If legal streaming went away tomorrow, would album sales see an uptick? I'd be surprised if that happened.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:02 (nine years ago) link
every artist selling a considerable amount of albums over the last two years would seem to disagree with you
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:05 (nine years ago) link
I'm just trying to figure out what would shift music/tv/movie consumption back to an ownership model rather than an access model.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:08 (nine years ago) link
essential reading btw: http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/
― I dunno. (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:09 (nine years ago) link
it's one thing to say that the industry would still be suffering a downturn in a youtubeless, spotifyless world. it's another to think that the ability to rent the music industry for less than the price of a cd has no effect on customer desire to buy a cd
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:09 (nine years ago) link
xxpost
nothing, probably?
that doesn't mean that spotify should be allowed to exploit the situation as they have.
― I dunno. (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:10 (nine years ago) link
(responding to johnny fever)
if swift's decision has done nothing more than bring a spotlight on the shitty royalty structure of spotify and other streaming services, it's been a useful decision. and by no means just for taylor swift.
― I dunno. (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:11 (nine years ago) link
honestly if i was in an indie band - and could afford it - i'd probably just release vinyl and put some push tracks or "singles" out on streaming services. treat the internet as a radio. give 3-4 songs away, force people to pay for the album if they want more. beyonce did a similar thing with her album, except it was a bundle with video instead of vinyl, and it did great. sure someone will rip the vinyl for illegal downloads, but you weren't gonna get money from those people either way.
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:14 (nine years ago) link
I seem to remember in the early days of Spotify (in the US at least), many albums only had some of the songs available to stream and it was a surprise when you found an album that was 100% streamable. Now it's a surprise to find one that isn't.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:17 (nine years ago) link
i can't use spotify b/c it crashes my shitty computer, but that's just me
― I dunno. (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:20 (nine years ago) link
considering the fact that most indie bands have like 2 or 3 songs that generate a million plays, and then a huge dropoff to the album tracks, i don't see the point of having album tracks on there at all. like fugazi - if they only had three songs from each album, people curious about fugazi would burn through them quicker, and potentially be hungry for more. Instead, "Waiting Room" has a million plus plays, some other 13 songs stuff comes below it, and hardly anybody's checking out end hits.
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:21 (nine years ago) link
I do believe streaming is the (near) future of music and all. But there is something highly annoying about the CEO of Spotify and Lefsetz par example wringing hands saying how Taylor Swift is "wrong"' about not putting her music on Spotify. As if a musician nowadays is obligated to do so. Swift (or her team of advisors and finance ppl probably) is in her right to keep her new album from streaming services imho. If the motive is that she earns more money that way because she shifts more physical copies of her album: good for her.
― a pleasant little psychedelic detour in the elevator (Amory Blaine), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:35 (nine years ago) link
i think they are ostensibly criticizing her characterization of spotify (and other streaming services) rather than questioning her "right" to withdraw her music. but it amounts to nearly the same argument.
― I dunno. (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:36 (nine years ago) link
yeah I don't get it, most bands would be better off making a couple songs from an album available on spotify, the whole all-you-can-eat buffet structure is so devaluing
― anonanon, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:40 (nine years ago) link
also did spotify respond to thom yorke etc by quoting their lyrics and making weird "radiohead come back" playlists? that shit is so gross
― da croupier, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:47 (nine years ago) link
You're probably right, but indeed it is nearly the same tbh. She questions Spotify's way of paying out to artists. And whether it's about Swift or some indie artist, this is a valid point. Spotify CEO says a Swift - top of the bill - would've made six million. Fair dues if true, but that's not what matters with Spotify. All artists, big and small, should earn what they deserve. Spotify should be more favorable to them than having to print and burn and fabricate a physical music product. It's about what the lesser gods get in return that truly matters. Thats the only way to wrap streaming into a sustainable business model. Without a fair compensation for them, the smaller ones, the system will not stand.
― a pleasant little psychedelic detour in the elevator (Amory Blaine), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:50 (nine years ago) link
Xp lol
― a pleasant little psychedelic detour in the elevator (Amory Blaine), Tuesday, 11 November 2014 23:51 (nine years ago) link
I've never seen someone state what they think a streaming service should pay out for a single stream of a song. Maybe people have, I don't know. I tend to think Spotify's current pay structure is probably below where it needs to be, but I'm not sure by how much.
Was trying to figure out how much revenue has been generated from old catalogs on Spotify. You can see how many streams individual songs have now. Was looking at Motown hits the other day. "Ain't Too Proud to Beg" by itself has over six million plays. At the $0.007 rate, that's over $42,000 in revenue from just that one song.
And that's part of the thing with streaming. You get paid per play and not right up front. If you have a song people are still listening to fifty years later, that's fifty years of steady revenue.
Hopefully, at some point that revenue will be more than it is now. I'd imagine it will be. But I think there's a prevailing alarmist math going on along the lines of "This song has 10,000 plays and only generated $70 in revenue." 10,000 plays is the equivalent of 100 ten-track albums sold and played ten times each. There wasn't a lot of revenue generated previously by the sale of 100 albums.
― timellison, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:36 (nine years ago) link
If you have a song people are still listening to fifty years later, that's fifty years of steady revenue.
lolololol yeah spotify is going to be around for 50 years hahahahahaha
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:39 (nine years ago) link
well the converse would be that if Spotify goes bust in two years' time people will need to "buy" the same music again somehow
― legit new threat wrt to a norman invasion (seandalai), Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:41 (nine years ago) link
Spotify can't even turn a profit, they have the same shitty "build a product, sell it, and then run away" business model as a million startups, they are not in the business of developing a sustainable model of generating income for musicians/performers, that is not their m.o.
xp
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:42 (nine years ago) link
presumably for even less money
their MO, i imagine, is to get lots of money from a IPO and/or from selling to a bigger company.
― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:42 (nine years ago) link
^^^
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:43 (nine years ago) link
The survival of Spotify as a company is not relevant to the point. It's the survival of the streaming model.
― timellison, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:43 (nine years ago) link
well the model doesn't turn a profit
bodes well!
can't turn a profit & developers of product can't make a living, yup true recipe for success right there
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:44 (nine years ago) link
the only thing they can deliver is user data, which will collapse as soon as something cheaper/better is available, rinse and repeat until everybody is poor except for asshole CEOs
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:45 (nine years ago) link
you make music. you sign with a label to sell your music. unfortunately it's standard practice for them to only give you a small percent of the income, with the majority of expenses taken out of YOUR percent.
then that label decides to let a tech start-up rent your music to customers, in exchange for a small royalty themselves - you're now getting a percent of a percent. the label also gets equity in the start-up, in hopes of a windfall from an IPO/buyout, a circumstance you will not directly benefit from. the label may have also received an advance for their catalog - how much of that came back to you might not be so clear.
the question of "how big should the royalty your label receives be" is kind of beside the point.
― da croupier, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:49 (nine years ago) link
There wasn't a lot of revenue generated previously by the sale of 100 albums.
To keep the math simple (and for some artists, it's probably a pretty accurate number), let's say a band's net profit per album is $7. $7 x 100 is $700 vs. $70 from spotify. But that's assuming you can actually sell 100 albums.
People like Taylor Swift are going to make lots of money no matter what, more obscure acts are probably gonna continue to be screwed financially either way (compared to "the way things used to be")
― sarahell, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:49 (nine years ago) link
It may be beside the point in terms of how labels are dealing with back catalogs and musician royalties. It's not beside the point in terms of where we go from here unless someone is interested in junking the whole thing and replacing it with ????
― timellison, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 00:58 (nine years ago) link
let's say a band's net profit per album is $7. $7 x 100 is $700 vs. $70 from spotify.
Maybe DIY. If I'm not mistaken, the average major label royalty rate on a $16.98 CD used to be something like a dollar.
― timellison, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:03 (nine years ago) link
reading the thread, even just today's posts might wipe a way a few question marks
― da croupier, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:10 (nine years ago) link
streaming will be around in 50 years, and its premium subscribers shall be as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.
― $0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:13 (nine years ago) link
I'm sorry that you bought those mp3s y'all
never bought an mp3 in my life *flexes*
― da croupier, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:14 (nine years ago) link
I think I bought a John Vanderslice album on amazon cloud once
― $0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:15 (nine years ago) link
man 2007 what a hoot
― timellison, Tuesday, November 11, 2014 5:03 PM (9 minutes ago)
That would be either DIY or once everything's recouped on an indie deal (maybe old school, idk).
― sarahell, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:16 (nine years ago) link
I only used 50 years because I was talking about a 50 year old song.
Seriously, though, "I Fought the Law" by the Bobby Fuller Four - 1.7 million plays, about $12,000 in revenue. It would be interesting to see what kind of money that song generated through record and CD (as part of an album) and download sales in the decades previously.
― timellison, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:53 (nine years ago) link
Bobby fuller is dead
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:21 (nine years ago) link
1.7 million 45s + radio royalties = way more than 12k
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:22 (nine years ago) link
But go ahead and continue with your made up math thought experiment if it makes you feel better
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:23 (nine years ago) link
Its sort of weird how people refuse to take musicians' statements about their declining income at face value
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:24 (nine years ago) link
They must all be liars and frauds with crooked accountants, living it up w their ivory backscratchers
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:28 (nine years ago) link
xp here? nobody is doing that.
― $0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:29 (nine years ago) link
"Prevailing alarmist math"
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:31 (nine years ago) link
1.7 million 45s would not have been sold in the comparable time.
― timellison, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:33 (nine years ago) link
Move the markers wherever you want your math is still 100% made up
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 02:35 (nine years ago) link