easy being green...?

In a few hours I leave for Marco Island, Florida (oh, what a hard life I lead...!), where I'll be leading worship at the Leadership Seminar of the Ecumenical Stewardship Center.

This is a group of leaders of numerous Christian denominations across North America who get together annually with a focus on "stewardship" agenda. And this year the emphasis is on stewardship and environmental sustainability. Sound like something I'd be interested in?

The title chosen for the event is "It's Easy Being Green," and quite frankly, I don't buy it. Which puts me in an interesting position for the next few days, wouldn't you say?

I'm sure, at one level, the selection of this title simply represents a need to have something snappy and memorable and positive-and-action-oriented... I don't expect to be fundamentally at odds with the organizers or presenters... I'm looking forward to a very stimulating and challenging and meaningful time, and I expect to be learning a lot.

But I must say, whenever I hear a statement like "it's easy being green" I'm immediately on the look-out for someone trying to sell me something. If you just buy this product, or invest in this initiative, or do this or that, then you'll be "green"... and if everyone did it - just follow these three simple steps - then we wouldn't have to worry about that pesky little ecological crisis anymore.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. I think there's lots of stuff we can be doing - and a lot of it is simple - that is vitally, vitally important. But "easy being green?" I don't think this kind of statement takes seriously enough the kind of economic and cultural transformation that will need to happen - and that will happen one way or another, whether we like it or not - in a transition out of the era of cheap oil and exorbitant consumption. A global economic model that is by definition in desperate crisis when "consumer spending" goes down by a fraction... I'm sorry, but I don't believe the kind of change that is needed here is going to be "easy." Not by a long shot.

Case-in-point. How many of us going to the Leadership Seminar will be flying? I will. I tried to arrange to go by train - the better ecological choice - but it wasn't "easy." In fact, I couldn't figure out how to do it at all (one of the requirements of my P2 musician work visa is that I MUST leave the country the DAY AFTER my last engagement... NO EXCEPTIONS... kinda tough to get by train from South Florida to Toronto by train in that kind of time...). So I'm flying.

No problem. Wouldn't it be "easy" to arrange for some other gigs on the way back home and work my way north by train? I was going to try that too, but ran out of time and didn't want to jeopardize the visa process (the application had to be in 120 days in advance)... so I didn't get it done. Or wouldn't it be "easy" to just say "well, I have this music ministry vocation, but I won't travel to come to your event"...?

Well, no. That wouldn't be easy at all, and I also don't think it would be right.

hmmm...

Don't get me wrong. I'm by no means "down" on this event, or the theme, or the fact that I suspect virtually everyone will be flying to get there (ok, I suppose I am a bit "down" on that last one...). I think this is good and vital agenda, and a good and vital event, and I can't wait to meet and hear from and learn from all these good and vital people (and all the others too, who I'm sure will be just as "good and vital").

Just don't tell me that following through on this agenda is going to be "easy." I don't believe it.

Makes me think of the guy with the catchy slogan "Take up your cross and follow me." Not exactly easy. Life-giving, fulfilling, community-and-joy-and-pain-filled... yes. Spirit-led, yup. Worthwhile, you bet. GOOD NEWS - absolutely.

Easy? I don't think so.

full of it?

So...

After all this time going on about sustainability and music, and an alternative business model for the arts that is more sustainable in ecological and relational as well as financial terms...

Confession time. As my performance schedule grows, I've flown more in the past year than I have in any other year of my life.

And as I look to the future, and the growth of this ministry, and the fact that it is becoming the "primary income" for our family rather than a "supplementary income," and now that I will no longer be the primary at-home parent... It looks like I'll be traveling more, not less.

So I have to ask myself - am I just full of it? Spouting ecological/sustainability rhetoric for as long as it's convenient and fits with my family's lifestyle and financial situation... only to jettison all that high-minded stuff about alternatives to the "tour! tour! tour! sell! sell! sell!" model when this ministry actually grows to the point that there's more and more "demand" for what I do...?

It's not a particularly fun question to ask, but it's a real possibility, and one that I need to be willing to look square in the face.

Of course, there's always the argument of "degree"... I'm still developing my "alternative model" (a significant part of which is the "CSM" or "Community Supported Music" approach)... and I'm still at a stage where I need to travel a fair bit and expose more people to this music firsthand, to get to the point where the "touring" part can become less important... (although I believe that some traveling will always be, and should be, part of what this ministry is about...)

And ok, so I've bumped up my extended-away-from-home-touring from about 5 weeks a year to about 10, and my family has decided we can handle that... it's still a far cry (isn't it?) from the constant touring that is seen as "the standard" for a musician that is serious about "making a go of it"...

And this coming year much of my long-distance travel will be by TRAIN, which is - as far as these things go - not as environmentally destructive as flying. I'm making use of the Canada Rail pass, and seriously considering doing a 30 day North America Rail Pass trans-continental tour... coast to coast, 2 countries, on one train ticket... how's that for economic and environmental stewardship?

And we'll soon be moving into town, which means leaving the large garden that we have so carefully cultivated over the past 5 years (and which produces a surprising amount of our food)... but it also means we'll be within walking distance of MANY more things, including the GO Train, and we expect to be able to cut our car usage by about 50%...

Trade-offs... challenges... uncertainties... passionate convictions... economic realities... choices...

Real eco-efforts... or handy rationalizations?

Hmmm...

it can be done

I got a call last week from Lauren at IndiePool (who I've worked with in the design, manufacture, and distribution of my last two CDs) to let me know that, thanks in part to the persistence of a-certain-musician-who-shall-remain-nameless-but-who-has-been-bugging-him -for-years-about-the-extra-cost-and-hassle-of-using-recycled-paper, IndiePool has leaned on its suppliers and now offers recycled paper and packaging for the same price as the non-recycled stuff.

Good news. It can be done. Persistence sometimes pays off.

a growing circle

It's really neat to see, after 5 years of developing this "alternative economic model for the arts" and two years of my "CSM" (Community Supported Music initiative) being "up and running," that the "membership" circle continues to grow.

In fact, there's also a growing circle of folks that are excited enough about this approach that articles are beginning to appear in the press and on the web. (I'll try to remember to post more links as other articles appear.) It's not just me articulating this vision anymore... and it's especially cool when I get to learn more about this approach and how it functions by reading somebody else who reflects on it and recommends it... as in this blog post that I found this morning (by an anonymous writer that I THINK I recognize... but I'm not sure...)

And not only that - it's exciting to see still others picking up on these ideas and developing their own "community supported music" and "community supported art" initiatives. Have a look at the new "Community Supported Arts" website, and you can link to various folks in what looks to be an emerging network of artists of various kinds seeking to pursue our vocations - and connect/partner with our communities - in an "alternative" kind of way that can be, we hope, viable and sustainable (personally, relationally, ecologically, spiritually, artistically, economically) over the long term.

Looking forward to seeing how this all continues to unfold...

the economics of it all...

The people have spoken. I think it's safe to say I have never received so many responses to a post (some in the "Comments" section below, many more by direct e-mail) as I did from that last one, where I invited feedback on the idea of a new category of membership in SmallTall Music called "extra composting members." Thank you, one and all.

What I discovered:

- I seem to be way farther out of the "mainstream" of people's thinking than even I realized (...GRIN...)
- rather few (OK, one, maybe two) seemed to share my immediate, instinctive, and viscerally POSITIVE response to the term (and substance) "compost"... in fact, one person called it "shocking" and another person (already in that "extra composting member" category) felt it necessary to reassure me that he wasn't "upset" by my suggestion, but is thinking about it...
- a few people said they liked the idea, and rather more found it in their hearts to sympathize and humour my rather unorthodox and perhaps a bit quirky "take" on this, some saying they can see what I'm getting at and a few even saying the idea was "growing" on them (I'm not sure if the pun was intended).
- the overwhelming majority politely urge me to consider somewhat more "ordinary" terms (donor, associate, supporter, contributor, benefactor) or perhaps more musical metaphors, rather than such an "earthy" one to describe an additional category of membership.
- a couple of folks questioned whether different "categories of membership" are necessary at all, with one person astutely suggesting that - all my various explanations aside - "extra composting member" is still just a cute name for a "major donor" and that this metaphor too "breaks down" (!!) beyond a certain point...

My thinking after all of this? I am inclined to agree with the couple of comments posted below, suggesting that SmallTall Music "membership" continue to have a standard fee (including, of course, the "barter" option), and that anyone who wants to contribute further "compost" - in whatever form - for the nurture of this ministry, are very welcome to do so.

Actually, this whole process raises a set of fundamental issues that I have debated ever since launching this little venture nearly 5 years ago. From the start some have asked me why I don't set up SmallTall Music as a not-for-profit charitable organization, which would be in keeping with its character as a form of "ministry" and which would make it easier to do "fundraising" as contributors could receive income tax receipts for making "charitable donations."

This is an option that I have considered, and continue to take seriously, and may well consider seriously again. However, it's an option I have not pursued largely because of my desire - again, following the model and experience of Community Supported Agriculture - to develop a "business model" for this ministry that is viable and sustainable (in personal, relational, spiritual, ecological, and economic terms) AS A BUSINESS... That is, as a way of participating in the structuring of economic relationships that represents an intentional alternative (small-scale, community-based, with a sense of "enough") to the kinds of mainstream economic assumptions and practices that have proven (and are proving) to be so damaging to the planet.

Another reason why I have not chosen the "charitable status" route is that, in pursuing the mission of "building up the body of Christ by creating and sharing songs of faith for small and tall," my hope and intention is for SmallTall Music to also be a financial CONTRIBUTOR to the work of the church. In other words, rather than structuring SmallTall Music as a charitable organization whose economic model depends on soliciting charitable donations, I have sought to structure SmallTall Music as a business that can represent not only a humble-but-sustainable income for our family, but can also be a humble-but-generous contributor - financially - to "building up the body of Christ." (Maybe I'll blog more at some point about how I've been structuring that into the DNA of this ministry/business through what I call the "SmallTall Music Global Gift-Sharing Policy"...)

None of this is to disparage people's generosity or help freely offered, by any means. Nor is it some kind of attempt at a macho, rugged individualism (go ahead... try to picture me as a macho, rugged individual... GRIN...). It is instead - again, very much in the spirit of the Community Supported Agriculture - aspiring to a way of "doing business" and living out a vocation with humility and dignity and competence as an integral part of the life (including, unapologetically, the economic life) of a community that sees value and worth in one's work.

I have any number of friends who are doing just that with their own businesses - running a bakery, a farm, a store, an auto-mechanics shop, accountancy work, a masonry/renovation business, etc, etc, etc... Each of these is a business and a form of "ministry," and all are part of a network of relationships that can - one trusts - be counted on to be supportive in various ways when times are tough. (This, of course, includes a readiness to acknowledge when times are tough, and to be willing to invite and accept, as well as give, support.)

Or to put it another way, structuring SmallTall Music as a business has forced me to think more clearly about how I too function in "The Great Economy" (thank you, Wendell Berry)...

I offer these thoughts by way of explanation, and in a further attempt to define and refine and evaluate my own thinking... Further response and conversation about any of this is more than welcome... in fact, it is another form of "compost" that this garden needs in order to thrive...

how does your garden grow?

You can't even imagine our joy when we looked up and saw a big pile of... compost.

Go ahead. Try. I didn't think you could.

Like a lot of folks in this part of the world, we spent part of the weekend digging/working/playing in our garden. And I tell you, that pile of... compost... generously delivered from Brian's farm next door, was a welcome sight.

This summer will mark our 5th anniversary of living in this place, and our 4th year of tending this garden. It is such a rewarding experience to see how each year, slowly but surely, the garden is growing... in size, in productivity, in TOMATOES (we've finished our canned tomatoes but still have one bag of frozen ones from last year's garden... this year I think I bought 4 tomatoes all winter, compared to last year when I probably bought 4 tasteless tomatoes per week... just out of habit, and because I couldn't imagine a "salad" without it... I'm learning...)

It is such a rewarding experience not just because of what it produces for us, but also because of the deep sense that through our daily living and eating this patch of ground is actually better and healthier now than it was when we started. Somehow this year, in the midst of our growing awareness of the many ways in which our way of life damages the earth, this has touched me deeply. All those scraps from our daily life - even the grounds from our daily coffee - have been adding organic matter to the clay soil, and now when we dig we can actually feel the difference.

This year our next step was to set up some "raised beds" - some patches of ground enclosed by cement blocks that were lying around - so that we can plant our vegetables a little more densely and wander around the garden and reach into the beds and tend the plants without stepping up and down "rows" and compacting the soil.

And with that pile of richly composted manure from our neighbour's farm mixed in... mmmmm good!

And after 5 years of doing music "full-time" (at least, 5 years since I've had employment besides music) I'm finding the same thing. It's slow and patient work, tending the soil, the ordinary stuff of everyday life, and sure enough the soil still seems receptive - indeed, increasingly so - to those persistent efforts, scattered seeds, and times of vigilant waiting and rest.

And I continue to build different kinds of infrastructure - like those raised beds - that are small-scale and humble but helpful for this music ministry to be healthy and productive and sustainable over the long term. I can't wait to unveil the latest development... very soon...

And then last week I had one of those ideas (a regular occurrence) that is either utterly brilliant or incredibly stupid - I can't tell which (an even more regular occurrence).

Regular readers will know about the SmallTall Music membership system (which some - including now myself - have taken to calling my "CSM" or "Community Supported Music" initiative). Currently there are three kinds of "membership" - household membership ($30 per year), congregational/organizational membership ($100 per year), and denominational/publisher membership (variable, depending on various factors). For quite some time different people have been approaching me and saying "Bryan, we want to support your ministry with more than the $30 membership fee. Have you thought about another category of membership for those who want to give more...? Like $500 or more...?"

Well, I have thought about it. A lot. I like the idea (and a few have been doing it anyway, just because, without my having created a formal category for it). But I always get stuck on what to call it.

Premium membership? Supporting members? Gold/platinum/elite/super-elite members...?

Yuck. I resist those kinds of labels and categories... and the implication that if you can give or pay more, that your membership is worth more, or more supportive...

Sponsoring members? Could be... but I resist the resonance of "corporate sponsorship"... "Patron of the arts" members? This makes good sense for some folks... but somehow it doesn't feel like my style either...

And then it came to me... like a flash in the night... like a vision...

How about...

Composting Members.

or even better: Extra Composting Members.

All the members of SmallTall Music, the members of my CSM, are "good soil" with whom I am delighted and privileged to work and serve and dig and grow...

But there is also a place for folks like our neighbour Brian who will appear with a big pile of compost... added organic matter that enhances the soil and can be worked in and help the whole garden to grow in health and beauty and productivity...

So what do you think? "Extra Composting Members" of SmallTall Music...?

Please be honest.

Julie doesn't like it. "What?! That's not exactly flattering to your supporters, Bryan..."

When I asked Karl and Michelle (who are friends but not intimately acquainted with my music ministry, or with gardening)... let's just say they raised their eyebrows and tilted their heads and... well... crinkled their eyes and smiled a bit and...

They didn't seem to think it was such a great idea either.

But it continues to "ring true" to me.

I'd love to hear what you think.

And while you're thinking... here are a couple of photos of our garden space and how it's been evolving...

offset this

For my trip to Winnipeg last week I bought “carbon offsets” for the first time. Through zerofootprint I invested in planting trees that will absorb an amount of carbon from the air that is apparently proportional to the carbon emissions caused by my flight (or, to be more precise, proportional to my share of the emissions - 0.4 tonnes of CO2 - caused by my flight). And after my carbon purchase (very easy to do - just a click on the link on my e-ticket from Air Canada) I got a very perky e-mail message in a huge yellow font saying “Congratulations, Bryan Suderman. Your flight is carbon neutral!”

So how much do you suppose it costs to buy “carbon offsets” for a return flight between Toronto and Winnipeg?

$50? That was Pieter’s guess.

$20-$25 or so? That’s what I was thinking.

How much was actually charged to my credit card?

$6.72

Actually, it was $6.40, plus GST (Goods and Services Tax).

I find this surprising and rather disconcerting. I feel a bit like a repentant sinner, ready for some good old-fashioned penance, being “let off” too easy. Like a Wild West outlaw whose reward poster offers an embarrassingly low amount. Surely my transgression is more serious - is WORTH more - than that?

In fact, I’ll admit it, one of my immediate gut-level reactions was to think “Hey, that’s not so bad, maybe I can fly more than I thought...!”

hmmm... I don't think that's the way it's supposed to work... Romans 6:1-2 comes to mind...

Don't get me wrong. In spite of some misgivings and skepticism, I still think buying carbon offsets is a good thing to do. Maybe pricing it this low (zerofootprint pegs it at $16 per ton of carbon emissions) will help more people to take the plunge (and, as I discovered, it's really not much of a plunge. More of a dip - or maybe a sprinkle - in this case).

Considering that my $159 airfare (each way) included these charges added on...

- $9.34 for the post-9/11 "Canada Security Charge"
- $35 for a "Canada Airport Improvement Fee"
- $36 for "Navcan and Surcharges" (whatever that is)
- $23.90 GST
(Grand Total - $422.24)

... I don't see why a "carbon tax" - in this case, $6.72 - shouldn't just be LEGISLATED as one of the standard costs of travel anyway...

Now I'm not much for math, but if my calculations are correct - $16 to offset 1 ton of carbon emissions, 100 km of driving my car producing roughly 0.03 tons in emissions (according to zerofootprint's carbon calculator) - that comes to roughly $0.50 per 100 km of driving for carbon offsets. I think.

So, a question: since I track my performance-related mileage anyway, should I simply calculate the carbon emissions and offsets and pay it myself (as I will for other work-related and personal travel)? Or should I add a $0.50/100 km "carbon offset" charge as a standard cost that I include on my invoices and pass on to whoever is having me travel for a performance? Would that get a few more people thinking, I wonder...?

In any case, I'm not convinced that my flight was really as "carbon neutral" (and therefore, in perception at least, as benign) as the perky yellow font would have me believe. And it certainly doesn't absolve me from taking more significant steps to change my lifestyle and reduce my ecological footprint.

But I appreciate the encouragement. We have to start somewhere.

an alternative business model for the arts...?

What to do if...

- you are passionate about your art (whether music, visual art, or whatever kind of "form") and wish you could spend more time at it (and even wonder about deriving some income from it)?

- you want to take your art more seriously and "get it out there" to more people, but you don't really see yourself going "full-time," or even necessarily "part-time," in an "employment/income-generating" kind of way?

- you would like to "take the plunge" and try to pursue your art on a part-time or full-time basis, but you wonder if there's an economically viable way to do it?

- your gifts have been affirmed by others who say they would like to support your artistic vocation but aren't sure how?

- you have a real drive to explore or pursue your artistic vocation, but sense a disconnect between your own values, goals, and priorities and the kind of lifestyle and assumptions (eg: "tour! tour! tour! sell! sell! sell!") that seem to be expected/required if you want to be "serious" about "making a go of it" with your art?

As I've wrestled with these questions I keep finding more and more people who wrestle with them too. As you can see on the sidebar of this blog, I am blessed to have friends and colleagues who are pursuing their musical/artistic vocations in a host of creative ways that are as varied and interesting and dynamic as the people themselves. Thankfully there is no "one way" to do this - any more than there is "one way" for any of us to do our art. I have learned and continue to learn a great deal from these co-conspirators... and I've been curious if the approach that I've been developing might be of interest to others as well.

There are a bunch of different models/metaphors that can help describe the approach that I'm taking (which some have taken to calling "Community Supported Music"). In many ways it's a web-based 21st century spin on some very old ways of structuring economic relationships. See which one (if any) of these metaphors resonates best with you:

1) Community Supported Music (CSM, or CSArts - see my last post and an earlier, more whimsical description) is like a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm - redefining the relationship between "producer" and "consumer" to be a partnership in the growing and consuming of food. The CSA model offers the opportunity to have a direct relationship (and the possibility of direct participation/involvement) with the person and the place and the process that is growing your food - locally, organically, sustainably. In the same way, Community Supported Music offers the opportunity to have a direct relationship with the person who is "growing music" (or paintings or dramas or whatever) for you (and, quite possibly, motivating you to try your hand at it as well).

2) CSM (or CSArts) is like a decentralized and democratized way of "commissioning" art. Instead of a single wealthy benefactor (or agency or entity) financing/supporting the artist, there is a community of people that sees its role as supporting a particular artist, benefitting from the art, and helping to bring that art to the world.

3) CSM/CSArts is in some ways like a pastor-congregation relationship. A community decides that it is important to call someone and charge him or her with the functions (among others) of living in the community and paying attention to what is going on, spending time in prayer and Scripture study, and preparing something (eg: a sermon) to share with the community on a regular basis for the "building up of the body of Christ." There will be weeks when the pastor (or the congregation) feels that sermon was particularly "inspired" and other weeks not, but that doesn't change the fact that this person has been called (and is financially supported) to carry out this particular function in the community. In many ways this is how I tend to see my role as songwriter. And the CSM system is a way, again, to "decentralize" that function so that the "local, supporting community" can be made up of people from all over the place.

4) The artist in a CSM/CSArts system is like the medieval "town fiddler" (or the "community flute players" that played at Jeremy and WuYan's wedding in China a few weeks ago - see photo above). This is a local person who is bi-vocational and does not typically "make a living" exclusively with music, but everybody knows that when it's time for the party (or the wedding), the "town fiddler" (or "flute players") can be counted on to be there, fulfilling their social function and helping the community to do its thing.

And on and on it goes... I'm sure you could add to this list.

While each metaphor is different, and teases out different aspects of the relationship between the "artist" and the "community," it seems to me that they have a great deal in common:

- relationship and community based
- small-scale and "local"
- more about the "process" (and the social function in the community) than about a "product"
- an economic structure that is "in proportion" with the life and values of the community

While I'm still in the beginning stages, already I'm finding this approach to be a better "fit" with my values and goals and priorities than many of the mainstream assumptions that I hear about what it means to "make it" and "succeed" in "the music business." I see this approach as a way to value long-term sustainability and health over "making it big"; a sense of "enough" over unfettered ambition; a strengthening of relationships in the living out of artistic vocation rather than a sacrificing of relationships in the pursuit of "success."

What do you think? Can you see an adapted form of this model working for you? Could this kind of approach help you to explore and live out your sense of artistic vocation? Is it a mechanism that could help you support someone else's...?

sustainability and music (4)

Well, a year and a half into this experiment with an "alternative business model" for my music ministry, I can report on how it's going and even begin musing about how it might work for others who might want to try something similar.

It's actually been about 5 years since I "quit my day job" and moved music-making from being my "side thing" (which it had always been - and that was good) to being my "main thing" both vocationally and economically. And a constant theme throughout those 5 years has been a strong sense of call and vocation for this work, many questions and doubts about its long-term financial viability, and the deep sense that there must be an alternative to the mainstream assumptions ("tour! tour! tour! sell! sell! sell!") about what it means to "make it" or even just to "make a go of it" in "the music business."

In particular, what would it look like to structure this ministry/business in a way that is livable, healthy, sustainable (ecologically, relationally, economically) over the long term? In a way that can function well on a small scale (has a sense of "enough") and does not have to buy into the "celebrity system" and grow to be "as BIG as possible as FAST as possible" in order to be viable? Or, in other words, a way that is "designed for permanence" (to use the phrase from E.F.Schumacher's classic book from the 70s - "Small is Beautful: Economics As If People Mattered")?

Four of the five "revenue streams" for SmallTall Music are fairly standard - CD/digital record sales, performances, royalties/publishing, and what I call "special projects" (a catch-all category for different things that come up from time to time). Developing the fifth "revenue stream," for me, has been the key to making this an "alternative business model" that enables the whole system to function on a scale that is livable and (I hope) sustainable - a "business model" that better reflects my faith and vocational aspirations.

Essentially what I've done is taken the "Community Supported Agriculture" (or CSA) model and applied it to music. On a CSA farm you pay an up-front annual fee (or "membership" or "subscription" or "shares) and receive regular deliveries (usually weekly) of fresh, locally grown (usually organic) produce throughout the growing season. In the same way, I've set up a "membership" system so that when you "become a member" of SmallTall Music (household or congregational/institutional memberships are available) you receive regular "deliveries" of fresh, locally-grown produce - "songs of faith for small and tall" - straight from the producer, yours truly, via download from a "Members Only" page of the SmallTall Music website.

I've written about this system elsewhere, so you can find more technical details of how this works, and a more whimsical description of the system and the philosophy behind it. For now, suffice it to say that this little experiment (which folks familiar with the CSA model have taken to calling my "Community Supported Music" or "CSM"... or "CSArts"...) is entering its second year of operation, and I think it's going well:

- as of today there are 58 paid-up "members" of SmallTall Music. 13 are "congregational/institutional" members and 45 are "household" members.
- after the first year I was rather anxious about "renewals" - sure, it's a neat idea and all, but how many of the members would want to renew for a second year? Much to my delight, the renewal rate so far has been nearly 100% - way better than I had dared to hope.
- more members are beginning to participate actively in various ways - by giving feedback on the songs and how they're using them, giving ideas and suggestions for other songs ("we really need a song to sing when..."), by using and recommending the songs in various contexts - a group of STM members even sang backing vocals on a couple of songs on the new studio album.
- good participation in the first annual "SmallTall Music Members Jamboree," which is a whole "delivery of songs" made up entirely of songs written not by me but by the members of SmallTall Music.
- I'm getting requests from various members for a new "category" of membership ("sponsoring member?"), because they want to support what I'm doing by contributing more than the requested "annual fee."

This is exciting and encouraging, and while I wasn't exactly sure what to expect when I started this thing, and it's obviously still in its infancy, I'm very pleased with how it's moving. While this membership system is no economic juggernaut (and I'm still hoping to cut down on my web costs by learning to do more of it myself), it is for me a key piece in the puzzle of long-term viability, and over time my hope is that the membership system will serve as the kind of base-line income that is more consistent and predictable as other revenue streams (CD sales, royalties/publishing) fluctuate depending on many factors.

This is slow and patient work... but good and fulfilling and fun work too. In the wise words of Gary Guthrie, STM member and an old friend who runs a CSA of his own in Iowa:

"...you are breaking new ground... It is always tough going to break up the clods and turn in the grass pasture... But with time, patience and spreading a lot of manure the soil improves bit by bit. By nurturing the soil life community we literally feed the grass roots! What does it take to start a grass roots movement? Ya have to spread manure and feed the soil!"

I'd never thought of it quite that way before... but here's to spreading more manure, hopefully for a good long time to come!

sustainability and music (3)

I've received a couple of interesting and thoughtful e-mails in response to my earlier posts on "sustainability and music," and it seems I've given the impression that I think money, or making money, is "a bad thing."

This is interesting - and rather surprising - to me. In addition to seeing myself as engaged in a "vocation" and a "ministry," I also see myself as a "self-employed business person" or even (in my more optimistic moments) something of an "entrepreneur." I liked the theme of the recent MEDA conference in Toronto (where I sang a couple of my new songs about - you guessed it - economic stewardship): "business as a calling."

And, like many business people, I am seeking to operate my business (and make money/earn a living) with integrity, in a way that is coherent with my faith. Or, to put it another way (in the words of a song on a recently released album that you really ought to buy... GRIN... in fact, you can listen to the song here) - "My money talks, so what can you hear it saying...?"

I suppose you could say that I'm taking an enterpreneurial approach with a passion for environmental sustainability and a "simple living" orientation. And yes, those words CAN all fit in the same sentence...

I don't have a problem with earning money. I DO have a problem with business models - in any industry/economic sector - that are not sustainable (which is to say, they are destructive) in environmental and other terms. And I am actively seeking/exploring/developing alternatives in my "line of work," as are many other people in theirs.

For instance, according to the prevailing wisdom of what a musician must do to "make it," my performance schedule is woefully inadequate. Over the past few years, I am averaging probably 40 to 60 performance dates per year, trying to keep it to a maximum of two weekends "away" per month, and have been "on the road" for more extensive (long distance) touring anywhere from 2-5 weeks per year. This has been about right for our family - it is what we have decided that we can handle at this point.

Some people look at my performance schedule and say "Wow - you sure are busy, and are really taking this music thing seriously." Others would see this kind of schedule as not serious or viable at all (definitely not adequate for consideration for a record label contract or distribution deal with most indie labels/distributors). Many musicians tour much more extensively and continuously, some logging 200-plus performances per year as a working musician.

It is a rare artist indeed who can find the right balance between the kind of "on the road" time required to build and sustain their career and the kind of "at home" time required to build and sustain healthy family and community relationships. Of course there is no one formula or "right way" to do this, and I have tremendous respect for people who have managed to maintain a lengthy career, as well as good relationships and mental health, with a kind of touring schedule that I know I could never manage.

But I also know of (and respect) many who have not been able to pull this off... and others who try it for a few years and then "settle down" to a "real job"...

A couple of interesting examples that I've come across lately:

1) a friend in a band with a major label contract wondering about their future prospects if the new album isn't a big seller... very uncertain, even if the new record does really well, whether this career is a viable long-term option, could be managed while starting a family, etc. What surprised me most was that here is someone who has achieved what many musicians dream of - a major label contract - and he's asking all the same questions as many of us in the "indie" world. Except for their album to "do well" and give them a shot at some degree of financial viability - even in the short term - it needs to sell upwards of tens of thousands of copies (where for most of us "indies" an album that sells a few thousand is doing well).

2) another friend wrote this article about The Duhks - a Winnipeg band that I like very much - and their struggles with wanting to "go green" (see the great website for their Sustainability Project - Green Duhks) while at the same time trying to "make it" in the music business. They are doing things like buying carbon offsets for their tours (and using a "veggie-oil run van") to mitigate their environmental impact, but at the same time (and acutely aware of the contradiction) felt compelled to accept sponsorship from Chevrolet for an ad in Rolling Stone magazine that could really help their career.

Hmmm...

Two things that strike me about these examples:

1) the pervasive sense that the economic system in which we are working is fundamentally untenable and unsustainable, for ourselves, our families, our communities, our planet.

2) the pervasive sense that WE HAVE NO CHOICE, that there is no other option, that the "get as BIG as possible as fast as possible - tour! tour! tour! sell! sell! sell!" approach is the only game in town.

(By the way, I hope it's clear by now that what we're talking about here is not unique to "the music business" but has parallels in virtually any "sector of the economy" that you can name... agriculture, energy, and the automotive industries immediately come to mind...)

Is it true that the mainstream system is fundamentally flawed and inherently unsustainable? You know by now that I think "yes."

Is it true that we have no other choice? I don't think so.

Can we even imagine an economic system for music that is not inherently destructive of the environment (and for which we attempt to compensate by buying more and more carbon offsets while simultaneously pursuing ever-increasing levels of touring, CD and "merch" sales)? Can we imagine an economic system that is actually GOOD for the planet?

Can we even imagine an economic system for music that is not inherently destructive of family and community relationships, but that actually ENHANCES and STRENGTHENS them?

I think we can. I think it's already happening. I think we need to share those stories and experiences and help to get the word out. In my next post I plan to share some of my own beginning experiments that attempt to move in this direction, and might even go so far as to venture "a modest proposal for an alternative business model for the arts." And I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts and experiences and experiments and critiques.

I'm reminded again of the old adage (wasn't it Gandhi who said it?) - we must become the change we wish to see in the world.

And by the way, I do want to incorporate "carbon offsets" as one of the standard costs of the way I "do business" - am considering listing them up front as one of the standard costs on my invoices for performances (a cost that I'm thinking we would share 50-50 as travelling performer and hosting community). What do you think about that idea? But I've heard a lot of controversy around some artists that have gone big into carbon offsets and promoting "carbon neutral" tours, only to find later that the companies that they worked with didn't follow through, or that the trees planted to offset carbon emissions all died, etc... Can anyone point me in the direction of good, trustworthy, reputable systems that are in place for buying carbon offsets? Who has experience with this?

sustainability and music (2)

I keep hearing this new orthodoxy, with slight variations, about "the music business in the digital age"...

1) the big players in the "traditional" music business (big record labels, etc.) are in trouble and don't know what to do
2) "new media" and digital downloads are a great thing for independent artists
3) in the age of digital downloads, musicians should not expect to make money from recorded music, but from live performances and merchandise sales.

To which I say:

1) looks that way, but massive multi-national conglomerates generally seem to find a way to take care of themselves (or, as they would say, their shareholders)
2) yes
3) that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Let's think about this for a moment, beyond the obvious (though undeniably fun) demonstrations of the silliness of this idea. (Example: farmers should not expect to make money from growing produce, but from - I know! - selling t-shirts and fridge magnets...!) I at least have yet to meet any of the proponents of "standard orthodoxy #3" above who have adopted the "business model" that they so enthusiastically recommend for musicians, and vacated their salaried positions as journalists or university professors or whatever for a lifestyle of constant touring and selling frisbees, caps, and travel mugs with their faces on them...

Of course performing ("touring"), in some way and to some extent, has been and will continue to be at the core of what it means for most of us to be musicians - and to earn income as musicians - and that's a good and necessary thing.

But again, as I pointed out in the previous post, there is a "scale" that is liveable and sustainable... or not. And the mainstream "you've gotta be BIG to make a go of it... tour! tour! tour! sell! sell! sell!" approach, it seems to me, is not.

Do we REALLY think it's a good idea - given the realities of climate change and urgent need to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions - that independent artists should buy into a business model that requires us to rely almost exclusively on MORE touring...?

Do we REALLY think it's a good idea - given those same realities - for every independent artist and band to function as itinerant purveyors of more cheap plastic trinkets and disposable crap? (I'm referring to the "merchandise sales" here - not the music, whatever you might think of it... - and I know, we do need some t-shirts and caps to wear, but don't tell me that artists relying on merchandise sales for income are buying and re-selling high quality clothing produced in environmentally friendly ways... not exactly a viable "revenue stream" for artists - believe me, I've checked it out...)

Come on. Surely we can do better than that.

The trendy catchphrase "Your failed business model is not my problem" strikes me as an interesting case in point. Typically directed at "the traditional music industry" and intellectual property rights (copyright) system, this phrase makes for a quick and handy justification for illegal downloads or file-sharing or whatever... (and is available, by the way, on t-shirts for $8, or so a 10 second Google search tells me)... and I can see the point, and I think in some ways it's partially right...

Except that it's wrong. Dead wrong.

The "failed business model" of the traditional music business IS my problem, and yours. In a big way. In fact, it's become abundantly clear to anybody that's paying attention that the "failed business model" of the western world is EVERYBODY's problem (in the form of climate change)... and that what we need are ALTERNATIVE business models that are environmentally sustainable.

Telling independent musicians that their only viable options for making a living are by touring more and selling more cheap "merch" is not an "alternative" to the mainstream model - it's buying into that model hook, line, and sinker. And, as far as I can see, it's stupid and it's just plain wrong.

We can do better. Much better.

There is all kinds of creative thinking going on out there about creative alternatives. There are all kinds of creative ways - some with the help of "new media" - to forge a lifestyle that is more fulfilling, healthy, sustainable, and true... Let's talk about those ideas, and share them and try them out, and report on their progress. Let's step up and provide some leadership in envisioning and implementing alternative business models that can be sustainable for ourselves and for the planet.

Let's not wring our hands and profess concern for climate change while we simultaneously seek "success" in the mainstream system and according to the mainstream business models that continue to accelerate the problem... settling for a business model that assumes ever-increasing levels of touring and merchandise sales as "the way of the future." That kind of business model is indeed bound to fail. And it IS our problem.

I'm looking forward to posting more ideas about what "alternative business models for the arts" might look like... and I look forward to hearing your ideas as well.

sustainability and music (1)

A while back I shocked someone when I told her my goal was NOT to sell as many CDs as I can.

I come across that all the time - when someone finds out that I'm a musician/singer-songwriter/recording artist, the immediate assumptions are that 1) there's no way you can make a living at it, and/or 2) the only way you could possibly make a living at it is by getting really "big" and being "famous," and therefore that's what I must be trying to do.

Whereas my goal is to simply be faithful to this vocation, and to find a way to do that over the long term, on a humble and sustainable scale. Sustainable in relational, financial, mental health, and ecological terms.

I'm finding that some people really respond to this goal, and appreciate it (and, it must be said, usually wish me luck with the implied sub-text that I'm sure going to need it!). Others find this frustrating, and say they hope for "more" for me, that they think I can "do better"... and sometimes the implication seems to be that striving for sustainability means limiting my dreams too much (at best), or retreating into the welcoming and comforting arms of intentional mediocrity (at worst).

I'm reminded of the writings of Wendell Berry, who for many years has loudly challenged the assumption that "bigger is better" when it comes to agriculture, that "industrial-scale" agriculture is the only way to go, and has argued instead that "there is a ratio between eyes and acres, between farm size and farm hands, that is correct." ("A Defense of the Family Farm," in the 1987 collection of essays called "Home Economics," p. 164). And that a big part of our ecological crisis is that we have not got that ratio right.

It seems to me that the same could be said about music. And many other things, for that matter.

It's a funny thing... being passionate about environmental sustainability and the need for change in the way we live... including, among other things, changing habits of hyper-consumption... and writing songs that, among other things, articulate something of that vision... and then recording them and putting them on a plastic/metallic disc, encasing them in more plastic and paper and cardboard... and then shipping them all over the place and seeking to SELL them...

It's a process full of contradictions, obviously. Contradictions that I struggle with every day.

In the manufacture of my latest CD, I wanted to make choices that were better for the environment. Recycled, post-consumer paper, vegetable inks, alternatives to the plastic jewel case package... (why do those options still cost MORE?! Why do we persist in financially penalizing better environmental practices and subsidizing poorer ones...?) ... and yet the most environmentally damaging piece of all remains the disc itself...

... and before we get too excited and breathlessly ecstatic about digital downloads and iTunes as an environmental alternative, let's give our heads a bit of a shake and recognize that the computer industry and related electronic gadgetry are hardly paragons of virtue when it comes to environmental sustainability...

Now don't get me wrong. I've embraced the world of digital downloads too, and see lots of potential for how this can be part of the mix of a more sustainable way of approaching a long-term musical vocation (I'll be posting more about that and other ideas soon)...

But it seems to me that as an ecologically responsible means of music distribution, we have yet to improve on the system that songwriters have been using for thousands and thousands of years...

Sing the songs! And teach them to others and pass them along... and see, over time, which are the ones that remain...