Nikki Sixx - "Labels and YouTube Main Issues - Not Spotify"

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/nikki-sixx-spotify/

 

yup

 

I can't stand Nikki Sixx, but he's absolutely right.

It is cool to see him take the stance of "hey we were new artists once, too." Albini made some good points in *his* speech, but he also made lots of assumptions grounded in his particular framework as "indie figurehead who can do no wrong."

 

Fact is, the cat is out of the bag and the barn door is wide open. Nothing's gonna put it back the way it was. It's especially lame to hear dudes who came up during the absolute prime era of money-raking ever known to man, whining about not getting paid enough for their lame over-the-hill side project. Granted that he is talking about new artists struggling also, but using the old paradigm he came up in. Things change! The days of ****** shaped swimming pools in Bel-Air are over! But music can still make for a good living, ask Taylor Swift. Even real artists can do it with great quality stuff that people will pay for, ask Wilco. These overdose survivors like Mr. Sixx should realize what a joke it was that they made it in the first place.

 

Nope.

 

Yeah, it seems obvious that streaming services are little better than illegal downloading in terms of supporting music financially. It took the climate of desperation created by the collapse of recorded music sales to make labels even try this model. Everyone should want to support the people who make the music we love, and thankfully there are still lots of ways to do so. But I found it funny when in a thread about illegal downloading a bit ago, some people were trying to draw such a sharp distinction between that and streaming, just because streaming services are legal.

 

Nikki seems like a smart guy. I've listened to his evening program several times on the radio while driving. Most YouTube streams are monetized, so the record company is being paid a certain percentage for each view. Some of those are songs which have been uploaded by fans or made into fan videos which utilize the track. As one would expect, the videos which are owned outright by the record company will usually pay a higher percentage. However, most of the record companies and their respective artists aren't getting rich from these ads. Depending on the song, you could have 500,000 views and that might generate $50 if you're lucky. The writer of the viewed song probably won't be buying a house anytime soon, but that's no surprise in this day and age.

There needs to be greater transparency and detailed explanation regarding how the ad revenue is collected. YouTube hasn't fully harnessed the power of its streamed videos and ad partnerships, but they definitely aren't hurting. YouTube started around 2005 or so, mostly offering a limited selection of fan-uploaded songs made into videos. I remember how limited the song selection was around that time, although I don't recall any ads at that point. Google recognized the growth potential and bought YouTube in 2006. By offering what viewers deem as "free music," they've attracted many customers, especially teenagers who might not be able to afford to purchase mp3s or CDs. The paid subscription program YouTube has implemented will probably be their lifeline, because it stands to generate more revenue for the artists, songwriters and labels.

Back in 2006, I represented an artist who was the #1 artist on YouTube for 8 weeks. They received 2 months of recognition on YouTube's homepage, which generated countless views on their videos and attracted new fans on an international level. That band benefitted heavily from the free music offered on YouTube. They utilized videos from live concerts, self-funded music videos and basic uploads of songs from their studio albums. Since the band made most of their money from live performances, the primary goal was to use YouTube as a means of promoting their gigs.

 

Very true! Although streaming music is not making artists wealthy, it's better than earning no royalties at all. I don't know many musicians or creators of other forms of art for that matter, who can volunteer their creative services and survive without an income of some sort. The only way in which an artist could possibly benefit from illegal downloads is the potential promotion they receive from exposure to new fans. I'd be curious to read some statistics on how many people who download music illegally are actually buying tickets and attending live concerts.

 

Taylor Swift isn't a real artist?

 

So, is this like saying "Shut up and be happy?"

 

For that matter, you may as well just download illegally and have the stuff in your possession, then.

 

Grant, you make a good point! This is why from a consumer standpoint, I don't personally support the downloading of music , whether legally or illegally. I think streaming can be useful for promoting a new album or a new single, but I wouldn't want to pay money to listen to something more than once. At least with vinyls and CDs, you can listen to them as many times as you please and don't have to pay for a subscription service.

If you were a teenager, would you rather download a song illegally and keep the mp3 forever (or until the hard drive craters) or pay for a streaming service in order to listen to the song?

 

I don't think so.

 

Why?

 

This isn't really the subject of the thread, and there will never be consensus on the definition of art. To me, there are very few real artists in pop music. Taylor Swift crafts songs, she produces highly polished overproduced pop music, and has all the aesthetic appeal and mannerisms for pop success. It favors formula over feeling. That's the best I can explain, and is my opinion only.