Streaming services are bad news for classical and jazz musicians...and eventually their fans

people consistently make this point not realizing it has zero to do with the contemporary climate

 

Well, it may also be because every system from CD carousels on has had fields for "artist" "song" and maybe "album" but not "composer" and "orchestra" etc etc. If you had those fields for classical music, it would be useless on say satellite radio.

And everyone has different opinions about HOW/WHAT they want for classical metadata. I want all my Beethoven to say "Beethoven" but other might prefer "Ludwig Van Beethoven" or I've seen "Bernstein" as the artist. Whatever system Spotify or whoever set up, users would complain, so why bother. I also bet the classical/jazz streamers are a pretty small % of users.

 

Maybe HDTracks could offer streaming.

Frankly, there is simply no way I could afford to buy all the stuff I want to listen to. And there is also no way I'm going to spend $15+ to "check out" something I have no idea if I like, and think I may not. Miles Davis comes to mind-I'm curious to eventually hear his whole catalog, but while I repeatedly listen to Sketches Of Spain I have little interest in Kind Of Blue (ya, I'm weird) and have only listened to Bitches Brew 3 times ever.

Would I pay more than $10 a month for streaming? Yes, definitely, if the service was good.

The problem is, back in the day most people had a big hangup about "not owning" their music-laughable, since a lot of the pop audience doesn't listen to something for more than 6 months anyway. So the only game in town-Rhapsody-made pricing ultra low to try and get subscribers. So the market is now used to this ridiculously low price for all-you-can-eat music.

 

With classical music, it's never as straight forward as you think. If I'm looking for Beethoven's Violin Concerto performed by Herbert von Karajan, do I want the one with Anne-Sophie Mutter? Would I even know I was listening to this version? It still takes serious research, only it's a lot quicker and easier.

 

I actually rely on album cover a lot - this is when I'm streaming an album that I have on LP and want to compare them. That's assuming the AA is the same of course.

 

You imply that any jazz or classical musician can make a living "playing and singing for people". I personally know a few Jazz musicians. They often lose money on tour. They have meals, lodging and transportation. Then you have the clubs. Do you think the clubs are paying good money to Jazz musicians, particularly those just breaking into the industry? The answer to that question is a resounding "no".

You are right about one thing. Historically, many club owners have screwed over many Jazz musicians. So I guess you got that part right.

 

It is relevant to your maintaining that the music business has not historically given things away free of charge. They have always done so, whether on radio, tv, or the internet - using whatever the most popular distribution media of the day are. The difference is that now fewer people are deciding to purchase what they sample via free media - but that's been an issue since people started taping off the radio - in the mid 70s I'd put my portable cassette recorder with built in mic next to our mono hifi (Fischer tube receiver into one Klipschorn speaker) every week when Casey Kasem came on since I couldn't afford to buy the whole top 40 every week on a paper route income. No musicians made a living off the home recording tax they charged on cassettes either.

For jazz musicians it's really a matter of what gigs they are willing to take and whether they are willing to play what people want to hear. Any really talented musician that wants to throw their all into making it a business to perform at private functions at weddings can find a way to make ends meet doing that. Not going to get that rich, but if their priority was getting rich they probably should have spent more time studying finance and less time studying jazz.

There are certainly lots of classical musicians that make a good living playing with orchestras, as well as private functions like weddings. Nowhere near as many as want to make their living playing classical music, and yes orchestras are delining as well (look at the age of those in the seats next time you go) but the arts are a competitive field where many more fail than succeed, folks who go into classical music are making a choice to go into a style they know is not "popular" music, and classical music has been a declining market ever since the brief uptick that occurred when people wanted to replace vinyl with CDs in the 80s.

And if playing music for people is what you love, you do it in your spare time even if it costs you more money for your equipment and transport than you make playing it, and find another source of income to support your passion. That's what I do. The two things I am passionate about doing are writing/recording/performing music and skiing, and that's what I spend my non-work/family/exercise time doing. Doesn't bother me any more that I don't support myself with music than it does that I'm not on the professional skiing circuit.

Though guidance counsellors may habitually preach to teens to find your passion and do what you love, that is a pie in the sky dream and nobody has an entitlement to earn their living doing what they love.
As I often say "there's a reason they call it 'work' not 'recess' "

 

This model doesn't work. Why go pay for something when I can stream it on demand anytime, anywhere? The old model worked as an exposure and discovery tool. With on-demand streaming, there's really nothing left to purchase. This is why getting real world streaming royalties to working musicians and indie labels is so important.

dan c

 

If you care about such things, on demand streaming is lower sound quality (much like making cassette recordings from the radio was).
Also, I find it incredibly frustrating listening to streaming music if I am not on a hard wired or wifi connection due to how often signals are lost when driving, biking, riding trains, etc. And you can't stream on an airplane.
So it's not the same thing as owning a hi res (or even cd res) digital file yet, even disregarding packaging and collectable aspects of CDs and LPs.

 

You aren't accepting reality here. Most people put up with the slight defects rather than spend money on the download or CD or whatever, and the number of people buying the product are dwindling.

BTW, you're wrong about streaming quality. I know it's unpopular to say here, but it's pretty hard to tell the difference between a high quality stream from Beats and the CD. My AirPort Express has completely replaced the CD player as my main digital front end in my system. I still love and buy LPs, but new classical isn't issued on that format obviously. I'll occasionally buy a CD when I really want to support an artist (and an LP is unavailable), but it just doesn't get played. The digital music world has moved on to streaming.

I spend time with young people at work. People in their early-20s don't buy CDs or even visit iTunes. I know just one guy in my office who's a big music fan and subscribes to Spotify. Most people just put up with the commercials on the free version. And even more are using YouTube as their primary music source.

Musicians need to get paid for making their music. The question is how is that going to happen? When they're all pushed out of the scene, all we'll left with is the huge corporate acts. No real music fan wants that to happen.

dan c

 

Strange analogy. The reasons that you are not a professional skier is that you are not as good as other professional skiers. You may not have the talent, or may not have given the time required to compete with the best. It may also be the reason why you are not a professional musician, harsh as it may sound. Luck may also play a part, especially in music, which is often judged on subjective rather than objective grounds.

If you look at the other arts, such as painting, artists get paid when their work sells. If you want an original painting, then often you will have to pay $$ for it. If you are happy with a print, browsing a gallery, looking at images on the internet, then so be it, but nothing beats ownership of an original. One can say the same thing about ownership of an original LP by The Beatles, or even modern artists. Forget sound quality, it's ownership of something tangible that counts. But here is the tricky part. A famous artist can sell their paintings for big bucks because it is the only original A famous musician is lucky to have their LPs sell for more than $20.-$30. Maybe they should forget LPs and try selling master tapes.

 

I do agree about the annoyance of not having proper songwriting credits, and the inability to cross-reference between artists, or search by sidemen or guest artists. While I do believe that what is listed is all the labels/aggregators give them, it's not unreasonable for Spotify (and other streaming services) to improve on that information to make for a better experience for their users.


There are points consistently made in these articles and discussions which, quite frankly, boggle my mind. As an example, the insistence to compare revenue from iTunes(sales) against Spotify(streaming/rental). Of course there is going to be a significant difference! One is a purchase, the other is a listen. They, inherently, cannot be of the same value!

Now, something that keeps coming up, that keeps getting glossed over, are the middlemen. Primarily the labels.

What are the deals they are cutting with streaming services? Are they actually paying out to artists appropriately?

What about the aggregators that non-label artists have to use to get on Spotify? What fees are they charging for their services? Are they paying out correctly?

Here's Spotify's official breakdown:
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#how-we-pay-royalties-overview

So, in the end, if artists are getting shortchanged, they need to look at the labels and aggregators first, as it's their responsibility to ensure that everyone who is entitled to pay gets it, and gets it accurately.

All that said, I do think that there is a cognitive short circuit in some people's minds about the difference between what streaming and buying are, and what the actual payouts should be for each. I think that there is also an amount of unwelcome truth about how "popular" certain artists' work is, that is difficult for them to accept. And there is also the question, for artists who point to a wide discrepancy between their sales and streams, as to how many people who bought are still going to stream, and how many people who didn't buy are interested enough to stream.

 

While luck is clearly a factor with music in particular, in both cases I'm certainly not as good as some, but I might have gotten good enough had i not spent a lot of time working on getting into a more stable and lucrative profession rather than throwing all my eggs since I was a teen into the basket of making it as a professional musician or skier or subsisting on welfare/food stamps/relatives. For folks who decide to go into these things professionally it will always be a gamble, and probably a worse bet than the lottery.

Which is why musicians make a lot of money selling things like merchandise, autographs, and VIP experiences. And performing live is kind of the equivalent of selling a painting, particularly if you play house concerts for the well heeled or corporate events.

Teaching is another personal service way that musicians can make a good income. My mom makes 6 figures teaching classical piano.

 

Indeed. There's a lack of control element about streaming. Once there, it might be gone tomorrow. Or the label might update the tracks with their latest, often hideous, remastering job.

 

True. I imagine booking Bob Dylan for your wedding might be a tad expensive.

 

So make up your mind... they should just be glad to play (for free or at least for very little money) or they should just bail? Which one is it? BTW, if every musician who gives it a go and sees that there is no money to be made quits, where will the new music come from??

You've implied that the "old way" of making a living on the road is available to those who wish to follow their muse and yet you (properly) admit that this is a pretty bad gamble. You ignore the fact that before streaming services and their $1.10 royalty checks, musicians starting out could sell their music on LPs or CDs and actually walk away with $100 or $1,000 checks (if they sold enough). I don't think this new model is a good thing for the small jazz musician. You disagree but I've yet to read anything that you've said that is shows some sort of improvement.

Wow, you're really taking a big leap on a thread about classical & jazz artists. What jazz artist makes a lot of money selling "merchandise, autographs & VIP experiences"?

 

Actually Spotify will let you store files for offline use. They are sandboxed, so can't get at them (easily anyway), but you can listen to them offline. And Spotify's SQ isn't bad at all.

 

Declining music sales certainly hurt musicians, but I expect the switch to streaming instead of buying is far more prevalent in the youger demo that listens to popular music than in the older demos that listen to jazz and classical.

 

Autographs? Unless you are seriously established/famous nobody is going to pay anything that matters for an autograph. Same with a VIP experience. These are not valid revenue streams for 98% of working musicians.

 

That's only for those that pay for subscriptions, not the folks that listed for free with ads (which is the only way I have streamed, and which is where the free radio analogy applies)

 

kindly remind me of the era when the music industry gave away everything it produced free of charge

 

True, but doing house concerts and lessons are viable personal service income streams that are more lucrative than club gigs. Also free to the audience events with private or govt sponsorship are often more lucrative than club gigs.

 

They aren't doing that now. There are free ad supported models, subscription models, and purcahse models.

 

nor have they ever. your "argument" falls flat on its face because you omit the primary driver behind every adjustment the music industry has been forced to make in recent years: theft.

 

Well, like any other gig, they can't hurt. But honestly, it's ridiculously easy to overplay in a geographic area within a given timeframe.

Lessons are a different story, obviously, but require the teacher to stay local.