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

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Tone, Aug 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    While I agree that all artists should get paid more for streaming and that in general the record companies are greedy to the point of self-destruction, the real question here is how much is a single stream worth? As Terrapin Station astutely pointed out, a single stream is not terribly meaningful. A single play of a song on the radio in a major market reaches thousands and thousands of people at once. A single stream hits 1 to maybe 20 people (if the song is playing at a party). How many streams is equivalent to a single play on the radio?

    Artists either need to get together and collectively bargain for better rates per stream, or they need to negotiate bonuses to compensate them for the lack of revenue they’re receiving from streaming. I dismiss outright the argument that it is wrong or immoral for people to stream music.

    Frampton should consider himself lucky he lived at a time where a terrible live album could sell well enough to make him a millionaire.
     
  2. Rose River Bear

    Rose River Bear Senior Member

    Rich musicians complaining about money. Tsk Tsk. I mean it is just a song and not like really selling anything or providing services. I mean it is not really like, like....never mind.;)
     
  3. O Don Piano

    O Don Piano Senior Member

    You are not addressing the crux of the topic here. You have some kind of problem with rich musicians and therefore you want to apply that prejudice to anyone trying to make a living and fair compensation with what they do.
     
    JoeRockhead, BluesOvertookMe and Dave like this.
  4. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    But there is a significant difference. Streaming services are not radio stations. Streaming services are music distribution services, intended to replace sales of product, or at the very least, intended to offer an alternative to the sale of product. Music is streamed because consumers are paying the streaming service to have access to the music as an alternative to buying a CD or album. It is an alternative way of acquiring music. Artists should not be paid for the sale/distribution of their music on a terrestrial radio model, which essentially allows programmers to play royalty-free music.

    Artists are generally earning significantly less than they did through physical mediums, yet record labels and certain streaming services are generating massive revenue streams.
     
  5. Catcher10

    Catcher10 I like records, and Prog...duh

    It's a song, and should be priced exactly how any other song is priced regardless of media (LP, CD, Tape, Digital). The song was recorded in a studio that has a cost, that studio cost is not affected by the final version. I mean a studio knowing that the only version will be digital and streamed is not going to reduce their fee because the artist will only make $0.003 per play. 10-12 songs on a $25 LP is just over $2 per song, how much of that price does the artist get? I would hope more than $0.003......Clearly the system is broken and somebody is making a ton of money but seems not the artists.

    Streaming and the whole online thing is what has caused all the problems........Frampton's 55 million streams at an avg of above is around $170K. 55 million LPs or CDs at say $8ea is $440 million, that's his argument.
     
    Retro Hound, Dave and Mazzy like this.
  6. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    Your point is well taken, but the math can get a bit skewed because if one purchases an album, they can spin it as many times as they want once they are the owner. By applying the same logic, 55 million streams does not necessarily equate to 55 million unit sales. For Frampton to attempt to determine how many sales the 55 million streams would equate to in physical product units, he would need Spotify (and other streaming service providers) to breakdown the number of individual users streaming the song, which would arguably come closer to the total number of consumers who theoretically could have purchased his album and/or single. Nevertheless, the streaming model pays per stream, so all the artist can do is focus on the total number of streams -- and one thing is clear, the growing number of streams through streaming platforms are generating a lot of revenue not being equitably shared with artists.
     
    BDC, O Don Piano, Dave and 2 others like this.
  7. HoundsOBurkittsville

    HoundsOBurkittsville Deep Wine List Sonic Equivalency

    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    I thought it would be different here at SHMF, of all places. :(


    Instead, many of the posts reek of a sense of misplaced entitlement:

    "Hey, they made their money years ago, now I should get their music for free because of that long-gone reality, and those greedy millionaires can just go ahead and scrooge themselves if they think otherwise!"

    and...

    "Yeah, it's all about making a deal, and if I can get all of these thousands of tunes for dirt cheap, while paying the artists next to nothing, then that's what I'm going to do!"


    This attitude, this sentiment --- in practice --- will not bode well for the creation of quality music in the future, or for its ability to reach the commercial marketplace.


    All musicians need to be properly financially compensated for their work, if it is selling, both today and on into the future. Though legal, streaming services are not providing adequate revenue (collection and the distribution thereof) for these popular artists currently. The state of affairs makes the situation remarkably close and virtually akin to the pirate/bootleg industry. There's nary a difference anymore.
     
  8. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    Totally agree.
     
    WMTC, JoeRockhead and tages like this.
  9. Bingo Bongo

    Bingo Bongo Music gives me Eargasms

    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Bottom line, it's always on the Radio.:shrug:
     
  10. classicrocker

    classicrocker Life is good!

    Location:
    Worcester, MA, USA
    Sure but I am not sure is as cut and dried as you explain it. Before steaming people could only hear the song when a radio station played so were a the mercy of the radio station playlist so they went and bought albums and musicians made money off the album sales. Now people can stream a song as many times as they want for a small monthly fee which has replaced the buying of physical media so the artist no longer makes the higher fee for the album sales.

    Record labels fought to have radio stations play their artists music as it was a way to entice listeners to buy the albums where they made their money. Popular artists would make more money from album sales then they are now making from streaming services due to the low price per stream they are being paid.

    And technically radio stations did and do have to pay the song writer, which in many cases is the performer, a fee every-time they played a song which is split between the artist and the record company

    The surprising amount it costs a radio station to play a single song

    What You Didn't Know About Radio Royalties
     
  11. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    Yep, it is a radio staple. But it is also a song people want to hear outside of the radio based on the millions of streams it receives through streaming services, and unlike radio, the artist is supposed to be paid for the distribution of their work via streaming platforms. Something seems off with 55,000,000 streams equaling $1,700 in artist royalties.
     
    showtaper, O Don Piano and MoonPool like this.
  12. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Peter made 70's hay while the sun shined. He made millions off "Frampton Comes Alive".
    He was lucky enough to bring out a mega selling record when it was most economically prime to do so.
    I would have a lot more sympathy for new bands trying to make a living using this new technology.
     
  13. uzn007

    uzn007 Watcher of the Skis

    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C.
    Well, that's sort of the point. If it's not economically feasible for the likes of Frampton and Fagen to record new albums, how is it going to be feasible for up-and-coming musicians?

    Music is being downgraded from a career option to a hobby.
     
  14. Chemguy

    Chemguy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Western Canada
    Right. Not only this, but among those 55 million are a whack of new fans that will come to see his show when he’s in town.

    It’s advertising, too, Petey!
     
    Aussie Music Lover likes this.
  15. Yes that’s why he doesn’t get $$ for used albums or CDs but hecabd everyone else should for new streaming. If you already bought the CD then you don’t need to stream. Pay if you do. Streaming should cost more
     
    Dave likes this.
  16. But it’s a fans choice choice to buy box sets or not so it’s not a rip off.
     
    Billy Infinity, Dave and MoonPool like this.
  17. golobali

    golobali Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    Not many of us are getting a bonus payment for the work they have done before 43 years.:hide:
     
    Aussie Music Lover and Chemguy like this.
  18. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    Peter Frampton is 68. He grew up ina time when albums meant something. Royalty payments went on based on sales, and at 68 wouldn't have felt the need to tour. Times have changed, and I don't see any way that it can be good that there have been 55m streams, for 1700 bucks. It seems a bit glib to suggest he can just make the money on touring.

    There are some really negative ramifications to streaming. Money is one. The destruction of the album another, imo. We've got artists like Elton John complaining that his audiences no longer want to hear new music. So he either plays his old hits night after night, or goes away - because there's no money in album sales.

    One may or may not agree with some of this, but it's worth admitting that there are some negative things to the streaming culture. No?
     
    Scott in DC, showtaper and Dave like this.
  19. bluesky

    bluesky Senior Member

    Location:
    south florida, usa
    ' Herd ' Peter Frampton @ an outdoor concert in Austin, Texas in '74 or '75. I was way in the back... the party section. I think I caught a glimpse of him on stage for a second or two! :)

    Yeah, it was him. lol.
     
    Sidewinder43 likes this.
  20. Markyp

    Markyp Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louth
    And if musicians don’t make a reasonable amount of money from record sales then they won’t record as much new music and the consumer will lose out.
    Artists will also chose to make records that involve less new music when they do release stuff.
    Look at Whitesnake for example. So nice releases recently but in last 2 years or so it’s been rerelease of 1987, the Purple album or recorded Deep Purple songs , live album of the tour of Purple album and now album of 90’s acoustic live stuff previously unreleased.

    Nice stuff and grateful for it but scare on the new material.
    Nothing against Whitesnake just first example that came to mind.
    I’d rather the artist earnt more if it was like the 70’s/80’s and we had a new album every year or two.
    Bowie released nearly half his studio output between ‘69 and ‘80 and the rest over the next 35-ish years.
    I know there’s lots and lots of other factors and this is an oversimplification but we would I’m sure have better output if artists were paid better now.
     
    uzn007 and Dave like this.
  21. Chemguy

    Chemguy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Western Canada
    Oh, absolutely. You make excellent points that are unassailable. It’s especially troubling for new artists.

    My only real point is that the shelf life of that old warhorse is well past. To make anything off of it over 40 years later is a bonus. It may be that he could haul in 50 grand annually for his whole catalogue, too, just off of streaming. Not bad. Without streaming, he might be a complete has-been.

    Just another possibility.
     
    Aussie Music Lover likes this.
  22. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Just to add that the demise of physical product has changed the musicians economic model forever.
    No more driving Bentleys into swimming pools, shooting your gold records like clay pigeons or wrecking hotel rooms anymore. Sorry Who fans. :D
     
  23. Catcher10

    Catcher10 I like records, and Prog...duh

    I know, it's a slippery slope. The whole streaming thing is the issue.......It does not matter if he recorded the song 40yrs ago or 140yrs ago or last year, an artist point is people are listening to the music and it seems I am not getting paid for it. Heck cut the streaming number down to 2 million, that's still $16 million if the album is charged for. iTunes and others used to charge what $0.99 to buy a song, say the artist gets 15% or $0.15 per song x 55 million that's $8.25 million in revenue.

    Common sense says there is a ton of money being left on the table and subscription streaming services are not enough. The system is broken....
     
    Bossfan and showtaper like this.
  24. mdent

    mdent Forum Resident

    Location:
    New England
    {I know you're being facetious}
    Unfortunately, which may indicate the poor musicians will remain just that. Ugh. Unless they stay on the road and play live and avoid the studio debt.
     
    uzn007 likes this.
  25. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    Of course there are many negatives to the streaming culture. Music is now something that is generated from a smartphone, and played (maybe) through a tinny, tiny little plastic box remote speaker, that is, so long as something more important, like incoming spam robo-calls, doesn't interrupt it.
     
    Dave likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine