HOW THE MUSIC COMMUNITY PERCEIVES ITSELF:

An Analysis of its Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Robyn Holmes, Curator of Music, National Library of Australia 1

In April 2008, the Music Council of Australia invited all its constituents to undertake an
analysis of their own music sector. Members were free to use whatever methods they
could to seek the views of their participants and frame their arguments, but, for the
purposes of consistency, the form of the analysis was prescribed as a SWOT analysis.
This aimed to describe the key Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
(SWOT) facing each particular sector. The Council asked Robyn Holmes, Curator of
Music at the National Library of Australia, to aggregate and analyse the responses.
Robyn Holmes here presents an overview of these findings and of the perceptions
expressed by various parts of the music community, the music profession and the
industry.

The Music Council has published each of the SWOT papers by different sectors of the
music community in the Music in Australia Knowledge Base on the Council’s website
http://www.mca.org.au/ as well as the graphs and appendices that underpin Robyn
Holmes’ analysis. All SWOTs are shown together at
http://www.mca.org.au/web/component/option,com_kb/task,article/article,7/

This analysis of the current state of the music community derives from its own view of
itself: its musical activities, practices, ideals, attitudes, concerns and status. While this
SWOT overview provides a body of useful evidence, it is important to understand at the
outset that this exercise was consciously perceptual rather than evidence-based. Each
music sector undertook its own SWOT analysis mainly via observation, discussion and

1
Special thanks to Kaye McIntyre and Emma Sekuless at the National Library of Australia for their
assistance in producing the graphs and appendices, published in the Music in Australia Knowledge Base
www.mca.org.au/web/component/option,com_kb/task,article/article,154/ and in the National Library’s staff
papers www.nla.gov.au

1
anecdote – provided in some cases by participants collectively across Australia, and in
others instances only by key individuals within a sector. The process did not seek formal
fact-finding, benchmarking and statistical analysis, but rather aimed to see how the music
community understood itself, its strengths and its weaknesses and the opportunities as
well as threats that exist within current global, national or local contexts. This task of
course took place before the Global Economic Crisis began to hit Australia – so perhaps
some sectors may have perceived Threats to the music profession and industry very
differently, or more urgently, had this SWOT process occurred a year later. Although the
lack of statistical evidence may qualify the usefulness of the findings, the process was
part of a wider national agenda to gather qualitative opinion and ideas about the future of
music in Australia, together with the National Music Summit held in September 2008 and
other advocacy initiatives. The broad aim was to gather a body of ideas and knowledge
that could inform the development of strategies and actions to improve the state and
status of music in the nation.

Some parameters about the SWOT process

Responses to the SWOT analysis came from 22 music sectors. Strongly represented were
performance organisations (both professional and community), performance networks (eg
brass bands, folk alliance) and organisations or people representing particular
performance genres (e.g. jazz, opera, country music). In addition, music education was
well represented, including school music, tertiary education and private studio teachers
(both instrumental and vocal). Various sectors that provide music infrastructure (e.g.
libraries), specialist support (eg instrument makers, music therapists) and serve particular
parts of the music industry (e.g. artists management, publishers) responded. However,
there was a notable lack of response from some parts of the music industry, across
broadcasting, rights agencies, unions, venues, retailers, film and the creative industries.

There is, therefore, an overall bias in this SWOT analysis towards sectors that engage
people in music-making at the elite or community level, in music education and in
infrastructure for music. The authors of each document also tended to be people involved
in building networks and advocacy for their sector, with the inevitable bias that this

2
brings. However, because of the significant gaps in the response rate, it is less clear from
the SWOT exercise how the music industry – across the whole spectrum of production,
supply and consumption – perceives itself.

Common threads
How did I approach my task of drawing all these 22 responses together? As I analysed
each in detail, recurring patterns and statements began to emerge, indicating a strong
degree of shared attitudes, concerns, issues and pressure points, common views held
across often widely diverging sectors. I decided therefore to group the multiple
comments into common threads, patterns or themes, against which I could graphically
track the overall patterns of Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats.
These common threads were
• Participation and access
• Collaboration / cohesion and coherence
• Artistry
• Technology (addressed only as an Opportunity)
• Business issues and development
• Funding and infrastructure (addressed as a Weakness and a Threat)
• Employment and career (mostly perceived as a Weakness)
• Professional development and training

Inevitably, the nuances and subtleties affecting each sector get lost in such a compressed
analysis, but each sector can now monitor their own responses in relation to the whole
picture. Similarly, those sectors who did not initially respond now have a framework
against which to gather and present their views.

Overall, there was greater consensus around the Strengths of music sectors, although
these were neither always strongly articulated nor clearly defined. Respondents showed a
willingness to undertake more complex and effective self-critical analysis of their
Weaknesses. Though Opportunities engendered more varied and interesting responses,
disappointingly these were generally not correlated with Threats or Weaknesses and

3
respondents imagined only incremental improvements to their sector rather than visionary
change. Threats engendered the most scattered, fragmented and diverse responses, with
minimal consistency across sectors. Often what people did not say provided as much
insight as what they did say. Few respondents related their issues to a wider context and
there was a surprisingly low level of comment about artistic development.

Figures 1-4 show the number of respondents from the 22 sectors relative to each key
theme within each the four parameters Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.
The full graphs showing what is expressed by each bar within a theme are published on
the Music Council of Australia website in the Music in Australia Knowledge Base
www.mca.org.au In my analysis below, I have summarised the main points in each key
theme but have correlated strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, to build
understanding about the perceptions of the music community as a whole.

4
Figure 1: Strengths Responses from 22 sectors

STRENGTHS
20

15

10

Participation & Collaborate Artistry Business Issues Professional

Access

Figure 2: Weaknesses Responses from 22 sectors

WEAKNESSES
20

15

10

Participation & Cohesion & Artistry Business Issues Funding & Employment & Professional
Access Coherence Infrastructure Career

5
Figure 3: Opportunities Responses from 22 sectors

OPPORTUNITIES
20

15

10

Participation & Collaborate Artistry Technology Business Professional

Development Development
Access

Figure 4: Threats Responses from 22 sectors

THREATS
15

10

Participation & Cohesion & Artistry Business Issues Funding & Professional
Access Coherence Infrastructure

6
Participation and access
The high level of participation in music is seen as a key strength, but any reduction in
participation and any obstacles to access (especially cost, age and isolation) also loom as
the biggest threat. Respondents almost all advocate a common set of values: music is a
participatory art-form; it engages audiences and give pleasure; music offers a range of
social and individual benefits; and people of all ages can participate together, lifelong.
The type of music sector noticeably affected attitudes towards matters of accessibility,
equity and cost structure, especially whether representing elite music-making, which is
necessarily limited to the few, or community focused with open access to all.

Key threats to ongoing participation were seen as the aging population and workforce, the
lack of retention rates of tutors and participants, competition for the recreational dollar,
competition for hours in the day (including the crowded school curriculum), increasing
costs of self-funded participation and the increasing commodification of music.
Nevertheless, many respondents notes the opportunities to expand numbers, participation
rates and audience by broadening the base of music-making, promoting music for health
and wellbeing, focusing on strategies to sustain the aging population and to retain young
musicians (especially at key life transition points such as from youth into young
adulthood). Overall, there is a strongly agreed need to advocate the values of music to
the wider community, to create and promote new kinds of messages about music, and
above all to generate an aura of music as a ‘success story’ in Australia, akin to sport.

Collaboration, coherence, cohesion

All respondents applauded existing networks, their established roles and advocacy
mechanisms and some felt that their longevity in the field gave them high credibility and
status within the broader music community. Yet recurring messages pointed to a
frightening degree of fragmentation and factionalism, isolation and marginalisation.
Inconsistencies and lack of frameworks across sectors and the lack of coherence and
coordination across national and state boundaries seemed to mirror the equivalent three
levels of government in Australia. So much for ‘whole of music community’ rhetoric and
coherence! To this end, policy across many areas of music is thought to be undeveloped.

7
There is a lack of national-state agreement and action on advocacy and a dearth of any
statistical evidence and research to support claims about the significance of music to
Australian society.

So lots of opportunities exist to improve the music community by building new alliances
across sectors, genres and art-forms and to share experiences about learning. There is a
recognised need for ‘one, very loud, musical voice’ that can advocate ‘industry wide’ and
to ‘whole of government’. “Cooperation should be the norm”, said many respondents.
Across the board, respondents perceived an urgent need to professionalise and align
associations and to benchmark, gather evidence and produce the research that will
influence both government and attract business and social investment.

Artistry
There were conflicting views, often vehement, as to whether artistic standards of music-
making and music production in Australia are increasing or declining. Debates about
quality are matched by a growing sense of despair at the lack of suitable performance
venues for live music and the increasingly prohibitive cost of access to suitable facilities
for community music use. Many sectors noted the fragility of ongoing performance
opportunities to sustain full-time practising musicians. This was especially evident
relative to the one-off performances offered by the increasing number of small festivals
and special events, many of which cannot pay realistic professional fees. The increasing
commodification of ‘musical product’ and the ‘celebrity factor’ seems aligned to the
increasing commercialisation of programming and repertoire, as does the need to rely on
box-office. Several respondents who argued for the inherent value of stimulating
Australian composition and artistic innovation through commissioning new work (often
the only way to gain government-funding support) equally lamented the loss of
opportunity to perform core repertoire from the past.

Opportunities especially were thought to lie in new touring initiatives, more live music
and greater collaboration across venues locally and nationally. Quality and not just
quantity in repertoire building, both heritage and new, was a demand amongst the music-

8
making sectors focussed on elite performance. Some sectors also stated that
commissioning new work should be intrinsic to musical activity, and engaging in cross-
art form development would stimulate the exploration of new spaces, attract new
audiences and create rich artistic experiences.

Technology
Perhaps surprisingly, issues of rapid change in music technology and improved access to
technology did not emerge as a key factor for many, although most respondents perceived
better use of technology as a significant opportunity though rarely demonstrated how or
why. This lack of engagement with issues of technology either could indicate a lack of
relevance to a sector or a failure of training and education in technology, or may reflect
the gaps in sector responses from the high-end artistic users of technology in film, sound
art, multimedia and the creative industries.

Nevertheless most music-making organisations reflected on the efficiencies and outreach

to be gained by using information technology, including much better regional access to
music. Producers and creators see potential in online distribution and e-commerce,
including the ability to reignite the “long tail” of previous musical work. However, the
most insightful responses noted the opportunities afforded by technology for
individualised access to resources and knowledge and for new approaches to teaching and
learning music. Equally, though, some respondents remarked that new technology brings
with it new responsibility, and raised concerns about the lack of training and
understanding amongst the music community at large.

Business Issues
A raft of diverse issues and opinions emerged in relation to business development.
Though most responses cited the value of music to the economy and employment, few
supported this with evidence. Some sectors are growing, others show declining
consumption/participation rates. For some, strong brand recognition has created loyalty
and credibility; for other sectors, there has been poor recognition of their significance or
value. The tenuous reliance on box office and subscription is notable, though some

9
sectors had worked hard to develop a more mixed revenue base. Many advocated the
need to collate evidence of the impact of music on the wider economy.

Nevertheless, a pervasive theme across almost all music sectors is the weakness in
business development: poor business skills, the lack of workable business models and
lack of business training. Most pointedly, the problems of size, sustainability and
scalability of the musical enterprise seem to pose very significant threats.

Global impacts and threats were clearly felt, though respondents generally were unable to
cogently articulate these based on evidence. These impacts include the uncertainty of
emerging business models in the music industry; the rapid change to industry processes
with digital production and distribution; the problems of scale of operation and the small
market in Australia in an increasingly global marketplace; the fear of litigation; the
increasing costs associated with touring and exports; and the threats of technology to live
music.

However, all these propositions were also framed as opportunities, with sectors variously
expressing the need for some assistance (from whom?) to turn these into reality. Many
respondents proposed increased arts-business alliances and greater philanthropy, though
few suggested ‘how’. Many focused on better government support, especially for the
creative industries. There were pleas to reinvent business models especially in the small
to medium business arena, including adopting more flexible rights management
approaches. Many looked towards Asia for Australia to attain more global musical
influence, cooperation and cultural tourism. Digital content-hungry media and services
may provide new opportunities for re-purposing music and encouraging creativity, as
well as for wider audience development.

Funding and Infrastructure

Funding and infrastructure issues appeared only in the ‘Weaknesses’ and ‘Threats’
analysis. Many sectors focused on their lack of resources, noting just how fragile their
organisations were and how hard sponsorship was to attain and sustain. Thus many

10
commented on their dependence on public funding as well as the current decline in public
subsidies. Moreover, public funding is not keeping pace with costs, resulting in funding
for failure.

Many sectors noted the high cost of and lack of access to infrastructure. Several reasons
were proffered, including declining community access to professional and higher
education resources for infrastructure such as rehearsal venues, instrument hire and music
loans. Stricter legislative regulations and increasing costs for security, liability and
insurance are seriously affecting both community music and business, and problems with
touring networks and commercial venues abound.

In terms of visibility, many sectors noted a decline in public exposure of Australian

music and music-making through the mainstream media, broadcasting and musical
criticism. Some tension exists too around the desire to respect – and pay appropriately for
– artists’ and publishers’ rights relative to the need to increase exposure of and access to
Australian music. Moreover, poorly developed digital music content and a lack of
training to produce and fully utilise the potential of emerging technologies recurs as a
weakness across many sectors, matched by a general lack of information literacy (“to
google is not enough”).

Professional Development & Training

The professionalism of musicians, their level of professional expertise and specialist
knowledge is perceived as a core strength. Yet the most potent assessment of issues
pertaining to employment and a career in music was the statement that music is, in
Australia, mostly an “Amateur Profession”. Many noted that few musicians really can
earn a decent living wage from performing or composing or even teaching. Contract and
short term employment, poor levels of income, and an almost universal casualisation of
the workforce comprehensively characterise the life of a musician. The lack of
permanent employment and performance opportunities, especially in early career, are
matched by the lack of career pathways and a career structure. Often poor working
conditions exacerbate these problems. A lack of professional administration in music

11
organisations is cited as typical, marked by an almost universal dependence on volunteers
and a decline in unionism.

It is clear from a wide range of varied responses that, while professional expertise is a
key strength, there remains a considerable disjunction between training, employment and
professionalism. Inadequate tertiary courses and inadequate ongoing training, especially
focussed on a wider range of vocational skills and knowledge required on the job, are
matched by a lack of professional development opportunities and lack of incentives for
personal improvement. Training is largely confined to the ‘not-for-profit’ sector. There is
especially inadequate recognition and training for the specialist professions, and most
often only general employment for trained specialists, including in music teaching,
librarianship and in health and therapy. A key consequence is poor retention rates of
trained personnel.

Accreditation, standards and ethics recurred as issues, with diverse views expressed about
existing approaches – seen as either strengths or weaknesses by differing sectors. There
was general agreement on the need for improved accreditation, planning processes and
recognised standards in which the public could have confidence, especially where
involving children and youth. In this context, the need for personal protection and a
regulatory industry framework needs to be matched by comprehensively accepted codes
of ethics. Above all these standards need to apply consistently nationally across state
boundaries.

Therefore, opportunities abound to develop sets of competencies, national standards and

appropriate accreditation processes in almost all arenas. Better training should focus on
developing musicians’ and administrators’ business skills & acumen. It should address
the need for ongoing artist development (especially in early career, after tertiary
education). Specialist expertise, with lifelong commitment to professional development,
should be nurtured though recognised career structures and professional pathways, as for
the teaching profession. Some of these opportunities may be attainable through more
cooperative funding and shared resources, especially if evaluated by ongoing research.

12
Australian Musical Futures: intersections between the SWOT analysis and the
National Music Summit
There is a clear correlation between the results of the SWOT exercise and the ideas
emerging from the National Music Summit, Australian Musical Futures. The difference
is more one of process. The SWOT process has galvanised critiques and ideas from the
grass roots upwards, whereas the Summit, brainstorming ideas from a selected group of
100 leaders in music, drilled down from broad visions towards achievable goals and
actions. Most importantly, the responses from different sectors to ‘Opportunities’ show a
significant correlation with the Summit commentary, and could usefully underpin future
planning. This SWOT analysis would certainly carry more weight in any national agenda
and advocacy if the music sectors not yet represented could be prevailed upon to respond.
Most of all, these views of the music community about itself need to be tested and
supported with fact-finding and benchmarking, creating an evidence-base that would
enhance the claims of music to form a significant part of people’s lives in Australia.

In conclusion, I will summarise what I see as the principal common ideals, ideas and
actions emerging from both the National Summit and the SWOT analysis.

• Coordinate advocacy and create new alliances that pool energies across music
sectors and promote stronger networks.

• Assert and promote to the community the value of music for the individual and
for Australian society, across the whole of life. This will expand participation in
music, broaden its economic base and assist in effective responses to the
challenges of differing age and social groups.

• Change the message to a positive aura. Create success. Invest in the future.

13
 • Benchmark and fact-find: to influence government initiatives and regulations, to
improve national-state coordination and assist the development of new revenue
models.

• Align industry, training, employment, career pathways and professional

development – for artists, music educators, the music industry and the related
music professions.

• Develop accreditation processes and agreed national standards and codes of

ethics.

• Align participation amongst different music sectors in the online environment,

resolve the digital music business models, and improve training and access to
high-end digital applications.

• Focus on Australian content; promote Australian music to a wider audience and

marketplace to achieve more global influence and recognition.

• Focus on live music and improve access to its infrastructure, venues and touring
networks, including maintaining community access to resources.

In undertaking this analysis, may I acknowledge the support of the National Library of
Australia and the administration of the Music Council of Australia. I hope that this report
may seed future musical action. The Music Council will welcome feedback and further
contributions at mca@mca.org.au.

14