Peter Frampton "For 55 million streams of, ‘Baby I Love Your Way’, I got $1,700,"

But in the case of the music industry, not everything on top is cream.

 

This is true, gas bubbles also rise up.

 

Taylor Swift makes a payout to all Universal artists a clause in her new record deal

 

Whoa! Ms. Swift don't play around!

 

Thanks so much for posting that! People reflexively blaming Spotify for actions by their major label masters is a pet peeve of mine.

I'm glad Ms. Swift insisted on a substantive change that would affect all of her labelmates rather than just herself. Many thanks to her as well.

 

Now let's see if Universal sells it's stake in Spotify...

 

I agree with you, but I feel like this mentality ignores the fact that no one would really pay attention if well-known people like Frampton and Crosby didn't say anything.

I would also say it's difficult to compare the value of an on-demand stream versus a download versus a song being played on a radio show.

An on-demand stream provides much higher, targeted utility than listening to a song on the radio. You can also listen to the song as many times as you want.

There is also the factor of how all of the music packaged together cuts out any opportunity for individual artists to see real fair value for what they are providing a service like Spotify.

Say you subscribed to Spotify, but you checked on a few artists and realized there catalogues were not there and decided to cancel. Marketing that convenience has substantial value. You may not feel like listening to Frampton today, but knowing you have that may make you want to keep your subscription going on the chance that you are in a Frampton mood.

None of these business models were considered when copyright law was shaped or artists were negotiating their deals with record labels. The assertion is that labels used their power as huge conglomerates to undercut royalty values to sustain a system that would enable them to obtain equity in Spotify.

Spotify would not exist if equitable royalties were paid out. Exorbitant equity is built on an unsustainable exploitative model. Like Apple, there will come a point in time where a company like Spotify has a monopoly over streaming and will wrest even more control and power. I am actually curious how they will continue to grow as a company. There isn't a lot more value to squeezed out of this model unless they penetrate the market further. Even increasing the subscription price will have impacts on lowering the overall subscription pool.

The model will have to rely on original, controlled content like Netflix, an unprecedented explosion in subscriber numbers, or some unseen/unheard feature that will enable Spotify to push advertisements/collect data marketers value.

 

Because Spotify holds an extremely strong position in the marketplace. Not having your music on a streaming service or YouTube is akin to not existing.

People who watch videos on YouTube and stream his music attend his concerts and buy his records.

The consolidation and power held by a few tech companies is impressive. You have to rob yourself in one area to make a living in another.

 

This logic makes no economic sense under closer scrutiny, and is really just justification for not compensating musicians. As a simple brainstorm: what if everyone pirating or streaming bought used copies of the album? Now, what would eventually happen to the price on the used market? What would then happen to the price and quantity of new copies, and thus compensation to the artist? I've given an economic breakdown elsewhere.

 

April 22 : today is Peter Frampton's 69th birthday.

 

Thumbs down.

 

But in this case somebody at some point paid full price and he was compensated accordingly. It’s unlikely that someone who streams only is going to go out and find a used copy. The fact is that, even though he wrote it and recorded it over 40 years ago, everyone is taking a piece of the pie and he isn’t being compensated accordingly.

 

internet killed the radio star.

 

Bottom line is streaming is here to stay.

Until they find something that's even more listener friendly and affordable.

The days of record companies gouging the public with $18 dollar bloated CDs is long gone.

 

The irony with myself and streaming is that the majority of my streaming comes from stuff I physically own but just like having it all in one place without having to get up, so its pretty much extra money to artists I already gave my money to

 

To be fair. Drake and Peter Frampton are extreme apples and oranges. Drake is the modern day Michael Jackson (not saying his music is as memorable, but the stats don't lie), Peter Frampton has been a "hasbeen" as long as I've been alive. 55 million for a song recorded 44 years ago is pretty impressive considering streaming started long after his chart days had ended and he's usually scoffed at as a relic of the 1970s. There's a different standard between artists whose prime were over 40 years ago and someone like Drake who is the equivalent of a Marvel blockbuster

 

Again, they have figured out how to glom onto the majority of the money coming out of streaming:

 

My usage of streaming is principally about finding new artists. For instance I discovered this band called Elizabeth & The Catapult via Google Play Music's Imogene Heap streaming channel. I put them in Songkick and I'll be seeing them this week at a small club here in Kansas City.

Streaming for the win!

 

That doesn't surprise me. They've been ripping off the artists since day 1.

It's wrong Peter Frampton only gets $1700 for 55 million plays and the majority of money goes to the record companies, but like I said, they've been ripping off the artists since the days of wax cylinders.

Frampton will be okay financially, though. He makes a lot more than most doing what he loves. Even a new band is lucky to make a living doing what they love, even if it pays no more than being a bus driver.

I enjoy the fact that the public is getting unlimited music for a low price, and I don't feel guilty about it.

Not that I'm saying you do, but a lot of people act like listening to Spotify is stealing from the artists.

I think they just don't like the fact that things have changed from the CD era.

 

oh, I hope I didn't come off sounding like a stick in the mud who only listens to the tried and true lol. I do love discovering new stuff and actively listening to it, but I also have all of my physical music collection (sans the albums not available to stream) in one playlist and it's usually the go-to one I shuffle unless I'm in the mood to listen to something else.

 

As I said, streaming for me is all about discovering new music. I find them, and then I go see them live. They make money from the live gigs.

Spotify's relationship with a major labels is akin to a bar owner who took money from the Mafia. They drain the accounts, he is forced to hire useless people who do no work and everything keeps getting worse and worse until one day he's lost it all and the bar gets burned down for the insurance.

See Goodfellas.

Everybody keeps bringing up the CD era, and it was a freakish anomaly. It was a situation when the baby boomers wound up buying their entire music library again. I'll have to dig it up but I came up with a chart from the RIAA's own website that showed that, in constant dollars, they are doing as well as they ever have.

 

OK, I found the chart. This is the RIAA's revenue chart from 1973 to 2018, adjusted for inflation - in constant dollars.



The chart should have grid lines behind it, but take a piece of paper and lay it over the screen and you can see that the RIAA's own publicly available data shows they made more in 2018 than they did in 1982 or 1983, and almost exactly the same amount as they did in 1985.

And this is the single most important point - they are making as much in a business where they are no longer having to manufacture, stock, ship or accept returns of physical product! Which means that they are actually making vastly more than they ever have!

 

OK, here’s one quick thought...

True, revenue for a used music sale (a resold CD, Vinyl, Cassette, etc) doesn’t generate royalties for the artist.
However, why would that justify devaluing the price of the music?

Used cars can be found and bought for a fraction of the original sales.
The auto manufacturers don’t get a “royalty” for resales (if bought from a second hand dealer).
Using similar logic, should we expect cheaper priced new cars?

 

If this is accurate, then the label made just over $11k off streaming of Baby I Love Your Way, right? So where is all this money going?

 

Where do you expect? Into the bank accounts of the record companies.