DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: MinistroRaven on August 03, 2020, 01:58:09 PM
-
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says Artists "Can't Record Music Every Three or Four Years and Think That's Going to Be Enough"
https://exclaim.ca/music/article/spotify_ceo_daniel_ek_says_artists_cant_record_music_every_three_or_four_years_and_think_thats_going_to_be_enough
--
Thoughts?
-
This is up there with Blizzard's "What, don't you guys have phones?" as far as out of touch comments from the corporate elite are concerned. Not a good look at all. Yikes. He really doesn't understand what it's like for a lot of artists. To some degree I agree with what he's saying, but let's take a step back... why are so many artists only releasing music at those intervals? C'mon, man...
-
the moment you start treating art as simply a product like toothpicks or napkins or whatever is the moment you lose any right to be taken seriously
-
Spotify CEO has no clue how musical artists actually make money.
-
It's not a good look at all. How can he have a Music Streaming service, that relies on artists, yet be so out of touch and ignorant of said artist. I hope he's ignorant, or else he knows how they make money and is using them for profit.
-
Spotify CEO has no clue how musical artists actually make money.
He only knows how HE makes money.
It's not a good look at all. How can he have a Music Streaming service, that relies on artists, yet be so out of touch and ignorant of said artist. I hope he's ignorant, or else he knows how they make money and is using them for profit.
This too.
-
Shot himself in the foot. Stupid comments. I will say this though, there has been a sea change in the music buiz. Readjusting with the reality on the ground is no different in music or business. Adjust and survive or don't adjust and fade away. I wish the arts were exempt but they aren't.
-
Spend no money for Spotify and buy direct to the artists. Screw this guy.
-
Since the quotes in the article are not lengthy, I figured it would be worth pasting them in full here:
Even today on our marketplace, there's literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who's talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify] I don't think I've ever seen a single artist saying, "I'm happy with all the money I'm getting from streaming." In private they have done that many times, but in public they have no incentive to do it. But unequivocally, from the data, there are more and more artists that are able to live off streaming income in itself.
There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can't record music once every three to four years and think that's going to be enough. The artists today that are making it realize that it's about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans.... I feel, really, that the ones that aren't doing well in streaming are predominantly people who want to release music the way it used to be released.
I think what he’s saying is being somewhat misconstrued. He’s saying if you want to make money by streaming, you have to get creative to engage your fans, etc. and not just expect that you’ll be able to get buy with only dropping an album every few years. I think he’s talking more about having a continuous stream of new content and engagement rather than focusing on the older album format.
Which all of that is something we can debate as far as the merits of art v. marketing, but it’s different than what the headline makes it sound like he is saying.
-
To his point MP posted on twitter "I have 8 full album releases in 2020 & will make PEANUTS on them (if anything at all...) So his theory of artists needing to make MORE music to succeed is shit! "
https://twitter.com/MikePortnoy/status/1290330445301850117?s=20
-
Dee Snider ripped him to shreds too. I am a proud non-streamer. Buy physical, if available. Digital, if no other options. Never stream.
-
I don't think he's totally wrong, it's about adjusting to the new reality of the music business. However, he comes off as completely ignorant and unsupportive of the artists that make HIM money so he's really looks like an ass here. However, like I said, he is probably right about the older bands complaining the most.
To his point MP posted on twitter "I have 8 full album releases in 2020 & will make PEANUTS on them (if anything at all...) So his theory of artists needing to make MORE music to succeed is shit! "
https://twitter.com/MikePortnoy/status/1290330445301850117?s=20
But here's the problem, peanuts to MP is probably much bigger to a young up and coming artist. We all know MP has made a lot of money in the business, but if he only made one album a year instead of the 8, he probably makes only a single peanut thus proving the point in a way.
For as much as I love music, the business of it really sucks is unfortunate for the artists.
-
Even today on our marketplace, there's literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who's talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify] I don't think I've ever seen a single artist saying, "I'm happy with all the money I'm getting from streaming." In private they have done that many times, but in public they have no incentive to do it.
This reminded me of something a narcissistic government official I know of (and hey, the one you're thinking of too - they're all made from the same blueprint) would say quite often. "Actually, if you only knew how many people tell me Spotify is the best in private!! But it's not cool to do that in public. But I assure you we're totally the best and if you made bland music that fits into our corporate Chillout and Apartment Clean playlists, completely contrary to regular artistic instincts and how people have made music for decades, you would be able to live off streaming too!"
-
About it, there's an interesting comment by Shant Hapogian (from Semantic Saturation) on his Patreon page (at the time he created it, nine months ago, more or less).
"Every week, hundreds of new bands form around the world in this mindset, thinking the internet has got their back until the band realizes they can't actually make a living, but by then it would be too late as three things would have already happened.
1- The band has empowered the streaming service by handing them music.
2- The listener thinks they supported the artist by paying Spotify $10/month
3- Where in fact the band got paid $0.003 per play.
Now, I'm not a mathematician, but you can see what I'm getting to. Spotify doesn't care, they will keep making money and they are here to stay, thanks to big names like Sheeran, Bieber, Swift etc... (who are also being robbed by the way). Millions of artists are sucked into this giant black hole, in fear of missing out (FOMO) and leaving their work in the dark. Reality is that it's all an illusion, artists are not making any money. The only party that makes money here are record companies streaming services.
A few months ago, Tool has reportedly earned $14,000 on Spotify during the first month of their new album release. Big deal! right? Kind of. Not until you realize there's four members in the band (sometimes 5, 6?), a manager, a marketing agent, a record company, probably other parties? Do the math yourself, see how great that payout really was. Or wasn't."
-
Even today on our marketplace, there's literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who's talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify] I don't think I've ever seen a single artist saying, "I'm happy with all the money I'm getting from streaming." In private they have done that many times, but in public they have no incentive to do it.
This reminded me of something a narcissistic government official I know of (and hey, the one you're thinking of too - they're all made from the same blueprint) would say quite often. "Actually, if you only knew how many people tell me Spotify is the best in private!! But it's not cool to do that in public. But I assure you we're totally the best and if you made bland music that fits into our corporate Chillout and Apartment Clean playlists, completely contrary to regular artistic instincts and how people have made music for decades, you would be able to live off streaming too!"
That’s the ickier part of the quote than the “make more than an album every 3 years” part. Of course there are some mega artists who probably make a good bit of money from streaming. The issue is there’s no real way for an unestablished artist to get much traction.
But then again, it’s historically been very hard for unestablished artists to get traction. Only a very small percentage of bands in the past ever got major label support and radio play, and the possibility for exposure through Spotify, YouTube, etc. is maybe more democratic than it ever was in the past.
-
Portnoy's reply was spot on!
When I first saw that article yesterday I was initially thinking "Good, that should light some fire under Metallica's lazy ass", then a moment later I realized that was an idiotic thought since Metallica is already rich beyond repair so they wouldn't give a fuck what Spotify wants, but all the other bands that I liked would be fucked if Spotify's will become an inescapable reality.
Dude basically wants musicians to streamline the creative process, although something of that nature already exists with the pop, RnB and -to an extent- rap genres, the McDonald's and the Taco Bells of music. So if I'm inclined to cut the guy some slack I'd say he probably means them, since that how most of them already work; it's pretty easy to shit out an album every other year if you don't have to write the material.
I'm pretty fuckin glad I've never used a streaming service for music.
-
This is up there with Blizzard's "What, don't you guys have phones?" as far as out of touch comments from the corporate elite are concerned. Not a good look at all. Yikes. He really doesn't understand what it's like for a lot of artists. To some degree I agree with what he's saying, but let's take a step back... why are so many artists only releasing music at those intervals? C'mon, man...
Man, people were so pissed about that comment when it came to Diablo content. I think Blizzard's stock went down after that guy made that comment in Blizzcon (which was a time where the stock should go up after the announcements). Heck, I think Blizzard doesn't have quite a pulse on what their consumers want in their games nowadays given how much people b**** about certain stuff in WoW and how their last expansion went (which they made some valid points, but here's not a good outlet to talk about it).
Anyway, making a good album can take a good amount of time invested and a good amount of money is spent on it as well for bands that don't have certain luxuries. It's been a common thought that musicians don't make much money, if any, at all on Spotify, but they put it out there as a necessary evil to get their music out there on a popular platform and get listeners to invest in something like a concert or actually buy the album. Well, concerts are no-more for now and people don't buy albums, so how can a band make money to live decently other than just get merchandise and good non-album content out there? Can the Spotify CEO answer that question without looking like a d*ke?
-
But then again, it’s historically been very hard for unestablished artists to get traction. Only a very small percentage of bands in the past ever got major label support and radio play, and the possibility for exposure through Spotify, YouTube, etc. is maybe more democratic than it ever was in the past.
Not even the established artists are happy about it. The major pop girls and major rap artists still make albums, they're not too happy about the "release an endless stream of collabs and remixes to get on the hot new release radar" business model. What I'm talking about are the "artists" who make and make and make music with the goal of getting the attention of the curators who make those damn playlists on the front page of Spotify that get millions of streams. And Spotify has reportedly found a way to keep a piece of that cake for themselves too by directly hiring artists to produce music to populate playlists - this is the most positive spin on the situation I could find (https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15961416/spotify-fake-artist-controversy-mystery-tracks), and even this piqued my bullshit meter several times throughout the article.
Spotify managed to somehow within a few short years whitewash and push pure piracy AND make us pay for it if we want the full benefits of piracy too, while paying artists cents. If my subscription went proportionately to the artists I streamed the most that month, that would be fine. But they will never do it, and so I have stopped paying for the subscription. I'll live with the downsides, and won't listen to music offline on the go (need my phone memory for photos and other things, can't fill it up with music the way my listening habits are set up).
-
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says Artists "Can't Record Music Every Three or Four Years and Think That's Going to Be Enough"
https://exclaim.ca/music/article/spotify_ceo_daniel_ek_says_artists_cant_record_music_every_three_or_four_years_and_think_thats_going_to_be_enough
--
Thoughts?
I don't use Spotify and now I never will.
-
I think the guy is an imbecile for making such a comment, but on the other hand I think he knows his audience very well. We, the people in this forum, are not like most people who listen to music. Most people will listen the the newest, hottest thing and when the next great thing comes around they will migrate that way and forget whatever it was that they liked five minutes ago. If you are catering to those people, what this guy is saying makes sense.
If you look at how people consume nowadays, this is nothing new. People get bored with things very quickly and need something new to entertain them. This is just modern capitalism 101. It sucks big time, but it is what most customers want.
-
Is the .003 per songs stream or album stream. In other words my question is is the .003 multiplied by 10 for a 10 song album?
-
I'm trying to figure out what was so bad about what he said? Many replies in this thread even said something along the lines that technically he isn't all that wrong.
Maybe MP wouldn't have made peanuts if he had made 8 albums that people actually cared about. Seems when MP wanted a break, the rest of DT wanted to continue the "engagement" with their fans.
And music IS product the moment you put it up for sale.
I have purchased a ton of albums that I would never have had it not been for Spotify. And while it does seem like peanuts, they (the bands) are making "something" off of me sampling. If I like it enough, I'm buying it.
It's not like if I buy an album and I don't like it after my first couple of listens they're going to give me my money back, are they?
-
Dee Snider ripped him to shreds too. I am a proud non-streamer. Buy physical, if available. Digital, if no other options. Never stream.
Do you ever listen to something before you buy it? If someone recommends something, do you simply buy it unheard?
-
Is the .003 per songs stream or album stream. In other words my question is is the .003 multiplied by 10 for a 10 song album?
I'm more curious if a full play for a 2 minute song gives the same money as a full play for a 30 minute song.
-
I'm trying to figure out what was so bad about what he said? Many replies in this thread even said something along the lines that technically he isn't all that wrong.
Maybe MP wouldn't have made peanuts if he had made 8 albums that people actually cared about. Seems when MP wanted a break, the rest of DT wanted to continue the "engagement" with their fans.
And music IS product the moment you put it up for sale.
I have purchased a ton of albums that I would never have had it not been for Spotify. And while it does seem like peanuts, they are making "something" off of me sampling. If I like it enough, I'm buying it.
It's not like if I buy an album and I don't like it after my first couple of listens they're going to give me my money back, are they?
Yeah, I think Spotify is probably a net good for promotional purposes, at least as opposed to the world as it was without Spotify or other streaming services. There’s a certain segment of the population who will buy music (it’s all 20 of us on the forum probably!), and if you can reach them through a streaming platform that helps.
It’s probably true that a lot of people are disincentivized from buying a release if they can just stream it. But those people were probably not going to know about your album anyway unless you were on a major label. Maybe there was a day when small label/independent bands could make money off CD sales, but I’m not sure many were able to make a living that way (probably always survived more off touring).
I suppose the bands I feel for the most would be the legacy acts who aren’t actively making music and whose labels sold out their catalog without their say. Hard to make a living off of your back catalog when your old fans already have it and any new fans are likely to just stream it.
-
If I listen to a band's album on their Bandcamp page, do they get anything from Bandcamp?
-
Is the .003 per songs stream or album stream. In other words my question is is the .003 multiplied by 10 for a 10 song album?
I'm more curious if a full play for a 2 minute song gives the same money as a full play for a 30 minute song.
I’m pretty sure it’s per song. And I also think a 2 minute and 30 minute song get the same amount per play. If I recall that’s why Marillion chopped up FEAR into a hundred tracks.
-
If I listen to a band's album on their Bandcamp page, do they get anything from Bandcamp?
Don't think so. At least bandcamp lets you actually buy albums, though.
-
Yes, that's true, but I can listen to a band's album on Bandcamp and they get nothing, or I can listen on Spotify and they get .003 per song.
If I like enough, and feel it'll earn multiple repeat listens, I'll buy.
-
Unfortunately, we just can’t seem to reconcile paying for music in the digital age. Spotify is BARELY profitable as it is (although I also know there seems to be a ton of waste with that company ie- a huge Manhattan office, lavish office parities, etc) so they can’t exactly
Really, the service is too cheap- millions and millions of records at your fingertips for, what? $10-12 a month? It’s really hard to make that a sustainable business model for both the business AND artists. On the other hand, user base seems to drop significantly at 19.99/a month.
-
Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.
-
Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.
Yes, I agree 100% and is my position as well.
-
Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.
Yes and no for me. It’s definitely a discovery tool as far as discovering new artists and going to their concerts as a support (or sometimes DVDs and merch) but I will rarely buy a CD, I hate to admit.
There’s just no value add for me having hundreds of CDs lying around. I do love vinyl but at $25-30 a pop when 95% of new music is recorded digitally anyway....I just can’t personally afford to go too deep down that road. If it’s a new release of a band I like I WILL often do an iTunes digital download.
I DO wish there was someway for Spotify to give my $10/month DIRECTLY To the artists I stream. That’s seems to be a better value proposition in the way of artists getting their fair share.
-
Really, the service is too cheap- millions and millions of records at your fingertips for, what? $10-12 a month? It’s really hard to make that a sustainable business model for both the business AND artists. On the other hand, user base seems to drop significantly at 19.99/a month.
Or $0 if you have the free subscription.
-
Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.
I'm the exact same way.
Bandcamp is great for lesser known musicians and bands as they get more. From my understanding, a local musician I chatted with on Facebook (oddly enough about this very same discussion) had said bands get the majority of the funds, bandcamp takes a small fee, and they are waiving it this Friday. It's easy to browse new music as well, you can even filter to Genre and some styles within the genre, of course you have to dig, but there is some fantastic music out there.
I use Spotify for the more popular bands music, I will hear a new album there if it's out then decide whether to buy it or not. Or, Listen to an album I do not have, just to see if I want to also buy that album. Sometimes, Spotify doesn't have an album at all so I have to buy the album.
-
Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.
-
Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.
Seems like the best way for them to compete with the bigger services is to attract more artists, and getting people to buy something one day a month gets them to the site and helps build a user base. I like Bandcamp a lot, and if I’m going to download something that’s where I look to buy first (and sometimes you can buy a CD direct from an artist there too).
-
The artists have to understand that Spotify is not really competing with revenue they could have gotten from direct album purchases. Instead, Spotify and streaming in general should be seen as services that allow them to recover a bit revenues that they could have lost from illegal downloads.
I am in a part of the world where money spent on a CD purchase is enough to feed me for a whole day. If it wasn't for streaming services, I would not have gotten to listen to and support bands like Haken, Fates Warning, etc. because it just is too expensive. Since 2011, I basically only purchased DT albums, ITGD, Icefish, Haken's Visions, and Fates Warning's Theories of Flight. Everything else is streaming and I stream a lot. I purchased one of Neal Morse's albums and I regretted the amount I spent because I listened to that album less than 10 times. If Neal had a stream, then I would at least have an option to test if it's worth it.
-
I buy physical albums but singles from iTunes obviously.
If I want to randomly listen to one song - I use Spotify. I'm not going to spend £1 or whatever each and every time I fancy listening to 1 song from 20 years ago...
-
The thing with streaming is that the money isn’t distributed fairly at all. If I spend €10 on Spotify a month and in that month I would listen to just two different artists equally, it would make sense that my €10 is split between those two artists (and maybe Spotify should get a small fee as well for providing the service).
Instead what happens is, my €10 is thrown on a pile with everybody else’s subscription money and they look at the total amount of streams every song got in a month. They then distribute everybody’s money over those tracks. This means that my €10 doesn’t go to those two artists I listened to (well, a small part of it does), but the majority goes to Justin Bieber, Ed Sheeran or whatever artists got tons of streams because other people listened to them.
This system is not sustainable, because small artists barely get any revenue (what’s more is that you would need about €50 of streaming money before Spotify even pays you) and big artists get the money. If I really want to support the smaller artists with €10 a month, Spotify subscription is not the way to go.
That said, the majority of people (not on this forum) don’t view music as something that needs to be payed for at all. The music ‘business’ has killed its own business by allowing ‘free’ music to happen in the first place. Artists should look for other creative ways of making money, because become rich (or even just getting by) solely by selling music is a myth, only attainable by the top few selling artists.
-
Well we've know for a while that the kinda artists we listen to; mainly make their living from touring. I'm wondering how much is "mainly" though, like 90%?
-
The thing with streaming is that the money isn’t distributed fairly at all. If I spend €10 on Spotify a month and in that month I would listen to just two different artists equally, it would make sense that my €10 is split between those two artists (and maybe Spotify should get a small fee as well for providing the service).
Instead what happens is, my €10 is thrown on a pile with everybody else’s subscription money and they look at the total amount of streams every song got in a month. They then distribute everybody’s money over those tracks. This means that my €10 doesn’t go to those two artists I listened to (well, a small part of it does), but the majority goes to Justin Bieber, Ed Sheeran or whatever artists got tons of streams because other people listened to them.
This system is not sustainable, because small artists barely get any revenue (what’s more is that you would need about €50 of streaming money before Spotify even pays you) and big artists get the money. If I really want to support the smaller artists with €10 a month, Spotify subscription is not the way to go.
Not sure I understand your logic here. The way you've described suggests that the pooling of artists means your money is taken away from the two artists you listened to, but by the same token money from people who only listen to Bieber, Sheeran etc is taken away from those big artists too and given to the artists you listened to. The distribution is "fair" in the sense that the more your music is listened to, the more you make. The issue isn't the distribution between different artists, it's between artists and others (management, labels, distribution platforms, etc.). And that's been an issue for ever, it's not new. I mean Pink Floyd were writing songs about it in the 70s (Welcome to the Machine) and I'm sure others have been writing about it for longer than that.
In terms of Ek's comments, I find them quite weird. Other than huge artists, has there ever been a time when more mid-sized bands/artists could make a living from simply releasing an album every 3-4 years and not doing other stuff to raise money?
-
Also, I basically agree with every single thing HOF has said in his posts in this thread. There's a lot of very reactionary stuff online that I'm not really getting, to be honest.
-
People have been listening to "free music" for a long time. It's called FM radio.
-
Well we've know for a while that the kinda artists we listen to; mainly make their living from touring. I'm wondering how much is "mainly" though, like 90%?
It will of course depend a huge amount on the artist, the genre, etc. Some interesting stats though:
(https://i.imgur.com/YScik5A.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7aSFKSl.jpg)
-
Another interesting graph too:
(https://i.imgur.com/JJR7XEA.png)
What's interesting is that share of revenue is rising and is higher than it's been since the analysis went back to (1984), and absolute artist revenue is higher than it's ever been. But the share is still low (at only 12%), and there are also many more artists than ever because it's so easy to record and publish music now, meaning each individual band/artist will get a smaller slice of the pie (but I'm not convinced that's worse than the "good old days" when smaller bands simply couldn't produce any music at all).
Anyway the 2017 report from Citi is really interesting if anyone wants to check it out: https://ir.citi.com/QnhL09FARMDbvMhnCWFtjkqYOlPmgXqWS5Wrjts%2B6usU7suR9o7uUEFwZNjmUfyrAn10iZxCkYc%3D
-
My logic is that despite me paying €10 for Spotify and deciding to use that to listen to just two artists, the majority of my money doesn’t go to those two artists at all. I don’t get to say what happens with my money, Spotify does this. So yes, the more a song gets listened, the more the artist gets payed, that’s kind of logical, and even ‘fair’, but can you not see how my system would be fair too, at least to some extent?
Of course, this is not sustainable as soon as someone (a lot of people) listen(s) to thousands of tracks each month. But that’s exactly my point as well; this is not a sustainable system.
-
My logic is that despite me paying €10 for Spotify and deciding to use that to listen to just two artists, the majority of my money doesn’t go to those two artists at all. I don’t get to say what happens with my money, Spotify does this. So yes, the more a song gets listened, the more the artist gets payed, that’s kind of logical, and even ‘fair’, but can you not see how my system would be fair too, at least to some extent?
Of course, this is not sustainable as soon as someone (a lot of people) listen(s) to thousands of tracks each month. But that’s exactly my point as well; this is not a sustainable system.
Ok I think I get your point now, but I still think the number/size of artists is kind of irrelevant, as it's about the number of songs you listen to, right?
So let's say you and I are both paying $10 each a month. You don't listen much, and only rack up 30 song plays in total that month (to only two artists, to go with your example). Whereas I listen constantly (which in fairness isn't inaccurate), racking up 500 song plays. There's $20 of total revenue from us, and let's assume that $4 goes to the artists. As you only listened a bit, your artists only get $4 x 30/530 = $0.23, while the artists I was listening to constantly got the remaining $3.77. So even though we're paying the same amount for our subscription, the fact that I listen much more means that the artists I'm listening to get more money.
As I said though, that's entirely about the amount of listening, nothing to do with the size or status of the artists. And it's the nature of subscription services, for any type of service. With all that listening I did, it was probably 20 different artists (again, probably quite accurate, particularly when I'm doing roulettes which is when I do the most Spotify listening) in which case each artist is going to make a similar amount to the two artists you listened to.
I would argue that we do have a say over where our money goes. If there are only a handful of artists we want to listen to, and we can't listen to music very often, then maybe subscription services aren't the right way to spend our money and we're better off spending on buying albums by those bands. Personally, I do both. I listen to Spotify an absolute ton, but I also buy albums that I really love as well.
-
But you don't pay Spotify for content. You can listen to the content for free especially in the desktop version. The fees are paid to allow you to listen to the music ad-free. That is why you can not correlate directly the fee paid by premium users to artist payments. The revenue model is really still like radio, it is ads-based. The premium fees are like ad revenues.
-
But you don't pay Spotify for content. You can listen to the content for free especially in the desktop version. The fees are paid to allow you to listen to the music ad-free. That is why you can not correlate directly the fee paid by premium users to artist payments. The revenue model is really still like radio, it is ads-based. The premium fees are like ad revenues.
You can, but the vast majority of streaming revenue now comes from paid subscriptions. So the revenue model is very much a subscription model, topped up with ad revenues, rather than the other way round.
-
I'm confused by all the comments saying Spotify is at least better than piracy. All Spotify did was convince enough labels into giving them their catalogs to the point where everyone else would have had to get on it too, and then convinced consumers that this way of listening to endless amounts of music only available on torrents is almost as good for the artist as buying it on iTunes, and they got rich off of it. At this stage I'm honestly less embarrassed about the pile of pirated music I have on a hard drive somewhere than the fact I used to pay for Spotify to give me access to music by my favorite artists because my listening/tech habits changed and using Spotify was suddenly very convenient to me and I also had this idea that it's better than nothing. It's not. It's not because Spotify is keeping a business model that only benefits them and the big cats they wanna mollify, and now they wanna lecture the musicians who have provided them with content, too.
-
But you don't pay Spotify for content. You can listen to the content for free especially in the desktop version. The fees are paid to allow you to listen to the music ad-free. That is why you can not correlate directly the fee paid by premium users to artist payments. The revenue model is really still like radio, it is ads-based. The premium fees are like ad revenues.
You can, but the vast majority of streaming revenue now comes from paid subscriptions. So the revenue model is very much a subscription model, topped up with ad revenues, rather than the other way round.
Yes, but I was actually responding more to Elite who was proposing splitting the fee he paid only to the artists he lostened too. My point is you are paying for subscription to an ad-free service, not subscribing specifically to an artist's content which you could access from the free service. It really is more of like a Cable TV subscription.
-
I'm confused by all the comments saying Spotify is at least better than piracy. All Spotify did was convince enough labels into giving them their catalogs to the point where everyone else would have had to get on it too, and then convinced consumers that this way of listening to endless amounts of music only available on torrents is almost as good for the artist as buying it on iTunes, and they got rich off of it. At this stage I'm honestly less embarrassed about the pile of pirated music I have on a hard drive somewhere than the fact I used to pay for Spotify to give me access to music by my favorite artists because my listening/tech habits changed and using Spotify was suddenly very convenient to me and I also had this idea that it's better than nothing. It's not. It's not because Spotify is keeping a business model that only benefits them and the big cats they wanna mollify, and now they wanna lecture the musicians who have provided them with content, too.
I'm not sure I understand why you think Spotify's model is worse than what labels/distributors/etc have been doing for pretty much as long as the music industry has existed. Particularly in the context of the graphs I posted above.
But you don't pay Spotify for content. You can listen to the content for free especially in the desktop version. The fees are paid to allow you to listen to the music ad-free. That is why you can not correlate directly the fee paid by premium users to artist payments. The revenue model is really still like radio, it is ads-based. The premium fees are like ad revenues.
You can, but the vast majority of streaming revenue now comes from paid subscriptions. So the revenue model is very much a subscription model, topped up with ad revenues, rather than the other way round.
Yes, but I was actually responding more to Elite who was proposing splitting the fee he paid only to the artists he lostened too. My point is you are paying for subscription to an ad-free service, not subscribing specifically to an artist's content which you could access from the free service. It really is more of like a Cable TV subscription.
Aha, gotcha, yes I agree.
It's interesting to consider the differences between music subscription services and TV/movie ones. With music, people generally subscribe to a single service, and most artists make their music available on all those different services. So they don't get much money but they do make the decisions on what to make available. Whereas TV is very different - most shows are only on one service, and it is up to that service to commission shows and decide what to make available, so when a show gets cancelled, that's it, nothing.
Obviously music and TV are produced very differently, and have very different production costs, so there are logical reasons for the differences, it's just something I find interesting.
-
I'm confused by all the comments saying Spotify is at least better than piracy. All Spotify did was convince enough labels into giving them their catalogs to the point where everyone else would have had to get on it too, and then convinced consumers that this way of listening to endless amounts of music only available on torrents is almost as good for the artist as buying it on iTunes, and they got rich off of it. At this stage I'm honestly less embarrassed about the pile of pirated music I have on a hard drive somewhere than the fact I used to pay for Spotify to give me access to music by my favorite artists because my listening/tech habits changed and using Spotify was suddenly very convenient to me and I also had this idea that it's better than nothing. It's not. It's not because Spotify is keeping a business model that only benefits them and the big cats they wanna mollify, and now they wanna lecture the musicians who have provided them with content, too.
Spotify helped me put the nail in my pirating coffin. Been a proud premium sub for 8.5 years now. Spotify is incredible for hardcore music fans like myself. I don't want to pirate again and likely won't ever because Spotify makes it very easy, quick, and convenient to find almost anything. Piracy is still wrong.
Also this post goes back to my point about how people take advantage of how easily obtainable music is, that they'll justify piracy in any way they can.
-
But you don't pay Spotify for content. You can listen to the content for free especially in the desktop version. The fees are paid to allow you to listen to the music ad-free. That is why you can not correlate directly the fee paid by premium users to artist payments. The revenue model is really still like radio, it is ads-based. The premium fees are like ad revenues.
You can, but the vast majority of streaming revenue now comes from paid subscriptions. So the revenue model is very much a subscription model, topped up with ad revenues, rather than the other way round.
This is interesting because it means that the streaming services have a significantly higher number of paid subscribers than they have of "freebooters". Usually services make more money out of a free user than a paid user because the average ad revenue is higher than the monthly fee. I would love to see those numbers if you happen to have them handy, or one of those charts you love so much ;D
-
Does anyone know if the ad revenue from the free service goes to the artist you are currently listening to or does it just go into "the money pile" that gets distributed based on listening count?
I don't really use spotify, youtube does the same thing (it's not as good as a platform for just straight music listening though) and at least with youtube, your ad revenue on your videos goes to you.
-
I'm confused by all the comments saying Spotify is at least better than piracy. All Spotify did was convince enough labels into giving them their catalogs to the point where everyone else would have had to get on it too, and then convinced consumers that this way of listening to endless amounts of music only available on torrents is almost as good for the artist as buying it on iTunes, and they got rich off of it. At this stage I'm honestly less embarrassed about the pile of pirated music I have on a hard drive somewhere than the fact I used to pay for Spotify to give me access to music by my favorite artists because my listening/tech habits changed and using Spotify was suddenly very convenient to me and I also had this idea that it's better than nothing. It's not. It's not because Spotify is keeping a business model that only benefits them and the big cats they wanna mollify, and now they wanna lecture the musicians who have provided them with content, too.
Spotify helped me put the nail in my pirating coffin. Been a proud premium sub for 8.5 years now. Spotify is incredible for hardcore music fans like myself. I don't want to pirate again and likely won't ever because Spotify makes it very easy, quick, and convenient to find almost anything. Piracy is still wrong.
Also this post goes back to my point about how people take advantage of how easily obtainable music is, that they'll justify piracy in any way they can.
Yeah, the differences between Spotify and Piracy are:
1) Spotify has the rights to make the music available
2) the artists get *some* revenue directly from streaming on Spotify
3) Spotify likely has a broader reach than any of the illegal downloading sites (at least after the industry started shutting down sites like Napster), can be advertised, and can easily be shared with anyone who at least uses the free platform.
Those are all better for the artist than the file sharing sites. Especially if you actually control the rights to your music. You don’t have to be there is you don’t want to (Neal Morse is a good example).
I’m not really arguing that the current streaming model is the best thing possible for artists. I do think it is probably at least better than the previous industry models for all but a select few big label artists though.
-
What if a mega artist does his own Spotify? For example, could Lady Gaga launch "Streamgaga" or "Spotygaga" and make money directly off it, with the same moderate monthly subscription? I don't know however how would anyone buy an album anymore since you can stream it legally, maybe each new album could be kept off this platform for, say, 2 years before becoming available...
-
What if a mega artist does his own Spotify? For example, could Lady Gaga launch "Streamgaga" or "Spotygaga" and make money directly off it, with the same moderate monthly subscription? I don't know however how would anyone buy an album anymore since you can stream it legally, maybe each new album could be kept off this platform for, say, 2 years before becoming available...
I’m sure they could. Neal Morse has his own streaming app, and it appears to at least makes enough money to sustain itself with his fairly small fan base.
-
What if a mega artist does his own Spotify? For example, could Lady Gaga launch "Streamgaga" or "Spotygaga" and make money directly off it, with the same moderate monthly subscription? I don't know however how would anyone buy an album anymore since you can stream it legally, maybe each new album could be kept off this platform for, say, 2 years before becoming available...
Jay-Z made his own streaming service (Tidal) and I believe some high-profile records were exclusive there for some time. From what I can remember, it didn't go very well.
-
What if a mega artist does his own Spotify? For example, could Lady Gaga launch "Streamgaga" or "Spotygaga" and make money directly off it, with the same moderate monthly subscription? I don't know however how would anyone buy an album anymore since you can stream it legally, maybe each new album could be kept off this platform for, say, 2 years before becoming available...
I’m sure they could. Neal Morse has his own streaming app, and it appears to at least makes enough money to sustain itself with his fairly small fan base.
Neal Morse has a very large catalog of music. Most artists don't have so much content to make it worth having their own site set up for it.
-
Keep in mind the benefit of Spotify (and let's include Apple Music in there too) isn't just being able to listen to music for free, it's being able to listen to music for free all in one place. Nobody's going to buy a whole separate streaming subscription just to get access to one or two more artists. At that point you might as well just buy the album. In some ways we're lucky that music streaming services are so all-encompassing, compared to movie / TV streaming where everything's split across dozens of competing services and you're at the mercy of whatever happens to be available on the service(s) you have at the present.
-
But then again Spotify (and all other streaming services that exist, let’s not pretend Spotify is the only one) has a death grip on new, emerging, small artists. They need people to listen to their music, so instead of putting it in just one place (say bandcamp or youtube, it doesn’t matter), smaller bands need to put their music everywhere, because otherwise they don’t get heard. In turn, they don’t get anything back other than possible exposure (and we all know exposure doesn’t pay bills) and it makes people less likely to buy records, because why should they? It’s on every single platform for free.
There is no real money to be made from music, unless (or until) you are an established artist with a fan-base that’s willing to spend money on your products. Note I’m saying ‘products’ here and not necessarly ‘music’.
-
But you don't pay Spotify for content. You can listen to the content for free especially in the desktop version. The fees are paid to allow you to listen to the music ad-free. That is why you can not correlate directly the fee paid by premium users to artist payments. The revenue model is really still like radio, it is ads-based. The premium fees are like ad revenues.
You can, but the vast majority of streaming revenue now comes from paid subscriptions. So the revenue model is very much a subscription model, topped up with ad revenues, rather than the other way round.
This is interesting because it means that the streaming services have a significantly higher number of paid subscribers than they have of "freebooters". Usually services make more money out of a free user than a paid user because the average ad revenue is higher than the monthly fee. I would love to see those numbers if you happen to have them handy, or one of those charts you love so much ;D
I do bloody love charts.
Ok here's some US data from the RIAA, which they've provided lots of really detailed data for in terms of formats. On their website there's an interactive chart where you can select whether to adjust for inflation or not, and can just highlight a specific type of format. Check it out here: https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
Here's the full chart, the first one is actual cash terms, the second is adjusted for inflation.
(https://i.imgur.com/u3t9p1X.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5KMGxj6.png)
The darkest green line is fully paid subscriptions.
It's also interesting to consider these charts in combination with other charts I posted. What we see from the RIAA's data is that in real terms (adjusting for inflation) the music industry has just about got back to the same amount of revenue it was making in the 70s and 80s. The chart from Citi's 2017 report that I posted earlier indicated that the share of revenue that went to artists was at a similar level back then too. What then happened in the 90s and early 00s was a huge peak in revenues from surging CD sales. But we also know from the Citi graph that the share of that revenue that went to artists dropped during that period.
Here's that chart again so it's all in one place:
(https://i.imgur.com/JJR7XEA.png)
What's interesting is that share of revenue is rising and is higher than it's been since the analysis went back to (1984), and absolute artist revenue is higher than it's ever been. But the share is still low (at only 12%), and there are also many more artists than ever because it's so easy to record and publish music now, meaning each individual band/artist will get a smaller slice of the pie (but I'm not convinced that's worse than the "good old days" when smaller bands simply couldn't produce any music at all).
Anyway the 2017 report from Citi is really interesting if anyone wants to check it out: https://ir.citi.com/QnhL09FARMDbvMhnCWFtjkqYOlPmgXqWS5Wrjts%2B6usU7suR9o7uUEFwZNjmUfyrAn10iZxCkYc%3D
So by considering these in combination, essentially what happened was that in the 90s and early 00s, there was a big increase in revenue for the music industry but that increase mostly didn't go to the artists, it went to labels, promoters, whoever else. Whereas the amount going to artists (as Citi's report also showed) has steadily increased in cash terms, but probably not changed significantly in real terms.
This isn't to suggest that artists are getting a good deal. Just that the bad deal they've been getting has been the case for decades and isn't really getting better but isn't really getting worse either.
-
The thing with streaming is that the money isn’t distributed fairly at all. If I spend €10 on Spotify a month and in that month I would listen to just two different artists equally, it would make sense that my €10 is split between those two artists (and maybe Spotify should get a small fee as well for providing the service).
Instead what happens is, my €10 is thrown on a pile with everybody else’s subscription money and they look at the total amount of streams every song got in a month. They then distribute everybody’s money over those tracks. This means that my €10 doesn’t go to those two artists I listened to (well, a small part of it does), but the majority goes to Justin Bieber, Ed Sheeran or whatever artists got tons of streams because other people listened to them.
This system is not sustainable, because small artists barely get any revenue (what’s more is that you would need about €50 of streaming money before Spotify even pays you) and big artists get the money. If I really want to support the smaller artists with €10 a month, Spotify subscription is not the way to go.
That said, the majority of people (not on this forum) don’t view music as something that needs to be payed for at all. The music ‘business’ has killed its own business by allowing ‘free’ music to happen in the first place. Artists should look for other creative ways of making money, because become rich (or even just getting by) solely by selling music is a myth, only attainable by the top few selling artists.
Also, those artists are bought for. Meaning, they're owned by their contracts and only get that money for doing what the record company says of them to do. It's why you see them plastered everywhere. It actually made it harder for musicians to get known as there's no marketing for them and no one wants to spend money on them.
-
There is no real money to be made from music, unless (or until) you are an established artist with a fan-base that’s willing to spend money on your products. Note I’m saying ‘products’ here and not necessarly ‘music’.
Yes but how is that different to what has always been the case?
-
I would think to some extent oversaturation of the medium factors into this as well. I seriously don't have the income to spend on even a tiny fraction of the artists I love to listen to anymore. There's just too many, and ironically Spotify has massively contributed to that problem. Almost every single day I find awesome new music to listen to from artists I've either never listened to or never even heard of. Paying a nice legal subscription fee to, as already noted, have everything in one place (with some exceptions) gives me peace of mind, but with that comes the realization that I have to be very choosy with which artists get my money - both for the music, live shows, and merch, if I'm that much of a fan.
-
I would think to some extent oversaturation of the medium factors into this as well. I seriously don't have the income to spend on even a tiny fraction of the artists I love to listen to anymore. There's just too many, and ironically Spotify has massively contributed to that problem. Almost every single day I find awesome new music to listen to from artists I've either never listened to or never even heard of. Paying a nice legal subscription fee to, as already noted, have everything in one place (with some exceptions) gives me peace of mind, but with that comes the realization that I have to be very choosy with which artists get my money - both for the music, live shows, and merch, if I'm that much of a fan.
It would be nice if Spotify made an effort to make it easier to directly donate to an artist on their site. I’m not sure I see the downside in having a “tip” button that lets you PayPal a buck or ten to an artist you want to support. Of course some artists do have their own patreon or other ways you can just contribute cash directly as you like. But having the option right from the app where you listen to music would probably be a good way to help artists out.
-
How much is a Spotify Premium subscription in your country? Here, it is just 2USD per month.
If my concern is really I want all the subscription I paid for went to streaming revenue for the artists, I had to stream 667 songs a month ($2 monthly fee / $0.003 payout per stream) or 22 songs a day.
I average 40 songs on Spotify a day.
Artists just have to know how to game the system to maximize streaming revenue. Like Haken, with their intro tracks designated as a separate song, and a single epic, Messiah Complex, tracked into six parts.
-
Another wrinkle in all of this. I’m probably not the only one here who has built up a large portion of their music collection buying used CDs. I’ve never felt particularly bad about it, but it’s not much different from streaming. Someone acquired the rights to the product and then legally is selling it without the artist getting a cut. There are some artists who I’ve gone on to really love and support because I was able to find them for the (relatively) low cost of a used CD. At the same time, I’m sure there are many who have never gotten any money from me despite me having and enjoying their music.
-
Spotify is 9.99 USD a month for me.
Another wrinkle in all of this. I’m probably not the only one here who has built up a large portion of their music collection buying used CDs. I’ve never felt particularly bad about it, but it’s not much different from streaming. Someone acquired the rights to the product and then legally is selling it without the artist getting a cut. There are some artists who I’ve gone on to really love and support because I was able to find them for the (relatively) low cost of a used CD. At the same time, I’m sure there are many who have never gotten any money from me despite me having and enjoying their music.
Yeah same... a ton of the CDs in my collection are used. Even some from the last several years, not just older stuff. But my favorite bands ever... Toto, GnR, Stratovarius... I think I only ever bought Toto and GnR's last albums brand new, every other CD was used. Stratovarius I only bought the last 4 albums on release day. And according to a certain douchebag metal singer, it doesn't even matter if you bought the CDs after the first 2 weeks, you might as well pirate them because the sale doesn't amount to jack shit. So from his perspective, the only way your purchase even helps the artist is if you buy it right away at launch lmao.
-
The main issue is the payout rate.
Spotify's rate is less than a penny and most of the streaming sites have similar rates. I think Tiday has the highest royalty and it's closer to a penny.
Radio (depending on what type of radio station: college, commercial, classical) typically paid between 6 and 15 cents per play. So the difference is huge.
For 10 plays, you can actually get up to $1.50 for radio play. For streaming, those 10 plays, will get you 3-4 cents (0.04 USD). There's two orders of magnitude in difference. That's a lot.
Under the same rates, the established artists will still get paid more with radio play vs the new artists. But at least you would still have a chance of making it if one of those songs ends up being a hit (or at least getting SOME income). With Spotify, there's basically no chance.
The real debate is why is Spotify (and the rest of streaming services) are not treated like a radio station (payout wise)? Because legislation is outdated (pretty sure lobbyists try to keep it this way for record labels and streaming companies), streaming payout rates are flawed, among other things.
One of things I learned from reading Devin Townsend's book is how he learned from Steve Vai to always own the rights (masters) to your music. Don't give it away to the record labels. Just do distribution deals. That way you can do with your music whatever you want (reissues, remixes, all types of royalties go to you, etc.) and you just pay distribution and manufacturing fees. Everything after that ends up being your money.
There's a great graphic on how Periphery makes money. It's very interesting on how they have evolved and have made it financially speaking. I have to dig it up but basically they don't rely on streaming or music but have their own companies (get good drums, horizon devices, horizon strings); royalties from endorsements, merchandise, touring, some clinics, producing other bands, etc. It's a big tree diagram showing everything they do.
-
The main issue is the payout rate.
Spotify's rate is less than a penny and most of the streaming sites have similar rates. I think Tiday has the highest royalty and it's closer to a penny.
Radio (depending on what type of radio station: college, commercial, classical) typically paid between 6 and 15 cents per play. So the difference is huge.
For 10 plays, you can actually get up to $1.50 for radio play. For streaming, those 10 plays, will get you 3-4 cents (0.04 USD). There's two orders of magnitude in difference. That's a lot.
Under the same rates, the established artists will still get paid more with radio play vs the new artists. But at least you would still have a chance of making it if one of those songs ends up being a hit (or at least getting SOME income). With Spotify, there's basically no chance.
The real debate is why is Spotify (and the rest of streaming services) are not treated like a radio station (payout wise)? Because legislation is outdated (pretty sure lobbyists try to keep it this way for record labels and streaming companies), streaming payout rates are flawed, among other things.
There is a big difference that you did not consider. Yes, radio stations pay bigger per play but you have hundreds or thousands of individuals listening to that play. In Spotify, you get paid for every individual listener. Based on the numbers you gave, a song stream by 40 individual listeners can match one song play on radio. If that radio station has big reach, the artist actually gets less on a per individual listener basis.
-
The main issue is the payout rate.
Spotify's rate is less than a penny and most of the streaming sites have similar rates. I think Tiday has the highest royalty and it's closer to a penny.
Radio (depending on what type of radio station: college, commercial, classical) typically paid between 6 and 15 cents per play. So the difference is huge.
For 10 plays, you can actually get up to $1.50 for radio play. For streaming, those 10 plays, will get you 3-4 cents (0.04 USD). There's two orders of magnitude in difference. That's a lot.
But see, here is the difference. Let's just pretend that a radio play is heard by 1000 people, that is still the same payout of 6-15 cents. If those same 1000 people went and listened to the song on Spotify, they payout would be $3-$4.
EDIT: erwinrafael beat me to it.
-
@erwin and Vmadera
Yes, you are right on both accounts. However, how was the streaming rate decided? There are factors that were probably never considered like inflation. Not saying Spotify and streaming services should payout the same as a radio station, but the streaming payout rates can be increased. Why haven't they?
Also, I didn't mention this but radio stations are also dying. The music business fallout is a combination of many factors: failure to modernize and embrace streaming properly by the record labels (they basically let other companies take over this, while they just sat on their asses and "negotiated"). Failure to negotiate rates, failure to treat AND develop artists properly, etc...I can go on and on. They never let artists give feedback on how to do this. Now, it's not only on the labels. A lot of artists didn't care about the business aspect and just let other people handle that. There's a reason why Petrucci, Rush, Steve Vai, Devin T, and many other artists decided to educate themselves and at least have a shot at making financially. That's why the Bandcamp model at least works for artists. But what if Apple decides to buy Bandcamp for 5 Billion dollars...You think Bandcamp is going to last forever?
If you don't educate yourself, you are going to get hosed one way or another (and that goes for most of the things in life).
-
Of course because they want to profit. And I guess because Spotify has a risky model where people can actually listen to the music without paying a subscription. They just have to bear the ads.
-
Like several others have stated, I primarily use Spotify for sampling, and save some albums that I might go back to a few times. As individuals, our behaviour amounts to a drop of water in a lake. But ultimately, if an act is making fantastic music that I want to hear more of, I'll buy the album (usually digitally - and from Bandcamp where I can do so reasonably priced... I'm not going to pay $15+ for a single album just to support an artist directly). Ultimately, bands that I listen to have benefited more from me having access to Spotify, than those that have gotten screwed - no band/album gets saved on Spotify in lieu of me purchasing it. If a band was gonna get my money, Spotify isn't intercepting my purchase of that. What I have saved on Spotify is almost exclusively albums that I wouldn't normally purchase - because I'm not going to listen to it on multiple occasions.
Just this year alone, I've bout albums from Ad Infinitum, Confess, Shadowrise, and Gathering of Kings that I otherwise wouldn't have purchased if not for trying them out on Spotify first (and 11 albums from 2019 releases). There will be more albums to come before the end of the year... I limit myself to purchasing about 25 albums per year, and usually make the bulk of those purchases at the end of the year when I know what to prioritize.
So yeah... I'm kinda tired of all the belly-aching from artists. Suck it up - you've been getting screwed by all the extended players in the industry for 50 years. This is the same shit, different smell.
-
Like several others have stated, I primarily use Spotify for sampling, and save some albums that I might go back to a few times. As individuals, our behaviour amounts to a drop of water in a lake. But ultimately, if an act is making fantastic music that I want to hear more of, I'll buy the album (usually digitally - and from Bandcamp where I can do so reasonably priced... I'm not going to pay $15+ for a single album just to support an artist directly).
...
So yeah... I'm kinda tired of all the belly-aching from artists. Suck it up - you've been getting screwed by all the extended players in the industry for 50 years. This is the same shit, different smell.
Chad, while I'm generally in agreement with your whole post, I bold these two points specifically... Let's say the average album has, what, 10 tracks? $15 is only $1.50 per track in that case, is that really unreasonable? And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
-
Like several others have stated, I primarily use Spotify for sampling, and save some albums that I might go back to a few times. As individuals, our behaviour amounts to a drop of water in a lake. But ultimately, if an act is making fantastic music that I want to hear more of, I'll buy the album (usually digitally - and from Bandcamp where I can do so reasonably priced... I'm not going to pay $15+ for a single album just to support an artist directly).
...
So yeah... I'm kinda tired of all the belly-aching from artists. Suck it up - you've been getting screwed by all the extended players in the industry for 50 years. This is the same shit, different smell.
Chad, while I'm generally in agreement with your whole post, I bold these two points specifically... Let's say the average album has, what, 10 tracks? $15 is only $1.50 per track in that case, is that really unreasonable?
My understanding of Chad's point (which I broadly agree with if right) is that, if he has limited funds to spend on purchasing albums, then if he spends $8-10 instead of $15 per album then it allows him to buy more albums.
Also worth noting that the artist is getting only a limited portion of that $1.50 per track anyway.
And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
Indeed, as I hope was clear in my posts, I agree that artists are getting a bum deal. My issue is with the notion that Spotify/streaming has made things worse.
-
So yeah... I'm kinda tired of all the belly-aching from artists. Suck it up - you've been getting screwed by all the extended players in the industry for 50 years. This is the same shit, different smell.
I hear most of the complaints from older artists, I wonder how the small and upcoming artists feel about it. I do think part of this is simply adapting to modern times. Physical sales, radio play... all going away. Bands need to adapt to get the most out of the way the world works today. I think I saw Eclipse post on social media a couple years ago that they were frustrated with the payouts from Spotify yet they have no issue since then sharing Spotify play counts when they hit certain milestones. I think they probably know it's not the best system for making money, but it does work for getting exposure.
-
I suppose it's a matter of perspective; if I'm buying a 14-track album for $15 and all the tracks are like 3-5 minutes or longer and they aren't mostly interludes, that seems like a really good deal to me especially if I've already heard the whole record and enjoy it. $15 isn't expensive for a CD at all even if you buy it digitally. But yeah, again, largely in agreement.
-
So by considering these in combination, essentially what happened was that in the 90s and early 00s, there was a big increase in revenue for the music industry but that increase mostly didn't go to the artists, it went to labels, promoters, whoever else. Whereas the amount going to artists (as Citi's report also showed) has steadily increased in cash terms, but probably not changed significantly in real terms.
This isn't to suggest that artists are getting a good deal. Just that the bad deal they've been getting has been the case for decades and isn't really getting better but isn't really getting worse either.
So what I’m extrapolating from the data;
-The revenue pie of the recording industry is about the same as the early 90s in real $ terms (not great)
-Artists are getting a larger slice of the overall pie
I would assume that means that the artist portion of the pie is just now split amongst a gazillion more artists or “listens“ if you will. Which makes sense to me as there is just more content these days; let’s face it, that indie Swedish progressive metal band who complains hardly making any money off of records wouldn’t have existed or would have made NO money in the 70s.
-
I will also add that the position "hey, I use Spotify for sampling and then I buy stuff" is mostly unique for this forum and other dedicated music communities, at least as far as my country goes. No one, and I mean no one who I personally know in my country does this. Obviously the folks who go to concerts buy their CDs, but my friends who listen to metal? They either stream or pirate the shit out of it. My best friends don't make fun of me buying all the stuff, they know it's one of my hobbies, but my colleagues at work and friends by acquaintance, I've got laughed at by mentioning I still buy physical CDs.
Also I had a few requests to share my account on the streaming platform I use for which I pay yearly from these same people. :lol
I have no issue with streaming platforms, I think they're necessary at this point. However I can understand the artists' and bands' frustration with this statement because it was pretty poorly worded, and even more poorly worded when taken out of context.
-
^ I am not surprised, because I have received so many Russian bootleg CDs it's gotten ridiculous. I have an Elvenking record with the in-case artwork UPSIDE DOWN from somewhere in your country! :lol
-
Yeah, Russian unofficially burned bootleg CDs are a big thing here, so that tracks :lol
-
Like several others have stated, I primarily use Spotify for sampling, and save some albums that I might go back to a few times. As individuals, our behaviour amounts to a drop of water in a lake. But ultimately, if an act is making fantastic music that I want to hear more of, I'll buy the album (usually digitally - and from Bandcamp where I can do so reasonably priced... I'm not going to pay $15+ for a single album just to support an artist directly).
...
So yeah... I'm kinda tired of all the belly-aching from artists. Suck it up - you've been getting screwed by all the extended players in the industry for 50 years. This is the same shit, different smell.
Chad, while I'm generally in agreement with your whole post, I bold these two points specifically... Let's say the average album has, what, 10 tracks? $15 is only $1.50 per track in that case, is that really unreasonable? And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
To be clear ... on the first point, I'll buy it off Amazon or iTunes for $10/$11 if the artist is (what I consider) gauging. On the second point, maybe. But I believe that's up to the artists to fight, not me. I didn't create the market dynamics, nor am I looking to play a role in revolutionizing them. I just believe that I'm doing my part to be a responsible and fair consumer given the current setup.
-
Like several others have stated, I primarily use Spotify for sampling, and save some albums that I might go back to a few times. As individuals, our behaviour amounts to a drop of water in a lake. But ultimately, if an act is making fantastic music that I want to hear more of, I'll buy the album (usually digitally - and from Bandcamp where I can do so reasonably priced... I'm not going to pay $15+ for a single album just to support an artist directly).
...
So yeah... I'm kinda tired of all the belly-aching from artists. Suck it up - you've been getting screwed by all the extended players in the industry for 50 years. This is the same shit, different smell.
Chad, while I'm generally in agreement with your whole post, I bold these two points specifically... Let's say the average album has, what, 10 tracks? $15 is only $1.50 per track in that case, is that really unreasonable? And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
To be clear ... on the first point, I'll buy it off Amazon or iTunes for $10/$11 if the artist is (what I consider) gauging. On the second point, maybe. But I believe that's up to the artists to fight, not me. I didn't create the market dynamics, nor am I looking to play a role in revolutionizing them. I just believe that I'm doing my part to be a responsible and fair consumer given the current setup.
Oh, I totally agree. I suppose that last point of mine is a bit esoteric. I think we've had this discussion before actually, briefly, when discussing Douche Metal Singer I reference earlier, and we're very much on the same page. :lol
Of course, there are those who would take that "I'm not looking to play a role in revolutionizing them" position as being similar to being quiet about racism. You're part of the problem, Chad! :lol Kidding, kidding, kidding... just trying to have some fun.
-
The other aspect of this. I’m sitting at work, streaming music for a good part of the day (I use Amazon instead of Spotify). If I’m at home I stream from the music files saved to my laptop, and the artist gets $0 other than what I paid to obtain the CD or download. With streaming, they actually get a little extra for every time I listen. Sure, it’s a tiny amount, but it’s more than nothing.
-
I'm trying to figure out what was so bad about what he said? Many replies in this thread even said something along the lines that technically he isn't all that wrong.
Maybe MP wouldn't have made peanuts if he had made 8 albums that people actually cared about. Seems when MP wanted a break, the rest of DT wanted to continue the "engagement" with their fans.
And music IS product the moment you put it up for sale.
I have purchased a ton of albums that I would never have had it not been for Spotify. And while it does seem like peanuts, they (the bands) are making "something" off of me sampling. If I like it enough, I'm buying it.
It's not like if I buy an album and I don't like it after my first couple of listens they're going to give me my money back, are they?
Perfect. This is spot on.
The rest is just fanciful emotion. We all seem to want to "value" the art we like (or create), but the fact is, it's only worth what someone else will pay for it. If Spotify upped their charge from $9.99 to $19.99 or $29.99 a month, would they likely increase or decrease listeners?
And as for the artists, I think Ek is wrong but for the wrong reasons. I think artists ARE saturating the market. I don't even mean guys like Mike, who I tend to support as a matter of personal satisfaction (though even with him, the days of "completeism" are long gone). When I was in high school, college, artists would put out a 40, 45 minute album once a year. $7, roughly ($16 roughly, today). I'd go to the show - $15 ($35 today) - and buy a shirt - $10, $15 ($30, $35 today). Every three or four albums, we'd get the live set, double vinyl, so $11 ($25 today). So each year, we're looking at $85-$100 for your favorite band. Today, each release gets the turbo special edition release, anywhere from $25 to $75. The subsequent tour gets the turbo CD/DVD set, $45 - $60. Tickets are $50 to $75. Shirts are $50. To support your favorite band you're at $250 at this point. The problem is not a lack of product. It's a problem of TOO MUCH product.
For me, artists are looking at Spotify the wrong way. "$0.003 per play" is shitty, when compared to "$0.06 per play" from radio, or $0.99 per download. But that's assuming that the buyer would have paid the "$0.99". I know for me, I am/was a completeist. I owned (and still own) every song officially released by Kiss. Same with Maiden (well, I have a couple holy grails; one of the Soundhouse Tapes songs; one of the X Factor b-sides; the "Wasting Love" single, with two live songs). Marillion. Dream Theater. Couple others. I can't and won't do that anymore. I can't do it, unless I can find stuff for a $1 or $2 on eBay or Discogs (and the artist ain't getting even a fraction of Spotify's numbers for that). So, for many artists, the "$0.003" should be compared to "zip zilch nada".
The fact is, the material doesn't have the market value it once had. That's a reality, and that's not Spotify's fault. It would have been exposed one way or the other before long.
-
The other aspect of this. I’m sitting at work, streaming music for a good part of the day (I use Amazon instead of Spotify). If I’m at home I stream from the music files saved to my laptop, and the artist gets $0 other than what I paid to obtain the CD or download. With streaming, they actually get a little extra for every time I listen. Sure, it’s a tiny amount, but it’s more than nothing.
This is something I've started to do a bit - even albums that I've purchased, I'm trying to remember to sometimes stream them instead of only listening to the digital files (or occasionally even the CDs). I'd never done that before but it was pointed out to me to be quite a good thing to do - the financial benefit to the artist might be fairly piddly but it's a small top-up on my album purchase (which itself is pretty piddly for them anyway), plus it adds to the numbers, chart position etc. and can help to strengthen label support, concert promoter interest, etc.
-
^ I am not surprised, because I have received so many Russian bootleg CDs it's gotten ridiculous. I have an Elvenking record with the in-case artwork UPSIDE DOWN from somewhere in your country! :lol
This reminds me of a picture I took recently. I pre-order one of Buckethead's CDs in January. I was supposed to receive it in February but there was a delayed and I just received the CD last week and this is what I got :lol :metal
(https://i.imgur.com/wgzxVBK.jpg)
-
And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
Indeed, as I hope was clear in my posts, I agree that artists are getting a bum deal. My issue is with the notion that Spotify/streaming has made things worse.
Why do we assume artists are getting a bum deal? On what is that based?
-
And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
Indeed, as I hope was clear in my posts, I agree that artists are getting a bum deal. My issue is with the notion that Spotify/streaming has made things worse.
Why do we assume artists are getting a bum deal? On what is that based?
For me personally, 7-12% of the revenue going to the people actually creating the art feels very low.
-
^ I am not surprised, because I have received so many Russian bootleg CDs it's gotten ridiculous. I have an Elvenking record with the in-case artwork UPSIDE DOWN from somewhere in your country! :lol
This reminds me of a picture I took recently. I pre-order one of Buckethead's CDs in January. I was supposed to receive it in February but there was a delayed and I just received the CD last week and this is what I got :lol :metal
(https://i.imgur.com/wgzxVBK.jpg)
:rollin
-
Of course, there are those who would take that "I'm not looking to play a role in revolutionizing them" position as being similar to being quiet about racism. You're part of the problem, Chad! :lol Kidding, kidding, kidding... just trying to have some fun.
All Music Matters. :lol
@ Stads... excellent post. :tup It's so nice to vehemently agree with you on somethig! :lol
-
^ I am not surprised, because I have received so many Russian bootleg CDs it's gotten ridiculous. I have an Elvenking record with the in-case artwork UPSIDE DOWN from somewhere in your country! :lol
This reminds me of a picture I took recently. I pre-order one of Buckethead's CDs in January. I was supposed to receive it in February but there was a delayed and I just received the CD last week and this is what I got :lol :metal
(https://i.imgur.com/wgzxVBK.jpg)
WTF :lol
-
And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
Indeed, as I hope was clear in my posts, I agree that artists are getting a bum deal. My issue is with the notion that Spotify/streaming has made things worse.
Why do we assume artists are getting a bum deal? On what is that based?
For me personally, 7-12% of the revenue going to the people actually creating the art feels very low.
I suppose we're splitting hairs now on "what's revenue", but in some industries, that's very high. A construction or appliances company would kill for 12% numbers. Healthcare companies - you know, the ones that regularly get accused of "obscene profits" - make in that range. That art has to be put to tape, that tape has to be put to other media, that media has to be produced, packaged, marketed, distributed, etc. And everyone in the chain is entitled to a little taste for their risk.
I'm not arguing that it ISN'T low, I'm just asking what the basis is for the discussion. I tend to think there's a bit of nostalgia, emotion, and wishful thinking when it comes to "art". We love our artists, we revere them in some cases, and there's a sense that that should translate into freedom from monetary and/or commercial concerns. But we're not really talking about "art" here, we're talking about commerce. You can't really have it both ways; if you want to talk "art", then we can use the vernacular of art; if we want to talk "commerce", then we have to use the vernacular of commerce. It makes no sense to try to force one to speak in the terms of the other.
In a related conversation, it's common to hear complaints about tickets being unfairly priced, and Ticketmaster (commonly referred to around here as "Ticketbastard") being unfairly enriched in that process. ECONOMICALLY, tickets are underpriced, though (the scalper market would look very different if they weren't.)
-
^ I am not surprised, because I have received so many Russian bootleg CDs it's gotten ridiculous. I have an Elvenking record with the in-case artwork UPSIDE DOWN from somewhere in your country! :lol
This reminds me of a picture I took recently. I pre-order one of Buckethead's CDs in January. I was supposed to receive it in February but there was a delayed and I just received the CD last week and this is what I got :lol :metal
(https://i.imgur.com/wgzxVBK.jpg)
WTF :lol
I found IN SEARCH OF THE, and each Letter is it's own cd, packaged in a hand-drawn slipcase with a CD-R style disc.
What cd is that anyways?
-
And if they've been getting screwed for 50 years, shouldn't it be time for a monumental shift in the way musicians and entertainers are paid instead of kicking the can down the road because 'that's how it's always been'?
Indeed, as I hope was clear in my posts, I agree that artists are getting a bum deal. My issue is with the notion that Spotify/streaming has made things worse.
Why do we assume artists are getting a bum deal? On what is that based?
For me personally, 7-12% of the revenue going to the people actually creating the art feels very low.
I suppose we're splitting hairs now on "what's revenue", but in some industries, that's very high. A construction or appliances company would kill for 12% numbers. Healthcare companies - you know, the ones that regularly get accused of "obscene profits" - make in that range. That art has to be put to tape, that tape has to be put to other media, that media has to be produced, packaged, marketed, distributed, etc. And everyone in the chain is entitled to a little taste for their risk.
I'm not arguing that it ISN'T low, I'm just asking what the basis is for the discussion. I tend to think there's a bit of nostalgia, emotion, and wishful thinking when it comes to "art". We love our artists, we revere them in some cases, and there's a sense that that should translate into freedom from monetary and/or commercial concerns. But we're not really talking about "art" here, we're talking about commerce. You can't really have it both ways; if you want to talk "art", then we can use the vernacular of art; if we want to talk "commerce", then we have to use the vernacular of commerce. It makes no sense to try to force one to speak in the terms of the other.
You're talking about corporate profits for an individual company, which is very different and not really comparable. I agree that margins are very low in what you might call essential or functional industries - construction, everyday appliances, healthcare being the examples you gave but also things like utilities, food production, and so on. Such products and services are, by and large, pretty homogeneous regardless of who makes them. But prestige type industries such as tech and some arts have, or at least can have, much higher margins.
Let's have a look at another chart from that 2017 Citi report:
(https://i.imgur.com/QGj6OJs.png)
As you can see, from the total revenue of the whole industry (from all sources), the artists get a pretty small slice, which we know from elsewhere in the report is now around 12%. A similarly-sized but actually slightly bigger slice goes to pure profitability for music platforms (streaming services, radio services, etc.), while the largest slice - around a third of ALL industry revenue - goes to the costs of running those platforms, which will include marketing, exec salaries and so on. Looking at the two bars for music platforms, their profitability looks to be something like 30%. I expect the margins are similarly high for labels, maybe a bit lower, but the chart doesn't break it down between costs and profits. Still, the total money going to the labels is nearly twice what goes to the artists.
The Citi report really does have some interesting stuff in it, here's the link again: https://ir.citi.com/QnhL09FARMDbvMhnCWFtjkqYOlPmgXqWS5Wrjts%2B6usU7suR9o7uUEFwZNjmUfyrAn10iZxCkYc%3D
-
I will also add that the position "hey, I use Spotify for sampling and then I buy stuff" is mostly unique for this forum and other dedicated music communities, at least as far as my country goes. No one, and I mean no one who I personally know in my country does this. Obviously the folks who go to concerts buy their CDs, but my friends who listen to metal? They either stream or pirate the shit out of it. My best friends don't make fun of me buying all the stuff, they know it's one of my hobbies, but my colleagues at work and friends by acquaintance, I've got laughed at by mentioning I still buy physical CDs.
Also I had a few requests to share my account on the streaming platform I use for which I pay yearly from these same people. :lol
I have no issue with streaming platforms, I think they're necessary at this point. However I can understand the artists' and bands' frustration with this statement because it was pretty poorly worded, and even more poorly worded when taken out of context.
I barely know anyone who still buys physical CD's or LP's except a few colleagues who are as much into metal as I am. Most of my friends use Spotify and don't think a second about the artist revenues. Most people feel they at least pay for their streams compared to the Napster/Limewire.
Like others said I mostly use Spotify to sample new music and for convenience reasons which at least makes my favorite bands a little more money compared to playing my old CD's in my car. You can't blame Spotify (which I think is a great product), if it wasn't them they would be someone else. They offer the right product for the right price. As much as I love to see my artist making some more money I don't see myself paying € 50 a month for Spotify and I think 95% agrees with me. So Spotify will be here to stay and that's something artists will have to deal with.
It's the same with buying physical stuff at live-shows or directly from the artist. I rather buy my CD over there but I'm not paying € 20,00 when the same album is € 10 on Amazon. I've made an exception for Haken's Virus but paying the same price plus almost € 15 shipping costs isn't something I'm doing every single time.
So I would say that's the key for artists. How do you develop a model which is both attractive for you and for your fans.
Maybe it's a bit naive but I think bands like Dream Theater could play a role in creating platforms in their niche market by creating platforms which allows smaller artist to sell their stuff a better margins and better prices for their fans.
I would instantly pay a monthly fee for a platform that allows me to stream music of a bunch of bands I really like and also has some exclusive stuff, sells physical, merch, downloads and more.
-
I will also add that the position "hey, I use Spotify for sampling and then I buy stuff" is mostly unique for this forum and other dedicated music communities, at least as far as my country goes. No one, and I mean no one who I personally know in my country does this. Obviously the folks who go to concerts buy their CDs, but my friends who listen to metal? They either stream or pirate the shit out of it. My best friends don't make fun of me buying all the stuff, they know it's one of my hobbies, but my colleagues at work and friends by acquaintance, I've got laughed at by mentioning I still buy physical CDs.
Also I had a few requests to share my account on the streaming platform I use for which I pay yearly from these same people. :lol
I have no issue with streaming platforms, I think they're necessary at this point. However I can understand the artists' and bands' frustration with this statement because it was pretty poorly worded, and even more poorly worded when taken out of context.
I barely know anyone who still buys physical CD's or LP's except a few colleagues who are as much into metal as I am. Most of my friends use Spotify and don't think a second about the artist revenues. Most people feel they at least pay for their streams compared to the Napster/Limewire.
Like others said I mostly use Spotify to sample new music and for convenience reasons which at least makes my favorite bands a little more money compared to playing my old CD's in my car. You can't blame Spotify (which I think is a great product), if it wasn't them they would be someone else. They offer the right product for the right price. As much as I love to see my artist making some more money I don't see myself paying € 50 a month for Spotify and I think 95% agrees with me. So Spotify will be here to stay and that's something artists will have to deal with.
It's the same with buying physical stuff at live-shows or directly from the artist. I rather buy my CD over there but I'm not paying € 20,00 when the same album is € 10 on Amazon. I've made an exception for Haken's Virus but paying the same price plus almost € 15 shipping costs isn't something I'm doing every single time.
So I would say that's the key for artists. How do you develop a model which is both attractive for you and for your fans.
Maybe it's a bit naive but I think bands like Dream Theater could play a role in creating platforms in their niche market by creating platforms which allows smaller artist to sell their stuff a better margins and better prices for their fans.
I would instantly pay a monthly fee for a platform that allows me to stream music of a bunch of bands I really like and also has some exclusive stuff, sells physical, merch, downloads and more.
I don't understand that mindset. You have an opportunity to actually physically give the bands your money, and it all goes to them. Not only are you supporting the band, but you are also supporting the crew.
Just because I know it's cheaper, doesn't mean I would not pay $20. The Lesser known bands always run their own Merch tables, or are usually there after their set to sign stuff or take pictures. I usually wait till the line goes down then get in line, which is usually at the end so I can chat with the band members. I don't mind wasting money on Bands, honestly better wasted on them then on the $20 beer.
-
I found IN SEARCH OF THE, and each Letter is it's own cd, packaged in a hand-drawn slipcase with a CD-R style disc.
What cd is that anyways?
It’s Pike 278: unexpected Journeys.
-
For me, artists overall make more money than they did in the old buy an album days (whether digital or physical). I used to buy maybe 6-8 new albums a year. What did an artist make off an album sale, a couple bucks? Let's be generous and say artists made $24 a year off of my album sales. Now, say I listen to 1000 songs a month at $0.003 per song, that's $36 a year going to artists from my listening to their albums every year instead of $24. Yes, the specific artists I would have purchased the album of would have made more in the old system, but artists overall make more off of me now.
-
Found the Periphery diagram that I mentioned before. This is how Periphery has become financially viable. And there's a lot of bands that have similar ventures like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/05piGzZ.jpg)
-
I found IN SEARCH OF THE, and each Letter is it's own cd, packaged in a hand-drawn slipcase with a CD-R style disc.
What cd is that anyways?
It’s Pike 278: unexpected Journeys.
Are you following him on Bandcamp? He has a lot of his Pikes on there, and I mean A LOT. I found Population Override on there, but so sad I couldn't get the cd, I had the cd before but it got scratched to hell (I found it at a Hastings back in '05).
-
I’ll use my most recent “Holy crap they’re amazing” band as an example for why I still pay for Spotify.
I first discovered Haken about four years ago watching someone play a custom chart of Celestial Elixir in a fan made Guitar Hero clone. I instantly fell in love with the song, and with my Spotify subscription, found the rest of their discography and started to develop my fandom. Fast toward four years and in preparation for the release of Virus, I dropped sixty bucks on all six of their albums and the Restoration EP. I happily paid for the albums, but I would have never had the opportunity to hear all of their music and fall in love with them without having all of it in one place for a low price.
-
How much is a Spotify Premium subscription in your country? Here, it is just 2USD per month.
If my concern is really I want all the subscription I paid for went to streaming revenue for the artists, I had to stream 667 songs a month ($2 monthly fee / $0.003 payout per stream) or 22 songs a day.
I average 40 songs on Spotify a day.
Artists just have to know how to game the system to maximize streaming revenue. Like Haken, with their intro tracks designated as a separate song, and a single epic, Messiah Complex, tracked into six parts.
What kind of deal do you have that gets you Spotify Premium for $2 a month? For me, I have to wait around until Spotify offers me $10 for 3 months and then I pull the trigger on that, because I don't want to pay $10.00 a month on top of other expenses that I pay per month.
-
So much interesting information from every in this thread, my perspective on this has changed significantly since my post on the first page.
-
So much interesting information from every in this thread, my perspective on this has changed significantly since my post on the first page.
Yes this has been a fascinating read. I have almost given up a couple times because I cannot keep up!
-
How much is a Spotify Premium subscription in your country? Here, it is just 2USD per month.
If my concern is really I want all the subscription I paid for went to streaming revenue for the artists, I had to stream 667 songs a month ($2 monthly fee / $0.003 payout per stream) or 22 songs a day.
I average 40 songs on Spotify a day.
Artists just have to know how to game the system to maximize streaming revenue. Like Haken, with their intro tracks designated as a separate song, and a single epic, Messiah Complex, tracked into six parts.
What kind of deal do you have that gets you Spotify Premium for $2 a month? For me, I have to wait around until Spotify offers me $10 for 3 months and then I pull the trigger on that, because I don't want to pay $10.00 a month on top of other expenses that I pay per month.
I think it is specific here in the Philippines. I have a Spotify Family subscription that is 4USD which me and my wife use. Well, most likely the payout from streams is much lower than the 0.003 USD because of the deal I got so I think I flattered myself when I said all my sub fee almost goes to the artists. :lol
-
As I guess most here I only used Spotify to check out new stuff.
I buy CDs or downloads (often directly from the band or on bandcamp).
I have however started to use Spotify more after I bought a Smart Watch with eSim and Spotify. I leave the phone home when I run and use Spotify on the watch to listen to playlists with songs fitting for running.
I agree that bands should be payed more from Spotify but then again isn't Spotify still loosing money? No I looked and they recently started earning money.
Anyway I think the model is a bit flawed and they would need to up their earnings quite a bit to start paying bands more but that would loose them custumers.
-
I will also add that the position "hey, I use Spotify for sampling and then I buy stuff" is mostly unique for this forum and other dedicated music communities, at least as far as my country goes. No one, and I mean no one who I personally know in my country does this. Obviously the folks who go to concerts buy their CDs, but my friends who listen to metal? They either stream or pirate the shit out of it. My best friends don't make fun of me buying all the stuff, they know it's one of my hobbies, but my colleagues at work and friends by acquaintance, I've got laughed at by mentioning I still buy physical CDs.
Also I had a few requests to share my account on the streaming platform I use for which I pay yearly from these same people. :lol
I have no issue with streaming platforms, I think they're necessary at this point. However I can understand the artists' and bands' frustration with this statement because it was pretty poorly worded, and even more poorly worded when taken out of context.
I barely know anyone who still buys physical CD's or LP's except a few colleagues who are as much into metal as I am. Most of my friends use Spotify and don't think a second about the artist revenues. Most people feel they at least pay for their streams compared to the Napster/Limewire.
Like others said I mostly use Spotify to sample new music and for convenience reasons which at least makes my favorite bands a little more money compared to playing my old CD's in my car. You can't blame Spotify (which I think is a great product), if it wasn't them they would be someone else. They offer the right product for the right price. As much as I love to see my artist making some more money I don't see myself paying € 50 a month for Spotify and I think 95% agrees with me. So Spotify will be here to stay and that's something artists will have to deal with.
It's the same with buying physical stuff at live-shows or directly from the artist. I rather buy my CD over there but I'm not paying € 20,00 when the same album is € 10 on Amazon. I've made an exception for Haken's Virus but paying the same price plus almost € 15 shipping costs isn't something I'm doing every single time.
So I would say that's the key for artists. How do you develop a model which is both attractive for you and for your fans.
Maybe it's a bit naive but I think bands like Dream Theater could play a role in creating platforms in their niche market by creating platforms which allows smaller artist to sell their stuff a better margins and better prices for their fans.
I would instantly pay a monthly fee for a platform that allows me to stream music of a bunch of bands I really like and also has some exclusive stuff, sells physical, merch, downloads and more.
I don't understand that mindset. You have an opportunity to actually physically give the bands your money, and it all goes to them. Not only are you supporting the band, but you are also supporting the crew.
Just because I know it's cheaper, doesn't mean I would not pay $20. The Lesser known bands always run their own Merch tables, or are usually there after their set to sign stuff or take pictures. I usually wait till the line goes down then get in line, which is usually at the end so I can chat with the band members. I don't mind wasting money on Bands, honestly better wasted on them then on the $20 beer.
As I said I prefer to buy directly from the artists or at the merch stand during shows. I have no problem spending € 15 for a CD, € 25 for vinyl and € 25 for a t-shirt when I'm supporting the band directly. Those are the prices I see most of the times with bands like Haken and Leprous for example. But there's a limit to what I consider a fair price. There's no way I'm paying € 20 for a CD or € 35 for a simple t-shirt. As much as I love to support the band I don't have an endless supply of money.
The handling of the merch stand at shows for me is a great example how some bands can take better care of their business. Most of the times there's no one buying before the shows and tens of people after the show with still the same 1 or 2 guys at the stand. People leave because they don't want to wait or stuff is sold out. A lot of band could make much more out their merch. Encourage your fans to buy before and have a quick pickup after show, give them a discount for your webshop or whatever. The way professionals sports organizes their merch is a great example.
-
I'm not even sure that the general concert goer knows and fully understand how bands earn much more from a direct sale at a show, than through online purchases. The bands themselves should make this more known, usually the singer at a certain point has the mandatory "you can find our stuff at the merch boot" speech during a gig, but 30 seconds more to actually explain why, if you want to buy music, you might as well do it at shows, wouldn't hurt.
-
Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.
-
Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.
Really? Really?
-
Wait. Music is dead??
I swear I just bought a new album last week. And I'm getting one this week.
-
The Death Of Music is a good Devin Townsend song.
-
Let's have a look at another chart from that 2017 Citi report:
(https://i.imgur.com/QGj6OJs.png)
As you can see, from the total revenue of the whole industry (from all sources), the artists get a pretty small slice, which we know from elsewhere in the report is now around 12%. A similarly-sized but actually slightly bigger slice goes to pure profitability for music platforms (streaming services, radio services, etc.), while the largest slice - around a third of ALL industry revenue - goes to the costs of running those platforms, which will include marketing, exec salaries and so on. Looking at the two bars for music platforms, their profitability looks to be something like 30%. I expect the margins are similarly high for labels, maybe a bit lower, but the chart doesn't break it down between costs and profits. Still, the total money going to the labels is nearly twice what goes to the artists.
The Citi report really does have some interesting stuff in it, here's the link again: https://ir.citi.com/QnhL09FARMDbvMhnCWFtjkqYOlPmgXqWS5Wrjts%2B6usU7suR9o7uUEFwZNjmUfyrAn10iZxCkYc%3D
To be fair, I can't see the chart (I'll check it on my non-work computer) but who has the risk? How many artists have you heard complain that "so-and-so album tanked, because they didn't market it right!"?
All those steps past the artist are INVESTMENTS. It's not "boutique", but it is "risky" if you're investing in someone not named "Taylor", "Bruce" or "Beyonce". That record company is "investing" in a new product the same way that Maytag is investing in a new washing machine design. Just think about it in pure numbers: Sure, Taylor is going to sell 5 million copies; it costs a certain amount to put all that together, and the CD is going to sell for $12.99 or whatever. Then there's the scalable costs of producing 5 million copies of that. Liquid Tension Experiment has the same base costs in terms of studios, producers, artists, etc., and will still sell for $12.00 or thereabouts. And their scalable costs are MORE, because there are less (there is no FLIPPING way that LTE pressed 5 million of ANY of their CDs). That difference between the "5 million" and whatever LTE sells directly impacts the risk. Taylor fluffs by 5%, and no harm no foul. There's money to be made. LTE fluffs by 5% and it's the difference between them making money or never making another record, not to mention a ton of drink coasters in John's basement.
-
I will also add that the position "hey, I use Spotify for sampling and then I buy stuff" is mostly unique for this forum and other dedicated music communities, at least as far as my country goes. No one, and I mean no one who I personally know in my country does this. Obviously the folks who go to concerts buy their CDs, but my friends who listen to metal? They either stream or pirate the shit out of it. My best friends don't make fun of me buying all the stuff, they know it's one of my hobbies, but my colleagues at work and friends by acquaintance, I've got laughed at by mentioning I still buy physical CDs.
Also I had a few requests to share my account on the streaming platform I use for which I pay yearly from these same people. :lol
I have no issue with streaming platforms, I think they're necessary at this point. However I can understand the artists' and bands' frustration with this statement because it was pretty poorly worded, and even more poorly worded when taken out of context.
I barely know anyone who still buys physical CD's or LP's except a few colleagues who are as much into metal as I am. Most of my friends use Spotify and don't think a second about the artist revenues. Most people feel they at least pay for their streams compared to the Napster/Limewire.
Like others said I mostly use Spotify to sample new music and for convenience reasons which at least makes my favorite bands a little more money compared to playing my old CD's in my car. You can't blame Spotify (which I think is a great product), if it wasn't them they would be someone else. They offer the right product for the right price. As much as I love to see my artist making some more money I don't see myself paying € 50 a month for Spotify and I think 95% agrees with me. So Spotify will be here to stay and that's something artists will have to deal with.
It's the same with buying physical stuff at live-shows or directly from the artist. I rather buy my CD over there but I'm not paying € 20,00 when the same album is € 10 on Amazon. I've made an exception for Haken's Virus but paying the same price plus almost € 15 shipping costs isn't something I'm doing every single time.
So I would say that's the key for artists. How do you develop a model which is both attractive for you and for your fans.
Maybe it's a bit naive but I think bands like Dream Theater could play a role in creating platforms in their niche market by creating platforms which allows smaller artist to sell their stuff a better margins and better prices for their fans.
I would instantly pay a monthly fee for a platform that allows me to stream music of a bunch of bands I really like and also has some exclusive stuff, sells physical, merch, downloads and more.
I don't understand that mindset. You have an opportunity to actually physically give the bands your money, and it all goes to them. Not only are you supporting the band, but you are also supporting the crew.
Just because I know it's cheaper, doesn't mean I would not pay $20. The Lesser known bands always run their own Merch tables, or are usually there after their set to sign stuff or take pictures. I usually wait till the line goes down then get in line, which is usually at the end so I can chat with the band members. I don't mind wasting money on Bands, honestly better wasted on them then on the $20 beer.
Please go back and read my post above. I go to anywhere from 15 to 30 shows a year more or less. I can't double my spend at all of those shows. I just can't. If there's something special - like at the Last In Line show I went to, where Vinnie Appice came out unannounced and just hung at the table for a couple minutes, then sure. If it's something that I cannot get anywhere else - like the EP at the Sabbath "The End" show, then sure. Some bands are selling signed setlists, which I think is kinda cool (unless it's just a photocopy; I'll fall for the ruse if you at least throw a spot of tape in one of the corners, and rip one of the others!). I have something like 2,000 CDs in my collection. I can't pay double every time.
The ONLY think I will buy at a stand and NOT elsewhere is a shirt, because I'm old school: if you didn't go to the show (or know someone who did and did you a solid) you shouldn't wear the shirt.
-
Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.
Really? Really?
I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?
-
Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.
Really? Really?
I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?
It's a business in a capitalist economy, my guy. It's not the first one to exist in the music industry. Spotify is anything but the DEATH of music, that's some extreme hyperbole; I would argue YOU are the one with the extreme cynicism in this case. "Glorified piracy"? Please. That's like paying for your Netflix sub is glorified piracy, or that going to a movie theater is glorified piracy because half the cost of the ticket goes straight to the venue instead of directly to the filmmakers.
-
Spotify (but again, let’s not assume they are the only one, there’s a lot of streaming services) are definitely partly responsible for killing the monetisation of music, but that’s also in part due to record companies jumping on the possibilities of digital distribution. I think it would be way better for music if each record company had their own streaming service and in this way more money could go to the artists.
I also think it’s ridiculous that you can listen to basically everything in the world for just 10 bucks a month. It should be way more than that, or say limited to ~1000 tracks. Wanna listen to more than that? Pay extra. Spotify should also make sure the actual money should go where it belong; the people creating the art. But frankly, there’s been so many screw-ups before the invention of Spotify in the music business, that this final(?) nail in the coffin can’t exactly be considered Spotify’s fault. They’re just jumping in on the enormous opportunity the actual music business (record companies) have failed to utilise.
-
Spotify (but again, let’s not assume they are the only one, there’s a lot of streaming services) are definitely partly responsible for killing the monetisation of music, but that’s also in part due to record companies jumping on the possibilities of digital distribution. I think it would be way better for music if each record company had their own streaming service and in this way more money could go to the artists.
I also think it’s ridiculous that you can listen to basically everything in the world for just 10 bucks a month. It should be way more than that, or say limited to ~1000 tracks. Wanna listen to more than that? Pay extra. Spotify should also make sure the actual money should go where it belong; the people creating the art. But frankly, there’s been so many screw-ups before the invention of Spotify in the music business, that this final(?) nail in the coffin can’t exactly be considered Spotify’s fault. They’re just jumping in on the enormous opportunity the actual music business (record companies) have failed to utilise.
But why should it be that way, the way you've proposed? 'cause it works for you? Everybody has a different capacity and thirst for music. What works for you might not work for me, but allowing everyone the freedom to listen to as much as they want works for everyone. That is fair. It is not Spotify's fault that people jump into an artistic medium that is saturated to all get out, often times playing niche music to a very limited audience with only so much time and money to devote to said art amongst all the other things they're consuming, and then cry about not making much money. How can we expect Spotify to pay this arbitrary 'fair' pay to literally hundreds of thousands of artists? A few smash hit rappers and pop stars would make them go broke if we were to apply 'fair' rules for a struggling prog band to them, and artists would still cry that they only made a few cents from their 20 minute jazz prog bluegrass epic.
EDIT: Just to be clear I'm not picking fights, just offering counterpoints :)
-
Let's have a look at another chart from that 2017 Citi report:
(https://i.imgur.com/QGj6OJs.png)
As you can see, from the total revenue of the whole industry (from all sources), the artists get a pretty small slice, which we know from elsewhere in the report is now around 12%. A similarly-sized but actually slightly bigger slice goes to pure profitability for music platforms (streaming services, radio services, etc.), while the largest slice - around a third of ALL industry revenue - goes to the costs of running those platforms, which will include marketing, exec salaries and so on. Looking at the two bars for music platforms, their profitability looks to be something like 30%. I expect the margins are similarly high for labels, maybe a bit lower, but the chart doesn't break it down between costs and profits. Still, the total money going to the labels is nearly twice what goes to the artists.
The Citi report really does have some interesting stuff in it, here's the link again: https://ir.citi.com/QnhL09FARMDbvMhnCWFtjkqYOlPmgXqWS5Wrjts%2B6usU7suR9o7uUEFwZNjmUfyrAn10iZxCkYc%3D
To be fair, I can't see the chart (I'll check it on my non-work computer) but who has the risk? How many artists have you heard complain that "so-and-so album tanked, because they didn't market it right!"?
All those steps past the artist are INVESTMENTS. It's not "boutique", but it is "risky" if you're investing in someone not named "Taylor", "Bruce" or "Beyonce". That record company is "investing" in a new product the same way that Maytag is investing in a new washing machine design. Just think about it in pure numbers: Sure, Taylor is going to sell 5 million copies; it costs a certain amount to put all that together, and the CD is going to sell for $12.99 or whatever. Then there's the scalable costs of producing 5 million copies of that. Liquid Tension Experiment has the same base costs in terms of studios, producers, artists, etc., and will still sell for $12.00 or thereabouts. And their scalable costs are MORE, because there are less (there is no FLIPPING way that LTE pressed 5 million of ANY of their CDs). That difference between the "5 million" and whatever LTE sells directly impacts the risk. Taylor fluffs by 5%, and no harm no foul. There's money to be made. LTE fluffs by 5% and it's the difference between them making money or never making another record, not to mention a ton of drink coasters in John's basement.
Yes of course it's risky, and risk means a higher expected return on investment to compensate for the risk. That's part of why it's normal that creative industries can have higher margins than industries that are more functional/essential and therefore, by and large, less risky or volatile. But it's just as risky for the artists themselves who are also investing a huge amount of time and, often, a lot of cash as well.
To consider a completely different industry that's not really comparable, but just as a thought experiment, let's consider supermarkets and food producers. The retailers have the power as there are only a few of them, they're big and wealthy and household names, and they're the ones that actually sell to the customers. The food producers are mostly small and can only make a living by selling to the retailers (this is massively oversimplified by the way, but again it's just to prompt thinking). There are big issues in the food industry with how retailers take advantage of producers, but 1. margins are quite low for both retailers and producers, and 2. most countries have a regulator that specifically regulates the relationship between the two to minimise those sorts of problem.
-
Spotify (but again, let’s not assume they are the only one, there’s a lot of streaming services) are definitely partly responsible for killing the monetisation of music, but that’s also in part due to record companies jumping on the possibilities of digital distribution. I think it would be way better for music if each record company had their own streaming service and in this way more money could go to the artists.
I also think it’s ridiculous that you can listen to basically everything in the world for just 10 bucks a month. It should be way more than that, or say limited to ~1000 tracks. Wanna listen to more than that? Pay extra. Spotify should also make sure the actual money should go where it belong; the people creating the art. But frankly, there’s been so many screw-ups before the invention of Spotify in the music business, that this final(?) nail in the coffin can’t exactly be considered Spotify’s fault. They’re just jumping in on the enormous opportunity the actual music business (record companies) have failed to utilise.
But why should it be that way, the way you've proposed? 'cause it works for you? Everybody has a different capacity and thirst for music. What works for you might not work for me, but allowing everyone the freedom to listen to as much as they want works for everyone. That is fair. It is not Spotify's fault that people jump into an artistic medium that is saturated to all get out, often times playing niche music to a very limited audience with only so much time and money to devote to said art amongst all the other things they're consuming, and then cry about not making much money. How can we expect Spotify to pay this arbitrary 'fair' pay to literally hundreds of thousands of artists? A few smash hit rappers and pop stars would make them go broke if we were to apply 'fair' rules for a struggling prog band to them, and artists would still cry that they only made a few cents from their 20 minute jazz prog bluegrass epic.
EDIT: Just to be clear I'm not picking fights, just offering counterpoints :)
I’m not saying this because it would work for me. Frankly, it would, because I don’t listen to that much music at all, but that’s not the point. This system completely devalues recorded music as an art form when it’s available for basically free. Spotify doesn’t seem to care about this at all, or at least it doesn’t look like they’re going to counter this. I think at this point though there’s no going back, because the world is used to ‘free’ music now and doesn’t value the art form at all (generally speaking!) and I think that’s a bad thing.
I also think lots of people don’t really listen to music at all and just like having background noise on for no real reason, but that’s a completely different discussion altogether. I just wanted to mention this, because I believe this mass consumption of not really listening but still having music on is detrimental to the idea that music should have value.
-
Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.
Really? Really?
I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?
It's a business in a capitalist economy, my guy. It's not the first one to exist in the music industry. Spotify is anything but the DEATH of music, that's some extreme hyperbole; I would argue YOU are the one with the extreme cynicism in this case. "Glorified piracy"? Please. That's like paying for your Netflix sub is glorified piracy, or that going to a movie theater is glorified piracy because half the cost of the ticket goes straight to the venue instead of directly to the filmmakers.
I guess i'm oldschool, I prefer owning something and collecting things I like rather than renting it (which is basically what you do with Spotify). If you love Spotify for the accessibility that's fine but why defend a company that screws over the artists? The sad reality is the only benefit to being on Spotify is exposure which in itself can be good but when you get nothing financially out of it then it's just kind of sad for the music industry.
As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out. Spotify in that sense is a lose-lose from my perspective because you're either using the free version which is crammed with commercials OR you have to pay a subscription fee where none of the money really goes into supporting any of the artists anyways.
It's a bit of a double edged sword for me though. I got some of my own music on Spotify because people do use it and it brings some exposure and accessibility, but on the flip side if someone burned the Spotify headquarters down with gasoline i'd probably bring out the champagne. :lol
-
Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.
Really? Really?
I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?
It's a business in a capitalist economy, my guy. It's not the first one to exist in the music industry. Spotify is anything but the DEATH of music, that's some extreme hyperbole; I would argue YOU are the one with the extreme cynicism in this case. "Glorified piracy"? Please. That's like paying for your Netflix sub is glorified piracy, or that going to a movie theater is glorified piracy because half the cost of the ticket goes straight to the venue instead of directly to the filmmakers.
I guess i'm oldschool, I prefer owning something and collecting things I like rather than renting it (which is basically what you do with Spotify). If you love Spotify for the accessibility that's fine but why defend a company that screws over the artists? The sad reality is the only benefit to being on Spotify is exposure which in itself can be good but when you get nothing financially out of it then it's just kind of sad for the music industry.
As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out. Spotify in that sense is a lose-lose from my perspective because you're either using the free version which is crammed with commercials OR you have to pay a subscription fee where none of the money really goes into supporting any of the artists anyways.
It's a bit of a double edged sword for me though. I got some of my own music on Spotify because people do use it and it brings some exposure and accessibility, but on the flip side if someone burned the Spotify headquarters down with gasoline i'd probably bring out the champagne. :lol
I defend Spotify for a few reasons. 1) It finally put the nail in my piracy coffin. Even if something isn't on Spotify, I learned to not go out and pirate it, and to enjoy what I can find with my subscription. 2) It opened up a world of new music for me. I probably wouldn't do roulettes here if I couldn't use Spotify for discovering all the new music, nevermind all the music I was discovering before running roulettes here via Spotify. There's always something new. 3) The feeling of paying a legal sub fee and not feeling grimey about doing something illegal or unethical is nice and something I appreciate now that I'm not a teenager who used the excuse of not having a job to steal. 4) The vast library ensures I have everything in one place. 5) I can incorporate my physical collection into my digital library by syncing my ripped MP3s with my Spotify library. It's awesome. 6) I have it all on my phone. No need to carry a dedicated MP3 player anymore with a 256 gig SD card in the phone. 7) Bluetooth on my phone + Spotify = car stereo connection and wireless earbuds outdoors and at work.
Spotify isn't the only venue someone can put their music on, either. I don't think it's fair to act like Spotify determines whether or not an artist's career lives or dies and that they're the sole problem. What about Google Play? Apple/iTunes? Tidal? Pandora? Everything else? What about everybody who uploads full discographies to YouTube every day, where no royalties ever go to anyone?
-
Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.
Is this how it is every Friday? I was on their site and didn't see it referenced.
I have bought stuff from Bandcamp before. I actually created an account this morning.
tacdtf
which is my username on Spotify as well.
-
Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.
Is this how it is every Friday? I was on their site and didn't see it referenced.
I have bought stuff from Bandcamp before. I actually created an account this morning.
tacdtf
which is my username on Spotify as well.
IIRC, Bandcamp Fridays are only on the 1st Friday of every month at least for the time being.
-
Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.
Is this how it is every Friday? I was on their site and didn't see it referenced.
I have bought stuff from Bandcamp before. I actually created an account this morning.
tacdtf
which is my username on Spotify as well.
There’s a link to this on the front page:
https://daily.bandcamp.com/features/update-on-bandcamp-fridays
It’s every first Friday of the month, so just once a month. The next one is this Friday.
-
OK, I see the link now.. :facepalm:
-
This just adds another reason for me to go and take a Music Business course. At least, to get an even better understanding of it.
-
There’s a link to this on the front page:
https://daily.bandcamp.com/features/update-on-bandcamp-fridays
It’s every first Friday of the month, so just once a month. The next one is this Friday.
I think I've bought at least one album every one of these so far. Already know I'm getting Lift Yr. Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Heaven this friday.
-
As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out. Spotify in that sense is a lose-lose from my perspective because you're either using the free version which is crammed with commercials OR you have to pay a subscription fee where none of the money really goes into supporting any of the artists anyways.
Where is this argument coming from? If you pay a sub fee but do not listen, Spotify profits. But if you listen a lot, a big portion of the fixed fee you pay does go to the artists. That is the Spotify business model, they are looking to profit on subscribers who do not listen much. They do not profit from heavy listeners.
Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?
-
As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out.
How is youtube any different? At least if you sample on Spotify the artist is getting "something". What do they get from Youtube. Half the time it's some user who uploads the material and not the band themself.
-
As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out.
How is youtube any different? At least if you sample on Spotify the artist is getting "something". What do they get from Youtube. Half the time it's some user who uploads the material and not the band themself.
I think it depends. Nowadays, from what I recall, Youtube has been very trigger-happy flagging content that has copyrighted content like music so the people uploading the material don't even profit from it. I think.
-
Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?
Great question. As someone who buys albums almost exclusively on Amazon (other thans physicals of my top bands, or the occasional merch stand purchase) and loves how it's cheap and delivered on demand (AKA no shipping delays on release) I really enjoy it because I feel that's more direct to the artist PLUS I own the MP3s and can easily put it on my phone and other devices. But, how does this compare to streaming online without a subscription, streaming online with a subscription, buying on amazon/itunes, buying at a merch stand, buying at a retail store.
As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out.
How is youtube any different? At least if you sample on Spotify the artist is getting "something". What do they get from Youtube. Half the time it's some user who uploads the material and not the band themself.
So from my experience posting lyric videos to copyrighted music on youtube, youtube has an agreement to allow you to post most copyrighted material and their own algorithm, content id (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_ID_(system) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_ID_(system))), discovers it and automatically directs ALL ad revenue from that video to the copyright owner. I don't believe the system is perfect, but I get the messages immedialety if I upload any music and I'm cool with it although I always wonder how much the band actually gets from it. Better than nothing I assume.
-
Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?
They get 60-70% of the album price.
-
Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?
They get 60-70% of the album price.
They do?? That seems way too high. That doesn't go through a label filter first?
-
No way man. I've seen band members on Facebook give %'s. Let me screenshot it.
-
Here is Ed Platt. The bass player from Enchant giving you the %'s.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xR5rnJy/Screenshot-20200805-220837-Facebook.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/8jqntdvD)poems for your friend (https://poemsonly.com/category/friendship)
-
Goo goo, you are waaaaay off man.
-
Joe, that's cool, but Goo2 was asking how much of the $9.99 from an Amazon download (purchase) does the band get, not just a stream.
-
Ah. Sorry. Thinking about the musicians.
I like Spotify and Apple and Amazon for trying bands then buying albums. But I don't lean on them to listen to bands.
-
I found this article. It's 9 years old..
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110911/00284415891/how-much-does-band-make-various-music-platforms.shtml
Saw this one too.
https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians
-
The one interesting difference between Spotify and buying an album is that the artist gets paid by the listen. How many of us bought an album back in the day without hearing anything from it only to listen to it only once or twice because it was a complete dud? Band makes off with just as much money as they would if it was awesome. Now, with streaming, the better the album, the more listens, and the more money they make. Of course they always had incentive to make the best album they could, but the pressure is even higher now in a way.
-
Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?
They get 60-70% of the album price.
They do?? That seems way too high. That doesn't go through a label filter first?
Oh it totally does. You should be thinking about the percentage of a sale that goes to the storefront, not how much goes to the artist. The storefront will always take a percentage of the sale, probably around a quarter or less. The rest goes to whoever put the music up, and unless the artist did that themselves, that money doesn't just go directly to the artist. If the label put it up, a good amount of it goes to them. Same for a third-party distributor, which outside of platforms like Bandcamp where anyone can upload anything, is basically required to get your music up for sale.
-
The one interesting difference between Spotify and buying an album is that the artist gets paid by the listen. How many of us bought an album back in the day without hearing anything from it only to listen to it only once or twice because it was a complete dud? Band makes off with just as much money as they would if it was awesome. Now, with streaming, the better the album, the more listens, and the more money they make. Of course they always had incentive to make the best album they could, but the pressure is even higher now in a way.
This is kind of a moot point because remember, the payout per a single listen is around .003 cents. Say you've got an album with 12 songs on it. In order to give the band say, $10 that you would have given them for just buying the album, you'd have to listen to the whole thing 278 times. Technically possible, but very unlikely. :P
-
Right, but you're not giving the band $10 for buying the album. You might be giving them $2-$3 tops.
-
Right, but you're not giving the band $10 for buying the album. You might be giving them $2-$3 tops.
Right. The 30-40% is Apple’s cut. The rest goes to label, artist, producer (if the have percentage points per sale), etc.
This is why artists like Bandcamp. Their cut is 15% but you can sell the physical product, shirt, vinyl, susbcriptions, etc. They provide the frame work for storefront, it’s up to the artist to fill it up and sell it. And if you do it independently (not through label), you get all the profit.
-
Right, but you're not giving the band $10 for buying the album. You might be giving them $2-$3 tops.
I'm under the impression that the .003 cents from streams gets split amongst the label and the artist as well, so that's still well over 100 album listens you need to reach the same amount as a single album purchase.
-
As of this moment, using the $0.003 per stream estimate, Spotify would be paying out USD10,680 to Haken's label for the album Virus which was released July 24. Which is the same payout they would have gotten from selling around 1,800 full album purchases in iTunes.
Estimated Spotify payout for DT's Distance Over Time using $0.003 estimate is USD97,405. Which is just barely over the payout they have from the song Pull Me Under, which as of now is estimated at USD89,473.
I have no point in my post, I just find this a fascinating exercise. :lol
-
I found this article. It's 9 years old..
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110911/00284415891/how-much-does-band-make-various-music-platforms.shtml
I have to believe that this article, and goo-goo's assertion that ~70% goes to the artist is in the cases where the artists are self funded/produced. If there's a label involved, there's no way that much is going to the artist.
-
I defend Spotify for a few reasons. 1) It finally put the nail in my piracy coffin. Even if something isn't on Spotify, I learned to not go out and pirate it, and to enjoy what I can find with my subscription.
This only serves to make you feel good. It doesn't make any difference to the artist whatsoever.
I mean, I've been there. Spotify is made for people like you and me, amongst others, people who wanna listen to everything under the sun, and everywhere under the sun, by saving it offline (without having to do an increasingly inconvenient transfer every time I wanna switch music on my phone, as someone who has an older iPhone and an older laptop) and paying a small amount of money each month for that privilege. It's really great for me. And it's great for Spotify, who gets the most of my money. Not so much for the artist, who have no moral leg to stand on when they try and explain why we should still buy albums. They are reduced to asking for "support", instead of selling a product which is only available to own legally if you give money to their label or them. In the eyes of the average Spotify user, however, they already pay for music, and the artist has willingly (how willingly, when holding out on putting your discography on Spotify will net you negative publicity and people viewing you as stuck up and greedy) given it up anyway, so they must be getting enough out of it, right?
-
^ I’ve said the same thing (or meant to say the same thing) you just did, bit I put it under a layer of devaluation of music as an art form. Thanks for your take on it, which is a bit more to the core than my previous posts in this thread :)
-
I defend Spotify for a few reasons. 1) It finally put the nail in my piracy coffin. Even if something isn't on Spotify, I learned to not go out and pirate it, and to enjoy what I can find with my subscription.
This only serves to make you feel good. It doesn't make any difference to the artist whatsoever.
I mean, I've been there. Spotify is made for people like you and me, amongst others, people who wanna listen to everything under the sun, and everywhere under the sun, by saving it offline (without having to do an increasingly inconvenient transfer every time I wanna switch music on my phone, as someone who has an older iPhone and an older laptop) and paying a small amount of money each month for that privilege. It's really great for me. And it's great for Spotify, who gets the most of my money. Not so much for the artist, who have no moral leg to stand on when they try and explain why we should still buy albums. They are reduced to asking for "support", instead of selling a product which is only available to own legally if you give money to their label or them. In the eyes of the average Spotify user, however, they already pay for music, and the artist has willingly (how willingly, when holding out on putting your discography on Spotify will net you negative publicity and people viewing you as stuck up and greedy) given it up anyway, so they must be getting enough out of it, right?
Man at least I'm not straight up stealing the music like you. And I still buy plenty of physical media - lots of them in fact come from Spotify discoveries. Hell, one of them just arrived in my mailbox YESTERDAY (Empathica by Unreqvited, and I have proof (https://i.imgur.com/twFJIUj.jpg)). Don't tell me it only serves "to make me feel good" when you're the one justifying stealing music. Also I had like 6 other points there.
-
Right, but you're not giving the band $10 for buying the album. You might be giving them $2-$3 tops.
I'm under the impression that the .003 cents from streams gets split amongst the label and the artist as well, so that's still well over 100 album listens you need to reach the same amount as a single album purchase.
My understanding is that the 0.3 cents ($0.003) is the estimated average amount that goes to the artist. I think that the amount paid out to the content owner (usually the record label or distributor) is higher than that, various websites put it at more like 0.6-1.1 cents. So artists that own their own music (which is very few as almost all rely on label support) get a higher pay out because they keep everything.
Also reading into it, it's not actually a case of 0.3 cents per stream as such - Spotify has agreements with each content owner/distributor that apparently means it pays out something like 70% of its revenues (and keeps the rest to cover its costs and make profits). Other platforms approach it in the same way. So if revenues increase (which they have been doing) then the total pot to be paid out also increases. If the number of streams doesn't rise, then the per-stream rate will also rise. So the various quoted figures are the current estimates based on two known factors (Spotify's revenues and total number of streams) and estimated proportion that on average would go do the artists.
-
I defend Spotify for a few reasons. 1) It finally put the nail in my piracy coffin. Even if something isn't on Spotify, I learned to not go out and pirate it, and to enjoy what I can find with my subscription.
This only serves to make you feel good. It doesn't make any difference to the artist whatsoever.
I mean, I've been there. Spotify is made for people like you and me, amongst others, people who wanna listen to everything under the sun, and everywhere under the sun, by saving it offline (without having to do an increasingly inconvenient transfer every time I wanna switch music on my phone, as someone who has an older iPhone and an older laptop) and paying a small amount of money each month for that privilege. It's really great for me. And it's great for Spotify, who gets the most of my money. Not so much for the artist, who have no moral leg to stand on when they try and explain why we should still buy albums. They are reduced to asking for "support", instead of selling a product which is only available to own legally if you give money to their label or them. In the eyes of the average Spotify user, however, they already pay for music, and the artist has willingly (how willingly, when holding out on putting your discography on Spotify will net you negative publicity and people viewing you as stuck up and greedy) given it up anyway, so they must be getting enough out of it, right?
^ I’ve said the same thing (or meant to say the same thing) you just did, bit I put it under a layer of devaluation of music as an art form. Thanks for your take on it, which is a bit more to the core than my previous posts in this thread :)
How do these arguments reconcile with some of the facts and analysis I've been posting in the thread which show that:
- in real terms the music industry is making as much revenue as it did in the 70s and 80s;
- artists are now getting as big a share of revenue again as they were back then (more so than in the 80s in fact); and
- artists can make a lot more now from concerts (and to some extent merch) than they could back then.
-
Right, but you're not giving the band $10 for buying the album. You might be giving them $2-$3 tops.
I'm under the impression that the .003 cents from streams gets split amongst the label and the artist as well, so that's still well over 100 album listens you need to reach the same amount as a single album purchase.
My understanding is that the 0.3 cents ($0.003) is the estimated average amount that goes to the artist. I think that the amount paid out to the content owner (usually the record label or distributor) is higher than that, various websites put it at more like 0.6-1.1 cents.
Hmm, interesting. I know there's some distribution services like DistroKid who charge you a flat yearly subscription fee to distribute your music on streaming and digital store services, and (at least claim to) not take any share of the revenue generated from the actual music. If an independent artist is using that and actually gets almost a full cent per stream that doesn't sound... terrible. Though maybe since they aren't an actual label Spotify doesn't pay as much anyways. :yeahright
-
The one interesting difference between Spotify and buying an album is that the artist gets paid by the listen. How many of us bought an album back in the day without hearing anything from it only to listen to it only once or twice because it was a complete dud? Band makes off with just as much money as they would if it was awesome. Now, with streaming, the better the album, the more listens, and the more money they make. Of course they always had incentive to make the best album they could, but the pressure is even higher now in a way.
Look at it the other way; I've listened to Yes' "Going For The One" and Genesis' "ABACAB" perhaps thousands of times. Not counting reissues and what not, I paid about $12.00 for both, once, back in the 80's.
-
I’m not disputing any of that, really. Especially your third point I believe is very important, but I also consider that a direct result from recorded music being essentially worthless. Artist have to gig more and sell other stuff to make a profit. I’ve see several of my favourte bands being absolute on point with their merchandise gamethe last couple of months especially, which is good to see. It’s sad though that bands can’t seem to get by with just their main craft, which should be selling music (or bringing live music to people).
It also depends on what you consider music to be; is recorded music merely a vehicle and live music the actual experience? Or should recorded music be an experiece in itself, one that’s worth paying for?
-
Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.
Really? Really?
I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?
It's a business in a capitalist economy, my guy. It's not the first one to exist in the music industry. Spotify is anything but the DEATH of music, that's some extreme hyperbole; I would argue YOU are the one with the extreme cynicism in this case. "Glorified piracy"? Please. That's like paying for your Netflix sub is glorified piracy, or that going to a movie theater is glorified piracy because half the cost of the ticket goes straight to the venue instead of directly to the filmmakers.
I guess i'm oldschool, I prefer owning something and collecting things I like rather than renting it (which is basically what you do with Spotify). If you love Spotify for the accessibility that's fine but why defend a company that screws over the artists? The sad reality is the only benefit to being on Spotify is exposure which in itself can be good but when you get nothing financially out of it then it's just kind of sad for the music industry.
As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out. Spotify in that sense is a lose-lose from my perspective because you're either using the free version which is crammed with commercials OR you have to pay a subscription fee where none of the money really goes into supporting any of the artists anyways.
It's a bit of a double edged sword for me though. I got some of my own music on Spotify because people do use it and it brings some exposure and accessibility, but on the flip side if someone burned the Spotify headquarters down with gasoline i'd probably bring out the champagne. :lol
You're preaching to (my) choir on the "holding something" but don't make the mistake: the ownership of the WORK is no different. You (and I; I have something like 30,000 songs on my iPod and at MOST 100 are down-load only) own a piece of plastic. WE DO NOT OWN THE WORK. We have a license for it. So do the people that download, or that listen on Spotify. The licenses are slightly different, but not materially.
I'm sorry, I get the love for our artists, but I really don't see the basis for the hyperbole of Spotify "killing" anything.
-
I’m not disputing any of that, really. Especially your third point I believe is very important, but I also consider that a direct result from recorded music being essentially worthless. Artist have to gig more and sell other stuff to make a profit. I’ve see several of my favourte bands being absolute on point with their merchandise gamethe last couple of months especially, which is good to see. It’s sad though that bands can’t seem to get by with just their main craft, which should be selling music (or bringing live music to people).
It also depends on what you consider music to be; is recorded music merely a vehicle and live music the actual experience? Or should recorded music be an experiece in itself, one that’s worth paying for?
Back in the 70's the goal was for the band to tour was to promote the album. That has morphed into the exact opposite. Hell some bands just tour now, especially the older ones.
I don't think bands have ever been able to make a living selling music.
-
I'm sorry, I get the love for our artists, but I really don't see the basis for the hyperbole of Spotify "killing" anything.
Amen, Brother.
I have never gone into a record store and pondered, gee how much is the band getting if I buy this album.
Well, I have, but out of curiosity, certainly not as of actually caring.
-
You're preaching to (my) choir on the "holding something" but don't make the mistake: the ownership of the WORK is no different. You (and I; I have something like 30,000 songs on my iPod and at MOST 100 are down-load only) own a piece of plastic. WE DO NOT OWN THE WORK. We have a license for it. So do the people that download, or that listen on Spotify. The licenses are slightly different, but not materially.
I'm sorry, I get the love for our artists, but I really don't see the basis for the hyperbole of Spotify "killing" anything.
I don't know if it's the case anymore but I want to say I remember certain music being taken off Spotify in the past, i'm guessing due to licenses expiring or whatever else - not that different from how you have certain movies on Netflix for like a year or two but then they might be gone. Not to the same extent but I remember there was some band or album that for whatever reason went off one day. Not sure if that can still happen anymore though. But that combined with the fact that as a streamer, you are dependent on their servers and accessing it - which you might have available 95% of the time but there might always be that situation when it doesn't work for whatever reason. That's why I prefer owning something and having it either in physical form OR as mp3 on my computer/phone or whatever. I can see value in 'renting' it (Spotify and similar services) if you have no interest in owning the art or maybe you want to save space (vinyl and CDs take up space after all) and I guess it's kinda like buying a car VS leasing a car where you can make arguments for both ways being 'the better one'.
In the end I think mostly what let me down on Spotify was the limitations and having to go outside Spotify to listen to a lot of stuff I like. I know you can add your own music/mp3s into it, but for me it just felt easier to not hassle with it at all. I will admit I'm probably extra salty towards Spotify because I've had several music discussions with people recommending something I know they will like, but it's met by "Oh its not on Spotify, guess I'll check out something else" which isn't really Spotify's fault as much as it is a backlash of people getting more 'comfortable' with the easy options and refusing to do the 'digging' to find new stuff. As for the other options like Google Play or Tidal or what else is out there, I honestly haven't encountered anyone using it (or talking about using it) so I can't really say.
Don't mean to sound grumpy about it. :lol
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it.
Even if you have 75% of all the music that exists in the world on there (which is a number i'm just pulling out of my ass) that's still a crazy amount of stuff that's left off. Then again it depends on you as a person and what you are interested in exploring. I'm sure there's people who will never explore anything outside of Spotify and they will still discover lots of stuff they feel passionate about. :p
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it.
Even if you have 75% of all the music that exists in the world on there (which is a number i'm just pulling out of my ass) that's still a crazy amount of stuff that's left off. Then again it depends on you as a person and what you are interested in exploring. I'm sure there's people who will never explore anything outside of Spotify and they will still discover lots of stuff they feel passionate about. :p
Yeah, but is that actually a bad thing, or is it just the reality of a subscription service? Netflix doesn't have everything either. If I'm not listening to any of that music, if I'm not even aware of this music that exists and isn't on Spotify, and I'm still discovering more than enough music every day to keep me occupied and busy exploring, I'm literally not missing out on anything.
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.
This likely doesn't bother most people, but one big limitation with it is the lack of customization. Say you want to edit all the movements of Messiah Complex together into one track so it all plays together whenever it comes up on shuffle. Tough shit. Or if there's a track with one of those stupid "hidden songs" resulting in there being 10 minutes of silence that you'd rather just edit out. No can do. I recently got fed up with the ridiculously quiet vocal mixing on Devin Townsend's The Death Of Music (topical :neverusethis:) so I went into Cubase and did some light mastering work on it and got it sounding much better. Was only able to do that because I had the actual file on my computer.
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.
This likely doesn't bother most people, but one big limitation with it is the lack of customization. Say you want to edit all the movements of Messiah Complex together into one track so it all plays together whenever it comes up on shuffle. Tough shit. Or if there's a track with one of those stupid "hidden songs" resulting in there being 10 minutes of silence that you'd rather just edit out. No can do. I recently got fed up with the ridiculously quiet vocal mixing on Devin Townsend's The Death Of Music (topical :neverusethis:) so I went into Cubase and did some light mastering work on it and got it sounding much better. Was only able to do that because I had the actual file on my computer.
I'm not saying there's no validity to this criticism but to me this is complaining about what the filmmaker did with their film and then complaining that you can't chop it up your own way on the Netflix app. But since you have the actual MP3, you can do that and sync it with Spotify and listen to it in the mix with all your digital stuff. And then the file still exists for your own use everywhere else. I don't see the problem, you literally just solved it with the perfect solution.
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.
This likely doesn't bother most people, but one big limitation with it is the lack of customization. Say you want to edit all the movements of Messiah Complex together into one track so it all plays together whenever it comes up on shuffle. Tough shit. Or if there's a track with one of those stupid "hidden songs" resulting in there being 10 minutes of silence that you'd rather just edit out. No can do. I recently got fed up with the ridiculously quiet vocal mixing on Devin Townsend's The Death Of Music (topical :neverusethis:) so I went into Cubase and did some light mastering work on it and got it sounding much better. Was only able to do that because I had the actual file on my computer.
This type of discussion just shows how we are all music dorks :lol I'd love to see this same topic being discussed on a pop or general rock forum where people aren't this detailed and interested in music like we are here. I don't mean that to make fun of you or anyone here (I include myself as a music dork) but the way prog fans consume music is very different than the average person IMO.
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it.
Even if you have 75% of all the music that exists in the world on there (which is a number i'm just pulling out of my ass) that's still a crazy amount of stuff that's left off. Then again it depends on you as a person and what you are interested in exploring. I'm sure there's people who will never explore anything outside of Spotify and they will still discover lots of stuff they feel passionate about. :p
Yeah, but is that actually a bad thing, or is it just the reality of a subscription service? Netflix doesn't have everything either. If I'm not listening to any of that music, if I'm not even aware of this music that exists and isn't on Spotify, and I'm still discovering more than enough music every day to keep me occupied and busy exploring, I'm literally not missing out on anything.
Like I said it's very subjective and depends on the person. I've always had a strong curiosity to find and discover new things and for me it always feels a lot more exciting if the thing I'm discovering isn't something everybody is talking about. Finding a band that isn't on every "best albums ever made"-list or finding a movie that isn't on Netflix that blows me away feels really cool because it's like you're discovering hidden gems. But you are right in the sense that 'ignorance is bliss' kinda, like if you have no idea what you are missing out on and you enjoy the stuff you focus on, then ofc it won't feel like a detriment to yourself.
Just one example I could give is my favorite band Cardiacs - are not on Spotify at all. And when I recommend them, that seems like a road block for some people. And that kinda sucks but just looking at it from my own perspective, if I hadn't gone outside the box then I would have missed out on this wonderful band that is closer to my heart than pretty much anything else musically. I know for sure there's other bands I like that are not on Spotify but that one example alone makes me happy I'm not putting limitations on myself. I guess the only limitation is my own thirst for discovery. :p
-
But since you have the actual MP3, you can do that and sync it with Spotify and listen to it in the mix with all your digital stuff. And then the file still exists for your own use everywhere else. I don't see the problem, you literally just solved it with the perfect solution.
Great, but you still need to buy the album to get the MP3 in the first place. What are we debating about again? :lol
-
I’m not disputing any of that, really. Especially your third point I believe is very important, but I also consider that a direct result from recorded music being essentially worthless. Artist have to gig more and sell other stuff to make a profit.
I'll come onto the point about whether music is any more worthless now in a moment, but first I'll just say that I agree that it's harder for most artists to make a living from recorded music, and that making money from touring and merch is partly a response to that. However, it only works because people are willing to pay for them, which they are - more than ever in fact. And it's not like you can disentangle it and try and claim that the music has no value, it's the merch that has the value - the only reason people are willing to pay for the merch or concert tickets is because of the music. So I guess that's my first thought on whether music is worthless now.
My second thought is back to my previous posts - the fact that recorded music makes as much money now (in real terms) as it did in the 70s and 80s. As many of us have said previously, the reason it's harder for most musicians to make a living now is that there are so many more musicians now. But, to talk in economic terms, just because there's been a huge surge in the supply of music it doesn't mean the demand should necessarily increase. Maybe demand (in financial terms) will continue to increase as it has for the past 5 years or so and people will pay more and more for subscription services and it will become more lucrative for musicians, hard to say what will happen, but as things are right now the pie isn't any smaller than it was, there are just more people able to make and release music so they each get a smaller slice of that pie.
I’ve see several of my favourte bands being absolute on point with their merchandise gamethe last couple of months especially, which is good to see. It’s sad though that bands can’t seem to get by with just their main craft, which should be selling music (or bringing live music to people).
It also depends on what you consider music to be; is recorded music merely a vehicle and live music the actual experience? Or should recorded music be an experiece in itself, one that’s worth paying for?
Let's turn that thought around - what's the purpose of making music? Is it to make money? Or is it to create something that means something to the artist and hopefully speaks to other people? I kind of agree with Stadler that it's worth considering the difference between art and commerce. When more of the money was made directly from selling recorded music, they were probably impossible to disentangle, and I imagine that probably played a part in why label/management interference in the music itself was so extensive. It might be coincidence, but there's much less studio/management interference in the music these days.
-
People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?
-
People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?
I have no doubt at all that this will have been a prominent view put forward when recorded music first became readily and affordably available.
-
I don't have anything else to add but just want to say this is a fascinating discussion. Loads of really interesting points.
-
I don't think bands have ever been able to make a living selling music.
This is pretty much it. They make money on touring, selling merch, other ventures. Back in the day, yes, money was made from selling music, but not that much. Record labels still got their cut in addition to the advances they gave artists (they acted more like a bank). But back in the day, people bought music. The 10 million or so copies that Michael Jackson sold, the 1-2 million from Madonna, etc. Now those numbers are not even close to the numbers in this era. So for 10 million albums sold, MJ could still get 1 mill after all advances and record label was paid off. But for a generational talent like MJ, there were hundreds of bands/artists trying to make it. And out of those bands, if you sold 2k copies, you would barely pay the record label advance and producers, etc, if at all.
I get that the Spotify (and streaming rates) are abysmal. Should the streaming rates be reviewed and increased? Absolutely. But bands/artists shouldn't expect to make a living from just streaming (pandemic issues aside, lack of touring). Spotify has filed to be publicly traded. Maybe artists should get a dividend of some sort...I don't know.
In my opinion, the best way to get paid being a musician is keep your music and do all of it yourself. There are plenty of current artists that do this: Plini has been very successful, Lights in Motion, Dave Kerzner, Marillion, Steve Vai, Animals as Leaders, Periphery, etc...It seems musicians like being signed to a record label and think that they will get them to the next level, but then they realize it was their biggest mistake and the label didn't help them at all. That old model of being signed to a label was flawed back then, and it's still flawed today (unless it's just a distribution deal). Right now it's harder to be a band/artists, but there is absolutely more opportunities to make a decent living making music.
-
People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?
I suppose you're being facetious but, unless you're not much of a music fan to begin with (or for some reason dislike social events of any kind), there is a myriad of reasons for a person to both buy recorded music and go see live music. There's nothing like the rush of being at a live gig, having a shared experience with everyone who's attending the show (Warr guitar and Chapman Stick player Trey Gunn wrote a very interesting blog entry many, many moons ago on this very subject after he had what he described as a shared extending listening moment with someone he didn't know at a Johann Johannsson concert), feeding that collective energy to the musicians up on stage and getting it back through the music that is being played. Even though a lot of acts do tend to perform their music live exactly as it was recorded in the studio (or, at the very least, play it as close as possible to the recorded version), there are many others that prefer to deliver alternative renditions of their songs/pieces live or that play them with a different arrangement or some sort of variation. Also, there are many musical genres (such as jazz and numerous types of world music, for instance) that rely heavily on improvisation so there's no chance in those cases that the music that is played live will ever sound like an exact replica of the recorded version of it (if such version even exists).
-
People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?
I suppose you're being facetious but, unless you're not much of a music fan to begin with (or for some reason dislike social events of any kind), there is a myriad of reasons for a person to both buy recorded music and go see live music. There's nothing like the rush of being at a live gig, having a shared experience with everyone who's attending the show (Warr guitar and Chapman Stick player Trey Gunn wrote a very interesting blog entry many, many moons ago on this very subject after he had what he described as a shared extending listening moment with someone he didn't know at a Johann Johannsson concert), feeding that collective energy to the musicians up on stage and getting it back through the music that is being played. Even though a lot of acts do tend to perform their music live exactly as it was recorded in the studio (or, at the very least, play it as close as possible to the recorded version), there are many others that prefer to deliver alternative renditions of their songs/pieces live or that play them with a different arrangement or some sort of variation. Also, there are many musical genres (such as jazz and numerous types of world music, for instance) that rely heavily on improvisation so there's no chance in those cases that the music that is played live will ever sound like an exact replica of the recorded version of it (if such version even exists).
I was indeed being facetious, my dude
FYI I have almost no interest in experiencing live music personally but that's just me
-
People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?
Sounds better on my cellphone (https://youtu.be/dABs7d50SDs)
-
The ‘what is (the purpose of) music’ discussion is going to be a difficult one, but I merely posted the questions initially as food for thought, not necessarily to comment on further.
Re: ‘art vs commerce’ - this one vould also lead to a terrible discussion about quality in art, and how we as consumers, should value it.
Most of what I have been saying though were observations on how I don’t think the general public doesn’t value recorded (this is the important word here!) music at all. Yes, people are willing to go to concerts to experience music, they will buy merchandise from their favourite acts, but as long as the idea that music should be free exists (and I said previously in this thread that I think it’s too late to turn that around), the majority of people will not take the act of selling music seriously.
-
Getting paid for music began, when a guy with an instrument played outside and people just started giving him money. :biggrin:
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.
This likely doesn't bother most people, but one big limitation with it is the lack of customization. Say you want to edit all the movements of Messiah Complex together into one track so it all plays together whenever it comes up on shuffle. Tough shit. Or if there's a track with one of those stupid "hidden songs" resulting in there being 10 minutes of silence that you'd rather just edit out. No can do. I recently got fed up with the ridiculously quiet vocal mixing on Devin Townsend's The Death Of Music (topical :neverusethis:) so I went into Cubase and did some light mastering work on it and got it sounding much better. Was only able to do that because I had the actual file on my computer.
That actually BURNS me. I'm "that guy". I have the three different mixes of Rainbow Rising. I have two mixes of Nektar's a Tab In The Ocean. I have both the US and UK mix of Whitesnake's "Slide It In". Too often, the services give you what the artist is willing to license to you at that time. So for a while there, every time you wanted to hear "Crazy Train", you got Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo instead of Lee Kerslake and Bob Daisley. No thanks, amigo.
-
I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life ??? ??? Am I missing something?
-
Getting paid for music began, when a guy with an instrument played outside and people just started giving him money. :biggrin:
Not really. It had more to do with the (rich) aristocracy in Europe paying groups or solo musicians as a form of entertainment. Keep in mind hearing music was much more exclusive back then, because you needed to physically have someone who could perform music near you in order to even hear it.
Of course there were amateur musicians playing in pubs (‘minstrels’) or on the streets as well.
-
I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life ??? ??? Am I missing something?
In 2002, in response to accusations from Bob Daisley (and perhaps a lawsuit; I forget the timing), Ozzy - well, Sharon, if you believe the reporting - had Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo go in and "recreate" the drum and bass tracks so that they wouldn't have to pay Bob royalties. For a couple years, the CD versions (at least) had those "recreations". Honestly, if you lived and breathed "Diary Of A Madman" you could tell, but it wasn't like they were now "disco versions" or anything. Ozzy actually publicly admitted it was a mistake and at some point they went back to the originals (though for the compilations "The Essential Ozzy" and "Prince Of Darkness", they were the re-recorded versions.)
-
I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life ??? ??? Am I missing something?
In 2002, in response to accusations from Bob Daisley (and perhaps a lawsuit; I forget the timing), Ozzy - well, Sharon, if you believe the reporting - had Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo go in and "recreate" the drum and bass tracks so that they wouldn't have to pay Bob royalties. For a couple years, the CD versions (at least) had those "recreations". Honestly, if you lived and breathed "Diary Of A Madman" you could tell, but it wasn't like they were now "disco versions" or anything. Ozzy actually publicly admitted it was a mistake and at some point they went back to the originals (though for the compilations "The Essential Ozzy" and "Prince Of Darkness", they were the re-recorded versions.)
Oh, I knew about that, but I just never could tell the difference between the versions I listened to on Spotify, the version on the CD, and the version I hear on the radio at work. Can you really tell by just listening? I always assumed the original version - the one on the radio - was always on Spotify.
-
I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life ??? ??? Am I missing something?
In 2002, in response to accusations from Bob Daisley (and perhaps a lawsuit; I forget the timing), Ozzy - well, Sharon, if you believe the reporting - had Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo go in and "recreate" the drum and bass tracks so that they wouldn't have to pay Bob royalties. For a couple years, the CD versions (at least) had those "recreations". Honestly, if you lived and breathed "Diary Of A Madman" you could tell, but it wasn't like they were now "disco versions" or anything. Ozzy actually publicly admitted it was a mistake and at some point they went back to the originals (though for the compilations "The Essential Ozzy" and "Prince Of Darkness", they were the re-recorded versions.)
Oh, I knew about that, but I just never could tell the difference between the versions I listened to on Spotify, the version on the CD, and the version I hear on the radio at work. Can you really tell by just listening? I always assumed the original version - the one on the radio - was always on Spotify.
i think you can. It's got a similar sound, but it's flatter, if that makes sense. You play, so I think you can tell if you had them side-by-side. As I said, though, it's not like this is now a Dance remix.
-
You say that like it's a bad thing. (https://open.spotify.com/track/1g0PuOPe92oqELZoFhoxk8?si=Z9EPdhooQd-vWM7j3cAfSQ)
-
You say that like it's a bad thing. (https://open.spotify.com/track/1g0PuOPe92oqELZoFhoxk8?si=Z9EPdhooQd-vWM7j3cAfSQ)
Oh, it's a bad thing alright.
-
You say that like it's a bad thing. (https://open.spotify.com/track/1g0PuOPe92oqELZoFhoxk8?si=Z9EPdhooQd-vWM7j3cAfSQ)
Oh, it's a bad thing alright.
You don't like anything that isn't vocals/bass/guitar/drums. Trust me, we get it. Go back to Cheap Trick and Whitesnake or whatever your generation likes :lol
-
Haha...And if you had the files ripped from the cd or digital download, you could put them on audacity and actually do a side by side comparison. Just pan one left and one right.
-
Here's a relevant video by the singer from Lords Of The Trident. Who the f#&k is that?
They are a metal band from the Midwest. They come off as pretty cheesy, but they have chops, and the singer has pipes. I love them and have bought all of their albums using both Amazon and Bandcamp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KavwrjBsOhU
LOTT have done a tone of youtube/facebook thingies over the last few months. The drunken quarantine karaoke videos have been hilarious.
-
^ That dude is funny and makes a lot of good points, I subscribed to his channel and checking out the music, thanks for sharing man.
-
^ That dude is funny and makes a lot of good points, I subscribed to his channel and checking out the music, thanks for sharing man.
This is my favorite song by them.. Shattered Skies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0E-Skcc3U)
They're a bit Hammerfallish, but they have a sense of humor about them. They're pretty easy on the ears.
-
That's pretty good, I don't know Hammerfall but their vibe is kinda reminiscent of an ancient band I liked back in college called Rhapsody of Fire, probably the fantasy elements.
Everybody here probably already knows; it's good to let the ads run their full length when you check out bands like that on youtube. A youtuber I know told me they don't get revenue from it if you skip it, so I just mute it and do something else while they run.
-
Here's a question I was gonna pose at the Haken thread but thought it may be relevant to the discussion here.
I'm trying to buy their live CD/DVD release. Generally, with relatively smaller bands, I like to buy releases by going to their website and seeing how they want me to buy it, as oppose to just straight from Amazon.
Haken's website, as does a lot of bands, redirected me to another website for merch called Omerch.
Now that release, entitled L-1VE, will cost me $42 shipping included, if I bought it from Omerch. And 20$ if I bought it from Amazon.
Does the doubled price mean that the Omerch website shares more of my money with Haken? Or is the $42 actual cost for the release and shipping while Amazon's $20 is a matter of Amazon being the virtual Walmart and crushing competition just cause they can afford it?
Largely naive question, I know and I have a feeling I already know the answer. But I don't like to lean on my assumptions only because they sound logical to me.
-
Along the lines of Rich's commentary that the industry as a whole is getting same/more money as in past decades, but artists are getting less. Someone mentioned that the ease of recording and producing music has increased the amount of acts and music out there. I would also posit that the Information Age has also allowed for more exposure, and it has flattened the distribution of the consumer spend. What I mean is that, in the 80s, my music purchasing habits were limited by what I heard on the 5 radio stations I heard in my market, what had friends tell me about, or things I read about in Hit Parader or Kerrang or whatever other pubs I remember from the day. I probably had a catalogue of about 100 bands, 98% of which were US/Canada/UK acts, and most of which were household names to some extent.
Nowadays, I've been exposed to all different kinds of acts, from all different areas of the world. So, while I'm still spending the same kind of money I would, it's getting spread out over many more acts because the Interwebz allows me to know of and hear about them. Now I've got a catalogue of a couple thousand acts, so my dollars spent are spread a little thinner to each individual artist.
Not sure if I'm making sense, but I think this is a factor as well.
-
Here's a question I was gonna pose at the Haken thread but thought it may be relevant to the discussion here.
I'm trying to buy their live CD/DVD release. Generally, with relatively smaller bands, I like to buy releases by going to their website and seeing how they want me to buy it, as oppose to just straight from Amazon.
Haken's website, as does a lot of bands, redirected me to another website for merch called Omerch.
Now that release, entitled L-1VE, will cost me $42 shipping included, if I bought it from Omerch. And 20$ if I bought it from Amazon.
Does the doubled price mean that the Omerch website shares more of my money with Haken? Or is the $42 actual cost for the release and shipping while Amazon's $20 is a matter of Amazon being the virtual Walmart and crushing competition just cause they can afford it?
Largely naive question, I know and I have a feeling I already know the answer. But I don't like to lean on my assumptions only because they sound logical to me.
Omerch is in Europe. So if you are trying to get the CD/DVD to the US, the shipping charges will be considerable higher. Right now, the cheapest options to ship to the US are prohibited. Only priority/urgent packages are being shipped. Places like Germany are not shipping to the US at all.
-
People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?
At one time (>100 years ago), recordings were seen as a promotion to sell sheet music.
-
Reminder that Bandcamp is waiving it’s revenue share today (Friday) if there is anything you’ve been waiting to pick up (or download as it were).
-
Bought this album:
(https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a1591070659_5.jpg)
https://bloodytyrantband.bandcamp.com/album/myths-of-the-islands
Definitely worth the $7
-
I bought Pursuit of the Sun & Allure of the Earth by Woods of Ypres, album I adore, for only $10 + $2 shipping. I would buy some more stuff but shipping for most stuff is at least equal the price of CD. Europeans, what are some sites you buy CDs from that have lower shipping rates? Even Amazon shipping is too pricey... I often end up buying used CDs because I can't find CD + shipping for under around $30.
-
Spend no money for Spotify and buy direct to the artists. Screw this guy.
Been doing that for almost 20 years now. Independent and direct has been the way to go since Napster.
-
Dee Snider ripped him to shreds too. I am a proud non-streamer. Buy physical, if available. Digital, if no other options. Never stream.
Do you ever listen to something before you buy it? If someone recommends something, do you simply buy it unheard?
Depends on who it is and what kind of track record they have with me. My days of finding smaller needles in bigger haystacks have long since passed. When this COVID thing is sorted, one of the first things I'm doing is going from A to Z in a record store. (If there re any left!)
-
People have been listening to "free music" for a long time. It's called FM radio.
And if Spoitify wants to make more money then sell ads just like radio does.
-
There is no real money to be made from music, unless (or until) you are an established artist with a fan-base that’s willing to spend money on your products. Note I’m saying ‘products’ here and not necessarly ‘music’.
Yes but how is that different to what has always been the case?
You have a chart that shows the amount of money over time invested by labels and tech platforms in recording artists and bands?
-
Another wrinkle in all of this. I’m probably not the only one here who has built up a large portion of their music collection buying used CDs. I’ve never felt particularly bad about it, but it’s not much different from streaming. Someone acquired the rights to the product and then legally is selling it without the artist getting a cut. There are some artists who I’ve gone on to really love and support because I was able to find them for the (relatively) low cost of a used CD. At the same time, I’m sure there are many who have never gotten any money from me despite me having and enjoying their music.
Good point. But I'd guess (and it is just a guess) that many artists would have made more money from the initial CD sale than they would from streaming.
-
You're preaching to (my) choir on the "holding something" but don't make the mistake: the ownership of the WORK is no different. You (and I; I have something like 30,000 songs on my iPod and at MOST 100 are down-load only) own a piece of plastic. WE DO NOT OWN THE WORK. We have a license for it. So do the people that download, or that listen on Spotify. The licenses are slightly different, but not materially.
I'm sorry, I get the love for our artists, but I really don't see the basis for the hyperbole of Spotify "killing" anything.
Music can be be pulled from any platform for any reason with ease. I don't immediately see a scenario where someone is coming to my house for my CD.
-
The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.
This likely doesn't bother most people, but one big limitation with it is the lack of customization. Say you want to edit all the movements of Messiah Complex together into one track so it all plays together whenever it comes up on shuffle. Tough shit. Or if there's a track with one of those stupid "hidden songs" resulting in there being 10 minutes of silence that you'd rather just edit out. No can do. I recently got fed up with the ridiculously quiet vocal mixing on Devin Townsend's The Death Of Music (topical :neverusethis:) so I went into Cubase and did some light mastering work on it and got it sounding much better. Was only able to do that because I had the actual file on my computer.
That actually BURNS me. I'm "that guy". I have the three different mixes of Rainbow Rising. I have two mixes of Nektar's a Tab In The Ocean. I have both the US and UK mix of Whitesnake's "Slide It In". Too often, the services give you what the artist is willing to license to you at that time. So for a while there, every time you wanted to hear "Crazy Train", you got Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo instead of Lee Kerslake and Bob Daisley. No thanks, amigo.
Well there's that too. Who decides which version is being used and what happens when it's the "wrong" one? Are they even labeled correctly?
-
I was just thinking about Instagram stories with music added (which is a really cool feature), do they also count as another "play" on a song for the artists? Not that it would make a huge difference, but at least I have uploaded a lot of stories with DT songs using Instagram music (whick I assume is working with Spotify or some other streaming platform), so hope I at least made them a couple extra bucks :lol
-
Here's a question I was gonna pose at the Haken thread but thought it may be relevant to the discussion here.
I'm trying to buy their live CD/DVD release. Generally, with relatively smaller bands, I like to buy releases by going to their website and seeing how they want me to buy it, as oppose to just straight from Amazon.
Haken's website, as does a lot of bands, redirected me to another website for merch called Omerch.
Now that release, entitled L-1VE, will cost me $42 shipping included, if I bought it from Omerch. And 20$ if I bought it from Amazon.
Does the doubled price mean that the Omerch website shares more of my money with Haken? Or is the $42 actual cost for the release and shipping while Amazon's $20 is a matter of Amazon being the virtual Walmart and crushing competition just cause they can afford it?
Largely naive question, I know and I have a feeling I already know the answer. But I don't like to lean on my assumptions only because they sound logical to me.
There still seems to be a value judgment, though, percolating under the discussion. It's fair to say that artists get on board with distributors and labels in the first place because they are, in essence, the "Walmart" of music and "can afford it". We - meaning, people in general - are seemingly all over the map when it comes to this stuff. Volume, efficiency of scale, and distributed costs are either a good thing or they're not, and it shouldn't matter WHO in the chain we're throwing our hat in with. Many people - both here in the P/R tread and generally - are seemingly begging the government to punish companies and corporations that don't do this (this is essentially the argument against "Big Pharma", another judgmental turn of phrase), but here, because it's "Spotify" and it's a pet interest of many, it's seems that many people - generally and here - think it's bad.
The direct route is a limiter for some of these artists. Anyone follow Fish over the years? And remember the problems he used to have with the distribution of his material, which was essentially out of his house? Fish is probably a bad example because of his numerous "cunning plans" over the years, but in my opinion, he's an artist that did not walk the line between "major label" (EMI) and "DIY distribution" very well. I think his inability to latch on to a global entity to sell his product hurt him over the span of his career. He's probably doing okay now because of the span of his catalogue, but that's sheer will rather than any precise business plan. IMO, Dream Theater is a band that is the exact opposite. They rode the wave almost perfectly.
-
People have been listening to "free music" for a long time. It's called FM radio.
And if Spoitify wants to make more money then sell ads just like radio does.
They already do that on the free version of Spotify. People pay for Premium accounts to go ad-free.
-
Yep. Roughly 10 minutes of music and then you get ads for like 90 seconds. Some of them are naturally pretty annoying (and sometimes even louder than the songs on our playlist).
-
Yeah. :lol Hello! You could've been listening to a CD right now! You could've been listening to a vinyl, or a cassette, or to your local radio. But instead, you're listening to this ad right now, so thank you for that!
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5wj1zmR/FB-IMG-1597189376938.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/dhT8yXLP)
-
:lol
Funny though, to give an example, I think I am about to get my first youtube check of $100 (the minimum to actually get a pay out). I've been making videos for years and have over 1.25 million views (although much of that is of copyright material that I cannot make money off of) but still the point is, you don't really make much money from streaming views/listens unless you go viral and are extremely popular. According to my analytics, I make about 7 dollars a month, but have actually been trending towards 10 since (without concerts) I have been more consistently making original gaming videos. Hardly anything to buy a nice meal let alone split it with anyone else.
-
Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.
To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?
-
I get confused when people say that Metallica's Hardwired to Self Destruct is too long.
1. It's a double album released eight years after Death Magnetic. I should bloody hope it's a double.
2. We have iTunes and iPods now. Just playlist the songs you like. :dunno:
3. I'd have felt gypped if after 8 years - Hardwired to Self Destruct was only 40 mins long. The songs you don't enjoy as much don't make the good songs worse somehow.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/music-streamers-win-appeal-over-royalty-hike-for-song-owners/ar-BB17QvI9?li=BBnb2gh
-
Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.
To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?
If they play the music in the background, like they do in reaction videos, it's copyrighted so you don't make money off those as far as I know but you might be able to get shared revenue where because most of it might be original you get a percentage and the copyright owner gets their cut.
-
Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.
To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?
If they play the music in the background, like they do in reaction videos, it's copyrighted so you don't make money off those as far as I know but you might be able to get shared revenue where because most of it might be original you get a percentage and the copyright owner gets their cut.
But what about the gaming videos? Do the "Games" make the money if some dude posts a play through video?
-
Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.
To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?
If they play the music in the background, like they do in reaction videos, it's copyrighted so you don't make money off those as far as I know but you might be able to get shared revenue where because most of it might be original you get a percentage and the copyright owner gets their cut.
But what about the gaming videos? Do the "Games" make the money if some dude posts a play through video?
No, gaming videos are not copyrighted. Gaming companies usually promote people playing their games and creating content these days as it's pretty much free advertisement from their perspective
-
Yeah, that's right. I remember reading about some of the top guys actually being paid by the game companies.
-
You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.) Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).
-
You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.) Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).
I mean, you are not wrong. Five Finger Death Punch has worn Monster Energy Drink apparel in some photoshoots and they are one of the more popular modern bands out there today.
-
You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.) Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).
And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing. A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video. I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them. If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about.
-
Tapout shirt maybe?
-
Tapout shirt maybe?
Another thing I wouldn't be surprised if Five Finger Death Punch eventually gets a sponsorship from them to sport the shirts. People would say their music suits people that typically wears Tapout shirts.
-
Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.
To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?
This why reaction videos are a thing? (never watched one myself.)
-
You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.) Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).
And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing. A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video. I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them. If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about.
Do influencers have the same chance at making it big as bands these days? Seems like they get more help than musicians do but maybe the goal is different.
-
You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.) Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).
And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing. A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video. I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them. If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about.
Do influencers have the same chance at making it big as bands these days? Seems like they get more help than musicians do but maybe the goal is different.
I really don't know. The dynamics are very different between a band and influencer so it's not really an apples to apples comparison. But I don't think your chances of making it big in either are good at all. An influencer may be someone totally DIY which makes me think its more likely to be profitable vs. a band, but even then, I really don't know. You've got to be really popular and big to actually make money on these platforms.
-
You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.) Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).
And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing. A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video. I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them. If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about.
Do influencers have the same chance at making it big as bands these days? Seems like they get more help than musicians do but maybe the goal is different.
I really don't know. The dynamics are very different between a band and influencer so it's not really an apples to apples comparison. But I don't think your chances of making it big in either are good at all. An influencer may be someone totally DIY which makes me think its more likely to be profitable vs. a band, but even then, I really don't know. You've got to be really popular and big to actually make money on these platforms.
Thanks.
Didn't think so, but I'm really not that close to it.
-
This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?
-
This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?
I might have some if I knew what you were talking about.
-
This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?
I might have some if I knew what you were talking about.
He's probably talking about this:
https://press.soundcloud.com/197001-soundcloud-introduces-fan-powered-royalties
-
How did this work before? I was under the impression that people could buy albums or songs that were available on the platform. Didn't that money go to the band directly?
-
This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?
I might have some if I knew what you were talking about.
He's probably talking about this:
https://press.soundcloud.com/197001-soundcloud-introduces-fan-powered-royalties
hahaha, yes, that's what I was talking about, I forgot to paste the link, thanks!