Musicians: "streaming will sweep us into poverty"

I actually think labels should pay artists fairly, so we may agree with the end result, but not necessarily the process on how it gets from point A to point B. I think that gets missed here, that most of us actually want artists to get paid. And I do agree that we are likely the minority, but again there's nothing I can do about that and it doesn't change how I feel any more than I feel about buying used CD's (and I buy a lot of those as well).

Streaming isn't ownership - and it's not radio either (I bring up radio frequently because artists get nothing from radio in the US, only songwriters). It falls somewhere in-between. But instead of increasing the monthly fee, maybe the labels themselves should give more of a % to the artists. But I can't control that either. All I can do is buy new for the stuff I really like, and I do that -- but I'm not about to stop paying for streaming services either because it helps me to actually find that album I end up really liking.

Not sure what the solution is, outside of what you and I are already doing.

 

I'm not sure if your mind has difficulty grasping abstractions or you just see this as a black and white issue, but either way, your inability to see why paying someone nothing for their work is "a problem" has tired me out. Adios.

 

see all of this sounds reasonable to me. unfortunately, others in this thread seem to approach the topic like spoiled children on Christmas morning. very hard to justify wasting one's time on those incapable of nuance.

so thank you for saying what you said even if we differ slightly on it

 

I present:

 

As others have mentioned, if people would have to pay more for streaming services, they may abandon it and go back to downloading. Really, the solution is for labels to give a bigger cut to their artists, which is really a separate issue than "streaming is killing music".

 

Wrong again. They pay literally nothing. And I'm the songwriter, artist, and publisher. They pay literally nothing.

 

I mean I can just start pasting the quarterly royalties reports I get if people really doubt that Spotify pays hundredths of a penny

 

Makes you want to continue pouring your heart, soul time and money into making music, doesn't it?

 

They wouldn't believe it anyway. I was shocked when I got my first royalty report from Spotify. I told my wife "This won't even pay for a set of new guitar strings"

 

These aren't separate issues and can be tackled concurrently. You seem to think it's all or nothing or one silver bullet. If spotify is paying hundredths of a cent per play, that doesn't seem right to me. The labels need to pay more, but so do the streaming services. You want cheap music, maybe you cant' (or shouldn't) have it.

 

That MIGHT work for the...what, 5% of working musicians who are on major labels that have that amount of money? The rest are screwed.

Even then, if the major labels were somehow forced to pay their artists a "bigger cut" (whatever that means), they will simply pass on their increased costs to the streaming services. The users of these services will still pay more.

That solution doesn't help the 95% of musicians who aren't on one of the 3 major labels, nor will it help the person listening to music on streaming services, who will pay more too.

In other words, it's a terrible solution.

 

Would it matter if they did? They're already paying out 70% of what they earn. They ARE separate issues. Instead of worrying about what the streaming services are paying them, maybe they should be looking into better deals with the labels and working on improving their fanbase and making more money through concerts and merchandise.

 

Paying artists more is a terrible solution? And how do you know indie labels wouldn't pay more? Yeah, they make less, but since it's part of their livelihood, it's in their own interest.

 

Will they? Maybe, maybe not.

Again, and no one has answered this (still)....if a $5 check becomes a $25 check, will that make the poverty disappear?

 

Music IS a product like everything else. I don't care what sentimental notion you place on it. That's a fact.

You are joking? We live in an age where ANYONE can make a song and promote it with NO INVESTMENT to the entire world. How is that not a true FREE market economy?

 

With all that copious free time between touring and day jobs and stuff? You CLEARLY have never tried to make it as a musician.

I'm saying you can deal with the labels paying more and get more from streaming services. Both of these should happen. If you can't get your cheap music, maybe you need to get a second job or something to pay for it, or maybe sell more nbakid2000 t-shirts.

 

as someone pretty closely aligned to the situation from precisely that perspective, the impact of streaming and pirated music have made things especially difficult for indies...so much so that it's probably in the best interest of many musicians to just avoid them entirely.

 

No kidding. That's why people are buying Beyonce and ignore the band down the block. The band down the block is providing a product the general public has no interest in.

 

except that's not what's happening. signal-to-noise has made it very difficult for people to get their work heard and folks like publicists are needed to act as paid arbiters. they're not cheap. and on and on it goes

 

And just out of curiosity, what was the last album you bought?

 

I don't think its any tougher than the good old days when you had to make a truly great album and be picked up by a label. I used to work in internet marketing. There are hundreds of tools available for promoting music. If its good enough, it will be noticed. I don't buy this crap about not being able to get music heard.

 

look at it this way. to someone who knows nothing beyond "OOH THE INTERNETS!!" yes, there are no barriers between a musician recording something and putting it up for the entire world to see it. for anyone that's paid a bit closer attention, it should also be obvious that thousands upon thousands of people have also recognized that they can record something and put it up for the entire world to see it. how you actually see it, however, is where the sticking point now resides. and the reality is that while this situation is conceptually fantastic, there's no way to restrict anything so it's up to people to promote and publicize either themselves or by paying someone to stand out from a massive community that's already predetermined to not pay for music. it's a crap situation.

 

I think the problem starts when artists create these articles about how streaming is killing creativity / killing the industry and just lights a fire. And this being a music forum filled with people who love music, it likely hits a nerve (on both ends - those pro and those against these tools).

Myself, for example - it's fairly obvious but I don't feel guilty about using these services. And I don't think I should be made to feel guilty (and there have been at least two recent posts that I can think of where it was leading to that). And I'm no saint, don't get me wrong -- I buy music on sale whenever I can, and used, and I try before I buy with streaming. But I do buy a lot of music. A lot of new music. So these tools are, in my case, a win/win on both sides.

 

feel free to post your surefire plan to get music heard for the tens of thousands of musicians who either can't afford or won't be touched by a competent publicist

 

Boy, I'd love to hire you to help me promote my band, but you know what, I'm freakin broke!