discussed in greater detail in the “Recommendations” section of this essay.
1.7 Austin Non-Profits
The Austin music scene benefits from a strong non-profit sector. Many non-profit initiatives exist with a variety of goals and foci. They may be categorized according to the nature of their work into three overlapping categories: (1) affinity groups, i.e. organizations connecting fans of a particular genre, or a demographic community; (2) those dedicated to youth education; and (3) those offering assistance to artists. Affinity groups include WIMPs (Women in Music Professions), the Austin Tejano Music Coalition, ALMA (Austin Latino Music), Austin Classical Guitar, the Austin Celtic Festival, the Austin Banjo Club, Austin Friends of Traditional Music, the Austin Jazz Alliance, the Austin Jazz Workshop, the Austin Traditional Jazz Society, the Austin Blues Society, and the Austin Chapter of the American Guild of Organists (AGO). The work of some of these organizations, especially WIMPs (Women in Music Professions), extends onto the realm of artist support as well.
Youth education non-profits provide equitable access to musical training for the next generation of Austin musicians. Such non-profits include: Anthropos Arts, Beat 4 Beat, Young Voices of Austin, Groundwork Music Project, Grounded in Music, and Austin Soundwaves the latter operating largely on the El Sistema model. All these organizations engage primarily with underprivileged communities in the Austin area.
Artistic support represents a core component of the local non-profit sector. The types of support offered vary from direct cash assistance (Sonic Guild, DAWA) to low-cost health insurance (HAAM), housing payment support (HOME), mental health and substance abuse recovery services (SIMS Foundation), labor organizing (AFM chapter), and/or a combination of the above (Austin Texas Musicians). One standout organization is HAAM (Health Alliance for Austin Musicians) which helps cover musicians’ health insurance costs and connect them to healthcare providers. HAAM is seen by many local musicians as an indispensable node in Austin’s musician support network. A more detailed discussion of HAAM’s significance is provided in the overview of interviews with musicians that follows.
Another standout organization in the “artist support” category is DAWA (Diversity Awareness and Wellness in Action). It operates through four outlets: the DAWA fund which provides small, low-barrier cash grants; Vision:8291, which serves to fund and promote BIPOC organizations and highlight local entrepreneurs in collaboration with SXSW; DAWA Studios, which provides free (or donation-based) studio time for musicians, podcast makers, and others; and the Black Live Music Fund which provides micro-grants to musicians and music workers while aiming to establish its own venue in the long-term.
1.8 Austin Festivals’ Support of Local Artists
The SXSW Music Festival (March) and Austin City Limits (October) are our largest music festivals; taken together, they have an annual economic impact of nearly $1 billion per year on regional spending. The annual impact of the full SXSW festival and conference in recent years has ranged from $350 mil. in 2018 to $381 million in 2023, while the impact of ACL has increased dramatically in recent years from $264 million in 2018 to $499 million in 2023. However, SXSW artist payments range from $100 for a solo artist to $250 for a band per performance. This suggests that musicians themselves benefit only modestly from festival sales and revenue. Nevertheless, locals view such events as important sites for networking and obtaining offers of additional work. As one composer noted, “Something like SXSW is really helpful … I find that I get work out of South By, regularly making connections. And if that didn’t happen every year, I would have had a much harder time building a career.”
SXSW features around 1,200 official showcasing acts over one week in March. However, the total number of acts playing during the festival period is much higher, with hundreds of unofficial events taking place in venues downtown and throughout the City. Of the 1,248 official acts represented in SXSW Music 2024, for instance, 422 (or 33%) were international. Note that recent controversies surrounding funding from defense contractors led to a sharp decline in local participation, with more than 80 locals boycotting the festival. The SXSW management team recently announced they would end their partnership with the US military, which should lead to greater participation by Austin performers once again.
ACL for its part features more than 140 acts over two weekends in October. In contrast to SXSW, nearly all ACL performances take place at the official festival site itself at Zilker Park. Payment data for individual ACL acts is not available, though payments made to all artists total roughly $28 million annually. Commentary from our interviews indicates that participants from out of town receive much better compensation than locals. Event planners could do more to assure strong participation from Austinites in both events and generous pay for them.
2. Summaries From Interviews With Musicians
2.1 Demographic Data on Our Interviewees
As part of this study we interviewed nearly 60 individuals who actively perform or support live music in the Austin area. The research team selected interviewees who perform a wide range of genres (blues, country, hip hop, rock, afrobeat, techno, Latin, etc.) and received suggestions from them about other musicians to interview. The team attempted to keep the interviewees as representative of the broader artistic community as possible in order to obtain a wide range of opinions. For exact demographic breakdowns of the musicians in our survey, refer to the graphs below.
2.2 The Interviews
The research team prepared its interview questions with the goal of discovering what policies might best serve Austin’s musical community. Questions ranged from general to specific, with many covering topics related to musicians’ income, livelihood, and professional activities. We began by asking how many shows they played a week, how much they were paid for their efforts, whether they had benefitted from support by non-profit organizations and City of Austin grant opportunities, etc. We continued by asking about problems or challenges facing them as performers, and with open-ended queries about how they felt City programs could better support them. The structure of our summary largely follows that of the interview questions. A full list of the questions and a sample of fully transcribed interviews are available under the “Resources” tab on this website.
2.3 Annual Income
Income levels vary dramatically among Austin musicians. Interviewees reported significant shifts in income levels and revenue streams as a result the pandemic, but pay typically fluctuates, with the Fall festival season being the busiest and most lucrative. Summer, in particular, results in fewer performance opportunities (and thus income), perhaps because of the smaller number of college-age audience members from local universities in the area or because excessive heat deters audience members from attending shows.
Concrete data on musicians’ income is difficult to obtain. Even the 2022 Music Census did not report on (or collect) the income of survey participants, apparently considering such questions too sensitive. Our interviewees reported a wide range of annual income, with some earning as little as $15,000 and some $120,000 per year, but those at the high end of the spread represented outliers. Our most common income reported was $30,000-35,000, certainly below average for the Austin area. Most musicians interviewed noted that even this salary level took years, if not decades, to achieve. For context, the 2023 MFI for Austin is $122,300, meaning that the majority of Austin’s musicians would qualify as low-income (80% or less of MFI), with a substantial amount falling below the poverty line. Musicians describe their current income levels as unsustainable given the increasing cost of living in the City. Some established musicians mentioned they have only been able to remain here because they own a home, though overall home ownership was not typical of our interviewees. Thus, many musicians supplement their music work with additional employment outside of the industry and/or relocate outside of Austin.
One particularly alarming source of data on musician’s income precarity is HAAM’s Annual Impact Report. It only represents members of HAAM, who amount to 17% of Austin musicians according to the 2022 Music Census. Yet the Report suggests that 57% of them reported earning barely enough or not enough to get by, while 34% reported being worried about affording food. The report additionally finds that 75% of HAAM members make less than $30,000 per year. This data suggests the dire living conditions endured by many.
2.4 Average Pay Per Show
A 2022 report by the KUT-produced podcast Pause/Play reported that the average pay for live performances in Austin hasn’t changed in the past 40 years. Interviewees confirm this, with most citing $100 has the typical rate paid per musician for a set. This stands in contrast to the City of Austin’s baseline rate of $200 per person per hour. However, pay varies widely across the city, with large venues, corporate events, and weddings paying the most and smaller, lesser-known venues, bars, or coffee shops paying little or in some cases nothing. By most accounts, Austin City Council baseline compensation has not translated into any meaningful change in pay for musicians overall.
2.5 Average Performances Per Week
Discrepancies exist between the average shows played per week among full-time and part-time performers, the latter defined as those holding other jobs that serve as their primary source of income. Full-time musicians typically perform between 2-4 shows a week, part-time musicians as much as 1-2 shows a week or as little as a show every two weeks. Part-timers expressed satisfaction with the frequency of their shows, mainly because of the economic security provided by other income. They also chose the gigs they accepted carefully and rejected other offers. Full-time musicians seemed more prone to accepting gigs paying between $50-$200 a performance because they needed the money; while they recognized that $50 was inadequate compensation, they viewed all shows as an opportunity to showcase their talents and that might lead to additional performance opportunities.
Most interviewees performed 3-4 shows a week, including DJs, with some fluctuation by season. Those able to secure shows at larger venues with a higher pay scale tended to play fewer shows overall, perhaps 1-2 a month. Others described playing up to ten shows a month in the pre-Covid era and noted that the scene has yet to rebound to that same level. During the summer season, performance opportunities drop, as well as the period between the New Year’s Day and the end of January. This concurs with the tendency for Austin to drop significantly in population at particular moments coinciding with the summer exodus (families on vacation or university students heading home) and holiday season.
2.6 Experience with Booking Agents and Music Venue Managers
Few musicians represented in our study used booking agents; most had to manage and promote themselves in an effort to find gigs. It appears that local booking agents primarily work for the highest-profile venues and artists only. Our team made multiple attempts to schedule interviews with booking agents but ultimately were unable to conduct them. Their role in the local music industry represents an area for further study, especially the ways they might further artists’ income and the professional profiles.
Musicians’ experiences with venue managers were mixed and somewhat negative. Several interviewees viewed the relationship between themselves and venues as antagonistic, suggesting that their interests weren’t always taken into consideration. They expressed doubts as to whether any subsidies offered to music venues in support of live music would trickle down to performers themselves in any significant way. Others mentioned that venues did not make an effort to provide a welcoming environment for musicians, for instance by providing them green room space with water and AC. Others complained about faulty sound systems or inexperienced sound crews.
2.7 Experiences with Non-Profits
All of our interviewees have worked in some capacity with local non-profits. Some receive regular work through organizations such as Anthropos Arts or Austin Groups for the Elderly (AGE). Several mentioned receiving grants from Sonic Guild (formerly Black Fret). Nearly all spoke positively about the work of HAAM. HAAM’s impact is noted in the data provided by the Austin Music Census 2022 (Data Doc p. 66), as it provides health insurance to a large number of local performers (17%). The same survey notes that 43% of musicians surveyed receive health insurance through an employer, another 14% through a family member’s plan. 16% pay themselves for an insurance plan, and 16% have no insurance.
According to HAAM COO Rachel Bair, members receive an average of an $8,000-10,000 healthcare cost offset per year. This makes life in Austin much more affordable for many low-income music workers. Many attested to the indispensability of HAAM’s services, with several claiming they would otherwise leave the area. Some referred to HAAM as life-saving due to its coverage of preventative screenings that allow musicians to address major health challenges before they become critical. HAAM was also cited as a major factor in some musicians’ decision to move to Austin, including Douglas Leveton, Chaka and Qi Dada of Riders Against the Storm. The latter eventually founded DAWA in 2019 and their organization has since provided significant assistance to BIPOC artists in Austin.
Another non-profit deemed indispensable and even life-saving by Austin musicians is the SIMS Foundation. SIMS offers free mental health counseling and substance abuse recovery services. Several of our interviewees receive services through SIMS and others are on the organization’s waitlist. One neurodivergent interviewee mentioned that they would not be able to manage the workload and income anxiety of the musical gig economy if it weren’t for the services provided by SIMS. Given the centrality of the non-profit sector to the support of musicians, City planners should consider how to further amplify their efforts, as discussed below.
2.8 Experiences with State, City, and Regional Arts Initiatives
Regional organizations exist to support musicians such as the local labor union (the Austin Federation of Musicians), but many choose not to join. Barriers to membership may include a lack of knowledge about the institution’s potential benefits to individuals or the cost of membership and annual dues (roughly $200 each). The primary benefits of membership include access to contract templates and legal support in the event that problems surface with employers. AFS guidelines suggest appropriate rates of compensation for performances and also provide opportunities to deduct pension contributions from income associated with them, even if most musicians don’t earn enough to do so easily.
Statewide cultural initiatives that interviewees mention as helpful to them include the Texas Touring Roster, a program overseen by the Texas Commission on the Arts. Once accepted on the roster, artists can apply for matching funds from the state of Texas that will effectively double their income from particular events. The program is not oriented specifically towards musicians but rather artists of all sorts. It prioritizes matching funds for venues with limited operating budgets such as public libraries or regional festivals. The Texas Music Office was cited by several musicians as a helpful resource. Musicians felt that the office understood their need for support in areas such as management, business, and networking in the state. The overall impression was that the workers in this office were knowledgeable, accessible, and eager to help.
Non-profit organizations such as Texas Folklife utilize the Texas Touring Roster for many of the individuals they promote, often in conjunction with the Performance Support grant which offers matching funds of up to $12,000 per year to libraries, schools, and nonprofits to organize artistic events. A central advantage for performers is that the application process for the touring roster is relatively simple, involving primarily the uploading of performance footage. It helps to promote artists and offers them additional income, though its effect would be greatly amplified if the funds involved direct payments rather than matching payments.
Many interviewees had received grants directly from the City of Austin in the past as well, including the Austin Live Music Fund awards and Elevate grants. Recipients expressed gratitude for the assistance, noting that such funding made a significant difference in terms of completing recording or video projects or supporting particular initiatives (such as payments to musicians in conjunction with Beerthoven performances or All Rhythms educational events). Some had positive commentary about the “Zoom office hours” associated with Elevate awards that allowed applicants to pose questions to staff before submitting their application. More ambivalently, some found the application process cumbersome or confusing and wished that with one application they could be considered for all City grants, not just one. Others expressed concern about issues of access, for instance in the case of blind musicians or those with disabilities who might find it difficult to apply. As in the case of all grant programs, those who applied but were not funded expressed considerable frustration and felt they had wasted their time. Still others voiced concern about the red tape associated with allocations; one interviewee (Bradley Jaye Williams) recounted giving back a $10,000 award to the City because he had so much difficulty negotiating the associated insurance requirements. Others expressed a desire for “more systemic support” that might benefit “the whole ecosystem” rather than particular individuals.
A final issue raised in conjunction with City grants involved critiques of how issues of equity and inclusion impact the process. While virtually all musicians supported the motivations behind diversity requirements, they expressed varied opinions about whether they influenced the grant process in positive ways. Some suggested they had been inspired by diversity mandates to seek out and collaborate with minority artists. Others described being denied grants because evaluators did not consider the mission statement of their non-profit sensitive enough to diversity, even if they themselves felt very committed to that cause. Still others described grant cycles in which, despite rhetorical emphasis on diversity, straight white men seemed to receive the most funding.
3. Musicians’ Concerns, Challenges
3.1 Income
As discussed, pay for musical performances in Austin has remained essentially flat over the past forty years, in stark contrast to the cost of living. “Twenty years ago,” remarks one local singer-songwriter, “you might’ve gotten paid between one and three hundred dollars for [a] recording. Well, twenty years later, you would get between one and three hundred dollars for that recording.” Recent efforts by the City Council to encourage a baseline pay rate ($200 per person per hour) have had little effect on the broader scene. Musicians like Casie Luong note that the even if the standard City rate were adopted widely it might not be enough to offset Austin’s surging costs. This reality threatens all aspects of the local music scene and must be addressed through significant interventions on the part of the City, as discussed in section 4.
Touring tends not to be a lucrative endeavor for most musicians either. In past decades, by relying on modest performance fees buttressed by on-site sales of recordings and merchandise, touring musicians typically expected at least to break even and cover the cost of food, transportation, and housing. They hoped these efforts would eventually pay off in terms of broader exposure and by expanding their professional networks. Today, touring almost always results in financial loss. Travel expenses have increased, and the corporatization of performance venues means that fewer small or mid-sized venues are committed to booking mid-tier musicians. Greg Gonzalez of Grupo Fantasma points out that “bands that could fill 700 to 1500 [capacity] rooms — your smaller theaters, things of that nature — aren’t [making] money because the overhead has grown so much, costs have increased so much, and there’s not enough money coming in from the other revenue streams that you would traditionally get like radio play. Additionally, you’re in competition against these perpetually touring monoliths, like the Rolling Stones or whatever that just tour all the time now because even they aren’t making the money they used to off of royalties and whatnot.”
The effects of relatively low wages for live music making have been exacerbated by an inability to earn money from CD/mp3 sales or online streaming. The trend towards streaming may benefit large corporations and superstars, but it has negatively impacted others. In the past, artists would supplement live performances with the sale of CDs or cards with QR codes authorizing mp3 downloads. However, changes in the music industry over the last decade have undercut this model. As regards streaming, UT professor Eric Drott’s recent work highlights how few musicians receive adequate remuneration through online platforms, despite the large sums of money generated by Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube. In fact, recent changes to Spotify’s artist pay policy have reduced those revenue streams further. By some accounts, 80% of the musicians on Spotify will cease to receive any income from streams under this new model.
3.2 Cost of living
Clearly one of Austin musicians’ most central concerns relates to the increasing cost of living and their inability to afford rent, purchase a house, or cover other expenses. Over the past decades, the cost of living has risen dramatically, outpacing much of the nation. Though many reports have begun to focus on what they see as an approaching end to Austin’s unprecedented population explosion since the 1990s, it is still considered to be one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country. An inability to afford life in the City as a full-time musician leads many to move away and/or to work in sectors other than the arts, which impacts their ability to perform or compose regularly and reduces the visibility of music. The music scene is one aspect of life in central Texas that has attracted many tech companies and other industries to the area. Yet ironically their presence and resulting increasing in housing and other costs have jeopardized the artistic scene that attracted them in the first place.
3.3 Housing
The Austin Music Census indicates that roughly 60% of musicians are renters, 40% home owners (Data Doc, pp. 75-77); our interviewees recognize that all housing costs have risen steeply in recent years, a concerning trend. According to a 2021 study by the University of Texas, the percentage of the housing market affordable for the average single family fell from 20% in 1990 to just 2%, and that less than 10% of new housing built during that period was priced for those making under the median household income. This trend continues: from 2014 to 2022, the median home cost has rose from $295,000 in 2019 (just below the national average of 298,800), to over $630,000. While current home values have decreased a bit (April 2024 data places it at $564,995), it is still far above the national average of $408,732. Rents have come down as well, with the median price now sitting just below the national average ($1987 compared to $1902 for Austin), but this number is still largely unaffordable for artists.
Higher housing costs impact younger performers especially, discouraging them from relocating to the area or staying here. Daniel Swayze summarized the views of many interviewees on the topic: “I consider myself pretty lucky … I’m a pianist, highly employable … [And] compared to a lot of very talented, skilled colleagues that I know [I’m] doing very well. Yet I know that I’m still not only [earning] below the median income for the City, but I’m far [from] being able to afford the median house.” Some reports focus on what may be an approaching end to Austin’s unprecedented population explosion since the 1990s, yet the damage incurred by high housing costs continues to take a toll on artists. Austin recently witnessed more people leaving the city for good than migrating into it the first time in over 20 years, including an exodus of the city’s more economically- and socially-marginalized populations.
3.4 Health Care
As noted in segment 2.7, most musicians stress the importance of HAAM programs and those of the SIMS Foundation to them, noting that they would probably otherwise be unable to afford any health insurance. HAAM encourages members to enroll in health care policies offered through the Affordable Care Act and then pays all or part of their monthly premium. HAAM also makes efforts to cover the costs of vision and hearing care, and to encourage exercise and weight loss programs, among other initiatives. However, not all health needs can be covered. Several women commented on problems with inadequate gynecological care, for instance. It also appears that the private donations making HAAM benefits possible simply run out from time to time. As of the drafting of this text (July 2024), the HAAM website indicates that reimbursements for dental care are on hold because all funds have been expended. The City might consider partnering with HAAM to fully fund their initiatives and avoid gaps in coverage.
3.5 Retirement
Most interviewees suggested their incomes were so low that they cannot set aside any money for retirement. A few even laughed at the question! The only exception to this tendency were interviewees with “day jobs” that included a pension plan, or those who ran businesses such as music schools that generated income beyond that of performance alone. Clearly, the issue of supplemental income for aging musicians is a dire one, with non-profits such as HOME unable to provide sufficient payments for everyone in need.
3.6 The Costs of Creating
Many readers may not be aware of the tremendous barriers that exist to creating, performing, and sustaining a career in the music industry. Beyond standard costs of living, musicians absorb other, often hidden, “costs.” These “costs of creating” include material costs, business-related costs, costs associated with professional development, fees related to engaging in performances, and investments of time (see section 1.3). Material costs include those related to the purchase, maintenance, and upgrading of instruments or other gear, or bookkeeping and legal fees. Musician and producer Eliud Garcia, for instance, immediately re-invests much of his income from gigs into gear in order to keep up with the latest technological developments expand creative capabilities.
Sound amplification and recording represent additional expenses. With many smaller venues unable to provide “in-house” sound support (mixing boards, monitors, PA systems, etc.) musicians themselves must provide them. Sound systems easily cost tens of thousands of dollars — in addition to the hundreds of dollars per hour it costs to hire a technician to operate them. The purchase of studio time — for recording, mixing, mastering, and video production — starts at around $400 an hour (on the low end), making commercial recordings an impossibility for many. Marketing and advertising (discussed in greater detail below), the purchase of clothing/costuming, and the creation of promotional merchandise sold online or at events represent significant pre-performance investments as well.
The scheduling of late-night musical performances affects musicians adversely. Most gigs begin well into the evening, with setup beginning hours before and break-down extending into the morning hours. Performers earn their livelihood while much of society sleeps, yet they must still be available to handle the quotidian chores of life during “normal” work hours: i.e. shopping, taking their kids to school, or visiting the doctor. This leads to a constant drain on an individual’s physical resources. Taking time off from working “day jobs” to perform or paying for childcare while parents perform at night also represent significant expenses. Other hidden costs derive from parking (discussed below) and touring (discussed in section 3.1).
3.7 Booking, Advertising, Promotion, Legal Representation
Many musicians mentioned lacking both the time and financial resources to effectively promote themselves, and they expressed a desire for the City of Austin to better support them in that effort. John Pointer identified managers, booking agents, and publicists as “the three services we [in the artistic community] are sorely lacking.” He described musicians as ill-equipped to promote themselves, in part because of the tremendous amount of talent in the area and the sheer number of performers vying for the public’s attention. Paul Klemperer similarly viewed promotion, marketing, and other aspects of the business of music as “infrastructure issues” that musicians need help with, especially given their costs. He notes that the City offers numerous workshops on facets of the music industry, but he doesn’t feel he has the time to attend many of them. Similarly, a lack of legal representation and knowledge of issues related to music licensing, copyright, distribution, legal representation, and related issues may limit performers’ career trajectory, as discussed below.
3.8 Career Advancement
Interviewees expressed frustration over an inability to advance their careers within Austin. Artists like Beto Martinez and Greg Gonzales of the GRAMMY-winning band Grupo Fantasma note that the Austin scene lacks an infrastructure on par with cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, or Nashville. This effectively creates a “ceiling” that forces bands to leave Austin to advance their careers. Singer-songwriter Egee Music agrees, saying: “I don’t know if I can afford to do music in Austin forever. In fact, I’m pretty confident I can’t.” As in the case of booking, local musicians connected the lack of advancement opportunities with the saturation of local musicians in the scene, a surfeit of talent. While the occasional Austin artist achieves fame beyond the City (recent examples include Gary Clark, Jr. and the Black Pumas), most struggle to gain a large enough following to attract national or international attention.
3.9 Parking
Frustration with the cost of parking downtown surfaced as a complaint among a surprising number of interviewees. Some told us that when they worked downtown on weekends they often lost 10% or more of their total income paying for parking near their performance venue. Just Jim’s comments are typical: “I DJ on Rainey street on Saturday nights. It’s $35 to park my car! I’ve talked to people [and said to them], ‘Hey, I work down here. Is there a way that I can get out of paying this?’ Because that’s 10% of what I’m getting paid. And [they say] ‘Sorry, we can’t help you.’ Well I guess I’ll Uber. So I Uber back and forth, and it’s 30 or 40 bucks.” Others complained about having to park far from venues and then lug equipment by themselves to the club and back, a physically challenging task and also one creating a risk of losing equipment, for instance from theft. Musicians felt that venue owners should be required to provide parking for the musicians they hire. Others suggested that the City cover the cost of parking, provide reimbursement, and/or subsidize a rideshare program for performers without a car.
3.10 Audiences
Artists report having difficulties getting audiences to reliably turn out in substantial numbers for live shows, citing a range of factors. With the growth of online media and streaming platforms, live audiences are increasingly reluctant to pay even moderate cover charges for music that they feel they can get for “free” through digital means. Others appear unwilling to pay a cover charge, perhaps for similar reasons. Eileen Bristol, who owns the Sahara Lounge, observes people turning away from the entrance to her club when faced with a $12 cover charge, even if that amount represents a small fraction of ticket costs charged by internationally renowned touring acts appearing at larger downtown venues. Doug Leveton echoes the same sentiment, suggesting that audiences seem not to value local music making if the act is anything less than a star like Taylor Swift. Isaac Peña suggests the problem may also be tied to trends in youth culture: “To me, it seems like the older generations still go out and support live music because that’s what they grew up on. That’s part of their culture. [But] for younger generations [used to screens and recently kept at home for extended periods due to the Covid pandemic], going to see a local act is just not part of what they do.” Since the economic model of for-profit venues relies on cover charges and — often to a greater extent — alcohol sales, smaller audiences translate into less income for both venues and performer alike. Moreover, small and mid-sized venues face steep competition from larger venues and their ability to draw a greater proportion of the music-going audience, as discussed below. Local performers, often without the ability to draw mass audiences, fare poorly as smaller venues falter.
3.11 The Decline of Independent Venues
Artists express concern about the long-term effects of the unchecked corporatization of large venues by companies like Live Nation who focus on touring headliner acts rather locals. As audiences are drawn to increasingly large (and expensive) shows at major venues (Circuit of the Americas, Waterloo Greenway, the Moody Center), smaller and mid-sized venues whose capacities range from 100-300 people are priced out of the market. Many of them close, eliminating critical spaces for artists to hone their craft. This trend, what might be described as a compression of the “musical middle class” prevents less-established artists from developing, which some believe may eventually result in a decline in the local music scene as a whole. Local bassist Marlon Hedrick points out in discussing the Moody Center that “There’s no local musician who can fill a 7,000 amphitheater.”
3.12 Concerns of Women, Marginal Groups
Musicians from marginal or underrepresented groups face unique challenges; comments from our interviewees on this subject relate derive from their intersectional identities and how they impact opportunities for networking, professional advancement, and general treatment in the City’s artistic ecosystem. Women performing conjunto, Tejano, and hip-hop, for instance, mentioned feeling marginalized or tokenized. A Latina playing Tejano music shared that only “five to ten Latina women …are [regularly invited to perform], and everyone else has to fight for the scraps. It creates this really ugly and inflammatory [dynamic, a sense] that we’re competing against each other.” Accordionist Susan Torres has witnessed a dramatic drop in female participation within the conjunto scene over the last 20 years, perhaps for similar reasons. A woman rapper lamented, “I’m always going to deal with misogyny in some way in hip hop, unfortunately.” She also suggested that the local hip hop scene was divided: “[You’re] either over here in this hetero rap scene, or you’re in the gay queer scene,” which can make attracting larger audiences difficult. A Latina DJ suggested that venues could do more to make women feel safe after hours, for example by allowing them to wait inside for their ride after the venue closes. These issues are not unique to Austin, they do raise salient concerns among women, BIPOC, and LGBTQ+ musicians.
Interviewees appreciated efforts by local non-profits and the City of Austin to promote equity in the local music scene but felt that more could be done. They enjoyed having specific spaces for their community to network or perform in. For example, an Asian American songwriter praised the efforts of EQ Austin for hosting an Asian American and Pacific Islander showcase. A Mexican woman bandleader underscored the importance of having institutions like Women in Music and noted that members were eager to help newcomers. However, with regard to City grants, some felt that individuals of color did not receive them as often as they should. A Latina bandleader believed they were typically awarded to “the same white men” that received them in the past. When asked what they would like to see change in the Austin music ecosystem, artists suggested more support and space for BIPOC musicians. A rapper expressed a desire for “just more Black- and brown-centered anything: [music] shows, fashion shows, workshops. But of course we need the space to do that stuff.” An Asian American singer-songwriter suggested that “acknowledging a history of non-white music in Austin is important, and acknowledging a future of non-white music.” Some Latino performers believed Spanish-language music is not as strongly supported as Anglo-American genres. We encourage City staff to consider how existing narratives, branding, and performance spaces might be refashioned so as to be more inclusive of all Austin’s music communities.
3.13 Climate Change
Climate change is felt acutely in a location such as Austin, a region with already extreme summer temperatures at the best of times. In 2023, Austin had its hottest summer ever, with more than 80 days over 100F, 40 of which topped 105F. Extreme temperatures leave many Austin public spaces virtually empty, affecting the local music scene. Affluent city residents often travel to cooler climates for the summer, and university students leave town. Local residents may be less inclined to attend outdoor musical events in the summer, as discussed by KUT’s Pause Play news team.
Liz Morphis, a jazz singer and founder of the band the Violet Crown Jazz Review, often performs outdoors at The Domain or on similar stages, occasionally with no shade. She fears that as summer audiences continue to shrink, so will her income. Beto Martinez and Greg Gonzalez of Grupo Fantasma echo this sentiment, adding that their band’s average monthly performances drop from about 12-14 in the winter and spring to 2-3 during summer months. Recent studies note that increasing temperatures in Texas may force people to move north. Some sources suggest that Austin’s net loss of residents in 2024, while due primarily to the rising cost of living, has been exacerbated by climate change.
4. Recommendations
4.1 Structural Changes
Our interviewees expressed gratitude to the City of Austin for the many programs it has created in support of musicians, including its new minimum wage policy and grants such as the Live Music Fund and Elevate. Yet our investigation suggests the need for new models of support that place less emphasis on one-time awards and instead attempt broader structural support of musical careers across a range of activities. Such changes will need to be implemented in tandem with a search for additional revenue, as discussed in section 4.2. Musician Greg Gonzalez notes that the local public may not be aware of the difficulties facing Austin musicians and may be reluctant to support musical life financially for that reason. The changes in policy we propose might be more effective if accompanied by a campaign to educate the public about the crisis facing the industry and the many benefits that music making brings to the City.
4.2 New Revenue Streams
The Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) has provided desperately needed revenue for performers and venue owners, but more is needed. Given that Austin has become a hub for high-tech investment and other businesses, that the proliferation of new companies in the area has contributed to the high costs of living, and that music and the arts help attract workers to Austin, we suggest encouraging (or requiring?) the business sector to contribute to a new “Music Investment Fund” or “Cultural Sustainability Fund.” Financial contributions would of course be tax-deductible, and representatives from the business community could be asked to help oversee the management and disbursement of the fund if they wished.
4.3 Increased Economic Support for Musicians
The primary concerns expressed by our interviewees relate to income, and for that reason we recommend finding ways to increase musician salaries across the board as a priority. One idea suggested by interviewees involves direct payments of some sort to music workers in order to ensure they earn a livable wage, currently calculated in Austin as about $58,000 a year. When we discussed “trickle down” solutions with performers — tax breaks, increased funding to non-philanthropic institutions, or payments to venues — they expressed skepticism that such efforts would result in substantive change for performers. Some believe that “guaranteed income programs” are the best way of making sure those who have helped to make Austin synonymous with live music making will continue the tradition. Musician and former Music Commission member Doug Leveton advocates this approach, a standardized income supplement that would justify the ‘Live Music Capital’ moniker associated with Austin. “If they got rid of that [label],” he says, “I wouldn’t be fighting for [guaranteed income]. But because they’ve used and abused that moniker and never had a plan to support the community that creates it … they really did a disservice to the community. It’s getting to a point where [we] might need to rebrand, because it’s no longer true.” Leveton goes on to describe the program as he envisions it.
I want to reiterate that it’s not just the musicians, but [all members of] the industry [who would be supported] … a stage manager, stagehand, sound engineer … they are just as important to that overall economy … We need to look at the big picture, [consider] what music is, what culture is, what Austin’s brand is, and support [all those people] financially, put money in pockets … [Perhaps] there’s an application you fill out and then it’s [verified] by someone that you are an artist, musician, industry worker, you’re contributing to the culture, then you [would be] guaranteed X amount of dollars a month. That would be incredible, you know? And as a city it makes a huge statement, [it’s] something that could be modeled in other cities.
Supplemental income programs have been implemented elsewhere, as for instance Ireland’s 2022 Basic Income for the Arts program, the Guaranteed Income for Artists pilot program in San Francisco, the Springboard for the Arts program in Minnesota, or the Creatives Rebuild New York project. CRNY has evaluated the positive impact of the program on over 22,000 creatives in New York state. Similar efforts have been funded by independent institutions such as the Mellon Foundation and the Black Music Action Coalition and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s Guaranteed Income and Mentorship Program. Many such programs initially emerged in response to the Covid-19 pandemic but have been perpetuated as the ongoing need for them and the benefit to music communities become clear.
As a complement to a guaranteed income supplement program, other means of boosting musicians’ salaries might include:
A campaign to urge (or require) that all venue owners pay music workers $200/hr., as the City now does. Venues offering the higher wage and perhaps also providing sound support free of charge could be listed on an official City website, provided a public notice of what the venue pays to musicians and provide in terms of services. As a result, their owners might become eligible for special grants in aid or tax breaks.
A matching fund program that would double the amount of money earned by musicians at a given performance up to a certain price ceiling, such as $200/hr. This would likely involve considerable staff oversight in comparison to a guaranteed basic wage, however.
A retirement investment fund that would offer performers over age 65 of limited means an extra $2,000 a month in income, assuming they had spent at least ten years previously making music in Austin.
4.4 Housing Interventions
Issues related to income are closely linked to the affordable housing crisis in Austin, and it is therefore imperative to expand affordable housing for musicians. Some private and non-profit programs already exist with this goal, as discussed, yet many focus exclusively on aging and/or other vulnerable populations or lack necessary resources to assist all those in need. For instance, a 2018 Foundation Communities housing project oriented towards musicians received 900 applications for 100 units. Building on responses from our interviewees, we advocate for the expansion of such efforts. Recommendations include the creation of dedicated “artists communities” adjacent to entertainment or commercial centers. They would mirror “workforce” housing models created elsewhere for the artistic sector and would be funded and administered by City itself, leveraging existing institutions’ procedures (such as HAAM’s eligibility criteria to determine applicants’ needs. One respondent suggested that the City purchase and reappropriate existing properties — such as class-c hotels or motels — by providing tax incentives to current owners to sell them at reasonable rates. This would potentially allow officials to “get ahead of” future gentrification by purchasing properties in areas that have not yet been redeveloped, thus supporting equitable and sustainable strategies.
Investments in housing for musicians have been made elsewhere. Programs such as New York’s Affordable Reals Estate for Artists Initiative (AREA) repurposes city-owned sites as housing for artists in collaboration with local foundations. Implementing a similar approach here would be in keeping with the concept of the “maker village,” defined as a “place that supports the creation and manufacture of cultural products” as outlined in Thriving in Place report to the City in 2018. Such initiatives might also involve investing in single-family properties and offering subsidized sales of them to artists (including help with a downpayment or lower-interest loan rates), much in the same way the University of Texas has done for faculty and students.
4.5 Ensure Live Music is Part of All City Events
If Austin wishes to continue branding itself as a center of music making, it should require that public activities organized by the City include paid musical performances whenever possible. Most events, like Austin Bat Fest or Fourth of July Celebrations, feature music making prominently. But others like the Trail of Lights have little or no live music. This oversight is easily remedied with minor changes to planning guidelines. Such efforts might also involve additional partnering with AISD, as mentioned below.
4.6 New Performance Venues
We suggest that the City take an active role in the establishment, management, and booking of more live music stages in prominent sites within Austin. This would extend efforts represented by stages overseen by the City at the Austin-Bergstrom Airport and in front of City Hall. The creation of new sites for music would have multiple advantages. Most importantly, it would associate the Austin experience with the presence of music consistently. It would create more performance opportunities for musicians and allow for the promotion of diverse genres of music that might not always draw a crowd at clubs or bars. Finally, City-run venues would have the advantage of being family-friendly locations not dependent upon alcohol sales that could be scheduled at any time of the day or night.
A surprising number of interviewees expressed desire to play in spaces other than clubs and bars. Roberto Riggio, for instance, said “One of the things that a lot of musicians complain about is that as a musician our job is basically to sell alcohol, you know? Because that’s the bottom line. If [venue owners] don’t have enough drink sales, they’re not going to be able to keep the doors open. It would be great if there was something we could do to change that equation, to make it more about the culture of listening to music and pride in music, pride in what the City has to offer in those terms.” Some interviewees had stopped performing in clubs entirely because they felt so strongly about this issue. They believed that creating more family-friendly venues for the enjoyment of music would increase the audience base for live performance and make it more socially relevant. One bandleader expressed his desire to reach more of the local population this way: “A big part of what we need to do is start re-signifying our role as musicians … So many people around the community need live music: senior citizens, patients from medical facilities … and they have no chance to enjoy it. My dream is that every Friday, every school in this country has a musician playing for the kids.” Schools of course represent a tremendous potential point of contact between musicians and local audiences and may be considered as a separate initiative; our suggestion here focuses on venues in public sites.
Interviewees suggested locations for new performance venues. Several mentioned iconic locations such as east 6th St., S. Congress, or S. 1st Street. The venues might be located within repurposed City-owned properties (abandoned or otherwise), result from new construction, or partner with existing locales. Austin’s “Thriving in Place” report (p. A-5) discusses other possible sites for such programming including the Performing Arts Center and ACC’s Highland campus; one could imagine collaborating with the owners of the Domain or Barton Creek Mall as well, and organizing performances on the UT Austin campus. The same report explores the concept of a “Community Creativity Center” model (p. A-17) which would involve dedicating venues for live music performance in conjunction with other activities (food sales, artwork sales, etc.). As to the styles of music performed, the stages could vary their repertoire each night, or certain stages could be dedicated to a specific style of Central Texas music: conjunto or other Latin styles (salsa, boleros, tango), rock, blues, folk artists, hip hop, world music, singer-songwriters, jazz, classical, etc. A recreation of the Armadillo World Headquarters might be worth considering, downtown or elsewhere. The goal would be both to spread high-quality performance sites beyond the confines of clubs and to make the Austin experience synonymous with music once again.
4.7 Ensure Local Performers are Prominent in Festivals
Performers such as JJ Barrera, Just Jim, and Hierba Malita would like big festivals such as SXSW and ACL to feature more local talent. Some efforts have been made by festival organizers toward this goal such as the creation of SXSW Community Concerts, and an increase in local groups booked at ACL. In 2023, 22 (or about 15%) of the 140 ACL acts featured were local. No concrete data exists regarding the number of local artists featured at SXSW. However, artists’ comments suggest more could be done to center local talent. Just Jim, for instance, discusses the issue, saying “I know artists [and] musicians who live in Austin; they might even be from Austin! They’re fairly developed artists, they have a substantial following … [They’ll] apply for the SXSW badge and they won’t get it. And it’s like, ‘Yo, I’ve been here and in this community for my whole life.’ The artists in our own community don’t really feel [like they’re] any sort of priority. You want to feel like you have an opportunity to be a part of that buzz.” Even so, many viewed SXSW as essential to their professional development. A local DJ commented that “people are coming in a lot from LA or from New York where they just do production differently”; in her experience, contracting with out-of-town producers provided better pay, working conditions, and contracts/agreements (such as riders with meal provisions) which could be used as a template for future local bookings in festivals and beyond.
4.8 A Centralized Website Coordinating All Support for Musicians
Interviewees expressed a desire for a single online portal that would link to all forms of support available to local musicians and streamline the process of applying for and receiving aid. The envisioned site would provide information about services from regional non-profits, describe City and State initiatives, and include information about upcoming workshops or mentoring opportunities. Cassie Luong and Greg Gonzalez voiced these concerns, for instance, noting that the City does not currently communicate effectively with artists about such matters. It appears that City staff attempted in the past to create the sort of comprehensive portal we envision (https://www. austintexas.gov/page/creative-economy), but it is currently inactive. In addition to providing performers with information, the portal might also promote them to others interested in hiring local ensembles. Pat Buchta’s Austin Texas Musicians initiative has begun crafting a web page of this sort; perhaps a collaboration between the City and this organization could be beneficial in expanding the effort. A single website portal could also clarify that City funding is available to everyone operating within the Austin metro area regardless of where they live; not all interviewees knew whether those living outside of Travis county were eligible for grants such as Thrive, Elevate, Nexus, and Live Music Fund, for instance.
4.9 Training Programs, Workshops for Musicians
Building on the idea of a centralized website, interviewees advocated creating a portal for the dissemination of information about professional training. One bandleader summarized the problem this way: “There is no [site] you can go to that helps you to understand how to navigate … the wild west [of gigging]: trying to figure out venues and what’s right and what’s wrong [about their contracts, working conditions, pay scale], what’s appropriate and what’s not. There’s really no guidance.” We recommend creating workshops on topics related to financial literacy as a priority. Topics of interest to our interviewees include: strategies for career advancement, how to manage national or international tours, how to budget finances as a performer, how to plan for costs involved in making a recording, how to copyright and license music, how to liaise with radio stations and streaming services, how to teach music to children or adults, how to plan for retirement, etc. Cultivating and managing an artistic career requires considerable financial savvy, and training would help expand and diversify musicians’ income streams.
Others pointed to a need for formalized mentorship programs in which newer musicians could learn business skills from more experienced peers. Such programs would build on the informal peer-to-peer learning that already takes place locally. When asked about marketing and entrepreneurship, musicians said they often acquired such skills from friends and acquaintances in their networks.
One final area of training requested involves small business creation and management. The City already offers classes of this sort for business owners, yet few musicians attend. Our interviewees advocated for better communication about existing trainings, with some geared specifically towards artistic and/or non-profit initiatives. A bandleader who has participated in existing workshops noted that “a lot of the information was really specific to starting an LLC … I would like to see something being taught [about] how to be fiscally responsible, how to bill yourself as a creative in Austin and protect yourself.” The proposed “artistic business” workshops could be oriented towards various fields — filmmakers, visual artists, dancers, and musicians — which could facilitate cross-disciplinary collaborations and networking opportunities.
4.10 Parking/Transportation
Given the scarcity of available parking, especially in the downtown district, we suggest implementing a system that provides free parking near venues to giggin musicians. One way to do this would be to issue passes through the city’s parking app, ParkATX, or rideshare credit on apps like Lyft or Uber, much like the University of Texas currently does for students. Some interviewees suggested incentivizing or requiring venues to provide parking — or funds to offset parking costs — to the musicians they hire.
An alternative to individual travel credits would be to encourage the use of public transportation to and from performances. Bus or train passes for performers are an option, but the bus schedule might need to be augmented so as to increase the number of busses to popular entertainment districts during peak times in the evening. Dedicated “gigging busses” modeled after the Pickup project might be an even better way of transporting musicians in the downtown area. This would allow gear to be more easily moved to and from shows. Beyond these changes, the City could work to support and augment the work of existing initiatives such as the ATX Musicians’ “Gig Buddy” program which offers assistance getting to/from venues, as well as help setting up or breaking down gear. The City could create a parallel program or provide funding to expand the non-profit. Additionally, the City could encourage the decentralizing of the music scene and help to spread audiences (and traffic) beyond downtown or the near East Side.
4.11 Closer collaborations with non-profits
As suggested, the City could contribute to the sustainability of Austin’s music scene by investing in and collaborating with Austin’s strong non-profit network. One strategy for doing so would be to identify key groups and work towards strengthening their efforts. Austin Texas Musicians (ATM ) has already collaborated with City staff, contributing to the creation of the Live Music Fund in 2019 as well as the much-needed Austin Music Disaster Relief Fund during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. ATM plays an important role in creating a sense of community and connection among Central Texas musicians. It also connects them to services at the local, state, and federal level. Finally, it supports musicians directly through gig promotion and merchandise sales. ATM is open to collaborating with the City on fronts. CEO Patrick Buchta mentions a desire to partner with the City and the Long Center to launch an educational initiatives that would train musicians in financial literacy, for instance (see also section 4.9), or to provide additional input on grant awards, as discussed in section 4.13.
Collaborations with HAAM could be of great help in pre-qualifying individuals for financial assistance, as its application already verifies an individual’s status as low-income. This mechanism could facilitate determinations of eligibility for cash assistance, housing subsidies, or other programs. In this way, officials would not need to “re-invent the wheel” as they receive applications.
Finally, the City should consider funding the most impactful non-profit organizations in a sustained fashion. According to the spokespersons we interviewed, a great portion of their labor currently involves guaranteeing their own survival, i.e. raising funds to cover payroll and operational expenses. Funding from the City would allow such groups to expand their services and amplify their impact. While virtually all non-profits are worthy of financial support, indispensable organizations for the Austin music ecosystem include the aforementioned HAAM, the SIMS Foundation, and HOME as well as Foundation Communities which provides affordable housing across Central and North Texas.
4.12 Collaborations with the Film Industry
A significant source of income for professional musicians in cities with a strong music industry (e.g. LA, NYC, Nashville) comes from sync licensing for film, TV, and advertisements. The Austin music scene would benefit from closer ties to the film industry in order to provide musicians this additional income stream. The State of Texas already provides tax-exemption incentives for the film industry to operate and create jobs in Texas through the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program. Similar programs could provide additional incentives for filmmakers to work in Austin specifically, with a particular focus on incentivizing the hire of local composers, arrangers, producers, and performers. Some of our interviewees saw great potential in Austin becoming a new hub for film scoring due to the diverse and idiosyncratic nature of our music scene.
4.13 Additional Community Input on Grant Awards
The City of Austin has integrated community input into its grant award processes to ensure that recipients are broadly representative of all locals, a practice our interviewees approved of. Nevertheless, some lamented an ongoing lack of diversity among recipients of the Live Music Fund and the Thrive-Elevate-Nexus grants for Cultural Arts. We suggest closer collaborating with individuals who work with underrepresented performers such as employees of Austin Texas Musicians (ATM), DAWA, and Women in Music Professions (WIMPs). In this way, the City could elect community navigators who will ensure a diverse applicant pool for City grants. ATM would make for a particularly strong liaison in this process, given that all 30+ members of the organization’s advisory panel represents specific demographic communities and genre affinity groups.
4.14 Climate Change Plan
Possible responses to the climate crisis include starting performances earlier in the day or after the sun goes down to take advantage of lower temperatures, or creating outdoor performance spaces with more shade, misters, fans, and water dispensers. Additionally, the City might subsidize more indoor performances during the hottest months, such as the “Drop In” summer series at the Long Center that recently featured Grupo Fantasma. The creation of new venues as discussed in section 4.6 might prioritize indoor as well as outdoor space in an effort to ensure the utility of the venue all year long.
4.15 Topics for Further Study
Additional Research on the Role of Music Promoters and Booking Agents. Our research team failed to interview individuals involved in booking and promotion, so many questions remain about how widespread such activity is in Austin, how promoters interact with local artists, and how they might more effectively support them. Musicians would benefit from greater dissemination of information about themselves and their music to potential employers. The City may be able to play a productive role in that effort.
Additional Research on Festivals. Our team relied primarily on publicly available statistics about major music festivals, the revenue they produce, and the involvement of local performers in their programming. But such information is limited, and we did not interview festival organizers. Discussion with them would provide additional information about how programming decisions are made and how musicians are paid, among other details. Festival organizers might have suggestions about how to more effectively showcase local talent as well.
Additional Research on Music Venues. We suggest additional research on the needs of businesses and the support City programs can provide to them as well as to musicians. Various topics to be explored might include the economic benefit of City grants to businesses as part of the second (2024-25) round of Live Music Fund grant allocations relative to the first year (2023-24) grants that were made directly to musicians. Which funding model proved more effective, and to whom? Another topic involves the possible leveraging of City funds offered to businesses in order to set higher compensation standards. Some interviewees suggested that subsidies should be offered with the expectation that the musicians businesses hire receive adequate compensation (i.e., the $200/hr. rate), free sound system support, stage assistance, and free parking. Discussions with venue owners on these topics may prove beneficial. Roberto Riggio extended the same idea, proposing that the City begin evaluating and rating Austin venues in terms of the pay and support they offer musicians, creating something akin to a Michelin star system for businesses and publishing the results. “If we want Austin to be the live music capital of the world, what do we want tourists seeing? Do we want them seeing this race to the bottom where they can show up anywhere and find music, but [perhaps it’s no] good? Or do we want to represent [ourselves] in a way that’s more on brand, trying to say that we care about music?”
John Pointer’s Live Music Capital Foundation envisioned an alternate model for supporting businesses, one in which the City would guarantee them a certain basic daily/nightly income so they could increase musicians’ pay. The payments would serve as insurance against financial loss: if businesses didn’t have to worry about particular events that happened to have low audience turnout, Pointer argues, they would be willing to pay musicians higher rates. He pitches the idea this way: “You can give an artist a $25,000 grant and it’ll be gone in the blink of an eye … But if you had venues that could pay [a group] $1,000 a night just to go in and play, or $2,000, that starts changing the equation because now it’s not just a gift from on high. Now it’s like, ‘Oh, we’re going in and we’re actually earning this money. And we can [do it] every day.’ Maybe it’s three months at a time that you’re actually doing that gig and so if you have sixteen weeks at a $1,000 guarantee, you’ve got $16,000 out of it. But you’re also building your crowd and you’re in front of people.” This approach might involve considerable staff oversight (given the need to constantly review funding requests, review business income, etc.), but it does address the core problem of low performer salaries in a novel way. The structural changes needed to make the Austin music scene thrive must involve collaboration with local businesses and a nuanced understanding of how to support all facets of local music making productively.