Al Di Meola on CNBC - "Streaming is Killing Music"

Streaming isn't the root of all evil. Record labels not sharing the profits they make with the artists is the root of all evil.

 

Al Di Meola

Streaming is great.

The future (and present) of music listening. Music listeners win.

 

Spotify pays 7/10ths of 1 cent per stream, if a song is played by a subscriber. If a free tier user streams it, it is less.

Complaints about streaming royalties being too low are valid. How much record labels pay out is a separate discussion.

 

Here's the brief interview from CNBC as mentioned in original post...

"...We've lost a lot of our great lawyers..."
Meh.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000392453

 

So all artists have to do is get rid of their recording contracts and cut deals straight with streaming services. That sounds like an expensive legal nightmare though.

 

A very good point. What's often missed, though, is that when new terms are drawn up, they're sometimes steps BACKWARDS.

This was especially evident with the transition to DVD, when studios insisted that artists take a 50% reduction in royalties because DVDs were going to be expensive to create, and the medium was unproven. Then for streaming, the amount for many groups was "negotiated" to zero for streaming. This is what the writer's strike was about. You studios are making money, and we deserve a share. The answer given was, uhm, apparently not.

And before 1972, often not paid AT ALL. Federal copyright law only protects recordings made on or after Feb. 15, 1972. The Turtles sued Sirius/XM and Pandora for unpaid royalties on behalf of a class of other pre-1972 artists, and were granted $100 million in a summary judgement. Since they didn't even get as far as a trial, an appeal seems likely...but still....

A very good point indeed. The pie is smaller, no doubt about that....although for Warner, and I suspect others, the pie is growing again for the first time, and as Warner notes, the growth is being driven by streaming.

My overall point is still the same. There's more money from streaming than downloads, which provides more money than physical sales. Streaming is the #1 source of revenue to labels, but it's NOT the #1 source of revenue to artists. That's entirely the labels' fault.

It's going to get really, really interesting once Apple's streaming spins up. My guess is that Apple is going to create a big enough bump in overall revenue that artists will continue to miss the fact that their percentage of the label's revenue has declined.

I'm no Apple fan, but it's pretty typical for Apple to enter a market late and then make the market colossally bigger. (See: personal media players and smart phones). My question is, is Apple going to be able to mask label chicanery because the pile of money to artists is so much bigger? Will artists even notice that Apple's payout is the same, or even less, than Spotify's 70%? Will the overall scale of Apple's business be enough for activist artists like Taylor Swift to go along for the ride? This time next year, the conversation will surely be different.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for the first artist, the very first artist, to acknowledge that the only people paying them non-concert revenue are labels. Not Spotify. Not Apple's streaming. Not YouTube. Not downloads from iTunes, Amazon, HD Tracks, or Pono. None of that is going to artists. All going to labels.

Am I wrong about this? Are any of those guys doing the math on their end and sending one check to the artists and another check to the labels? I don't think so.

And there's a LOT of money going to labels. Keep saying it. More money from streaming than either downloads or physical sales. The amount of free streams, on demand streams, the low price of paid streams, etc.: all irrelevant. If well less than historic highs, the overall business for labels is moving UP instead of down, driven by streaming.

I don't know if you read the press release I previously linked to, but streaming is the only part of Warner's business that's up, and is driving the majority of the company's profits across all divisions.

If the overall business for artist royalties isn't also trending up, then artists need to have stern words with the labels, not Spotify.

 

I'm unsure where he wants me to listen to him. I can't listen on Spotify because it's killing his art. I guess YouTube, maybe. Is YouTube approved? If I buy a CD of his used, he doesn't make anything either.

 

I don't know about other countries, but in America we have a thing called "Social Security" that takes care of those too disabled to provide for themselves.

 

My fear is that we (music listeners) ultimately lose. There isn't a tremendous amount of great new albums that come up from year to year. I know this group tends to skew to an older demographic but I would guess most on here listen to music that wasn't made in the last 10 to 20 years.

There is no incentive for established act to record and labels can't take a gamble on new talent. No money = no music at some point.

 

You guys stop making fun of the album cover. Streaming has impoverished him and now he has no shirt to wear! Oh the humanities!

Here's what I don't know. What is a fair rate for a streaming play? How does one determine that? Pick a number, any number, and defend it in terms of why the artist should be paid that amount. Granted, one might say that the companies are taking too much and the artist is getting too little. How much is too much and how much is too little?

The disgruntled artists could start their own streaming site?

I don't have an answer. Maybe we should just accept that music has been killed, have a funeral, and be done with it.

 

Or...streaming services could offer a sample of an artist catalog rather than the entire catalog creating some motivation for the consumer to purchase an entire album. Limited to singles that were meant for airplay. I know it sounds crazy. Perhaps they could rate these singles on a week to week basis and put the top 40 on some sort of frequent rotation.

 

Your points are well-taken. And in a round about way I think we agree. Now, the order of business must be how to get contracts worth signing that do not take complete advantage of the artist, while also making the label's role a worth-while enterprise. Or everybody simply releases music independently.

 

False.

Older people don't generally listen to newer albums. So that's no surprise the membership here tends to listen to music older than 20 years old.

 

I see what you're saying, but I think that it opens the door for more artists who are into the music making as opposed to the money and rock star trappings. Even if making new music only paid a living wage, I think the people who really loved it would be fine with that. And, the people who really love it are the ones who are going to make the great music, not the American Idol type pop star wannabes.

In the future, I wouldn't be surprised if the major record companies will be obsolete. Artists simply have to downscale their financial expectations. If being rich is the prime motivator, they need to go to med school or something.

 

thank you - I'm surprised it's taken nearly 5 pages of thread to expose Spotify's sham.

 

and here we go again.

the assumption that "older people dont listen to new music and thats why they think that there are so few good new albums".

It absolutely CANNOT BE that older people do investigate new music, and dont like a lot of it. Right, because that would be impossible?

This coming from the guy who did not know who Al Dimeola is, and said his music "looked boring".

 

Al Di Meola on CNBC - "Streaming is Killing Music"

So, Al, when are you going to get that Elegant Gypsy SACD back in print for all your fans to enjoy?

 

Look at the top selling records of 2014 and those from 1970. The top selling album in 2014 sold 3,000,000 (frozen sound track) and #2 with 700,000 was Beyoncé. I think that is pretty compelling that new music doesn't compare to years past. I dare say that 20 years from now people will not be looking for or listening to the Frozen soundtrack.

Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin couldn't get a record deal today. And I DO think there are many great artist out there today making great albums but with no hope of profit for the label, they wont see the light of day. That is the problem, good new music doesn't make it to the market in any meaningful way. Jazz is all but dead. Al has a tremendous accomplishment in the catalog of material that he has recorded in the last 45 years. I am sure he is making next to nothing from that catalog and no one is looking for the next guitar virtuoso. Back when people that were listening to music actually had to pay for it, we had more to choose from.

 

Older people don't tend to like newer music - hence why they don't listen to it. You're absolutely correct - they investigate it, and don't like it. Why would they listen to anything they don't like? Younger people tend to explore newer music and LIKE it though. That's a fact. So, yes, I agree with you completely. You proved your point excellently.

That was kind of a joke. I've never heard of him, and the description I got from the net of him was that he did a lot of latin/flamenco type acoustic music, which doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. Now, THIS appeals to me:

 

Good Lord. Your adjectives need refinement.

 

McDonald's sold more hamburgers than other restaurants last year. I think it's pretty compelling to say that other hamburgers do not compare to McDonald's. I dare say that in 10 years, we'll all still be talking about and eating at McDonald's vs X hamburger joint down the road.

 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/c...wift-1989-beats-frozen-top-selling-album-2014

 

I thought you would dig it. And there is no joking about Al D. This is VERY serious business

 

I saw this as well. I think they updated some numbers since the beginning of the year. The point still being valid that what we have to choose from at the top of the charts is lacking as compared to years past.

 

"There isn't a tremendous amount of great new albums that come up from year to year."
"False."

thats not a fact, therefore, it cannot be false, because subjective opinions on like and dislike, cannot be false. THAT was my point.