Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by trackstar, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:16 PM.
I never used Spotify and never will.
Same here. Renting is not for me. I mean where else can I find all these instrumental/remixes and b-sides for favorites only I care about
Question on your numbers. I understand 1,000,000 fans stream 15 songs 10 times x .007 cents = $1,050,000 in revenue. But that goes to the "license holder", correct? And the artists isn't always the license holder, right? Which means the artist is only receiving a portion of that $1m based on their deal with their label. Is that right?
I think the single most important spark that set off the chain of events that has us here today arguing about Spotify is that the labels got greedy, made everyone sell off/give away/throw out/store their vinyl and expected people to pay $15-$20 for a CD with a couple good songs.
Consumers griping about that was already a "meme" in 1986 --before the internet and before all but a few knew what a meme was.
One thing that annoys me is that every song is (Remastered). In a taxi, recently, lots of LOUD classic rock, then "Roam" by The B-52's came on at about 1/3 less volume level. Spot the non "remastered" version.
Of course we all know about this. But it would be nice if you could select your version. The new remastered version is all the record companies want you to have. It's why Sony Music have a trickle of ear blood as their logo. I like my collection better. Lots of good music with lots of dynamics. Do I play my music loud? Hell yeah! And it sounds great turned up. But it also sounds great turned down.
So I'm ading nothing to this conversation. I have a component hi-fi system. I play CD's. I play records. I play cassettes. I play music from my computer. And that is what you should do too: Play whatever the heck you like from whatever the heck source you like.
That must have been some trick.
Your numbers strike me as high, but whatever price point you want to use is irrelevant. The fact is that the labels were CORRECT that the consumer was willing to pay a higher price point for cd’s than vinyl. Call it greedy if you want but the market dictates the price point not the company.
You’re doing it again. You’re being blatantly inconsistent with your arguments. Here and the previous page or so you’re arguing one album sale equals 30 years of streams. But a few pages before that, when the rental argument came up, you said that buying albums is the same thing since you have to make a new purchase with every format change. Leading formats have changed more often than every 30 years so you can’t argue both sides here.
If Van Dyke needs a swimming pool to write SMILEII with Brian Wilson, then he should get a pool. And a sandbox. And a pail and little shovel.
Music streaming and Spotify and various topics all seem to get conflated in these streamingphillip threads.
But, Prince pulled his music from Spotify, but not from streaming. He was part owner of Tidal and allowed his music on Tidal.
Prince was in control of his music and how it was released.
Prince's Legacy and Impact on the Music Industry
Anyway, it just seemed originally that you had something against Robyn Hitchcock, but maybe he was just a different issue that rolled into this thread.
The concept that the music industry is dying is just not correct. 80% plus of the music industry is controlled by the the big 3 major labels.
The music portion of those huge corporations is making @ $20 billion per year which sounds like a fairly healthy corpse to me.
Streaming is a very profitable business model for the record labels.
I suppose in his ethics, this CEO would be a descendant of Morris Levy . . . ?
I believe the issue is, in the streaming world -- the IT companies (Spotify, Youtube) and the license holders/labels control the access to the ears. They take almost all of money and very little if none reaches the content creator (musician/band/artist). So the big dilema is, how will the content creator keep creating new content if they can't earn money from it. this has now hit a wall with COVID where they cant perform live for 6 to 12 or more months.
Re: spotify. With companies like Spotify, you really need to look at it as value for your money. They do indeed provide great value, access and convenience to a huge amount of content for a decent price. You can dial up whatever album or artist strikes your fancy at a moments notices and not break a sweat. It does come with a catch. The content is not as good quality as the actual CD. You only will notice that when you listen to a record on Spotify for a while and then try listening to same release on same headphones that was ripped from a CD in lossless format. But it is what it is. I guess Tidal is better. No idea.
I think it was a publicity stunt. Anyways, that didn't last long. All his releases are on Spotify now.
It wasn't a typo - I was using the exact figure provided in the quote I was replying to. So if someone made an error it was not me.
But my point was only that the expectation that one should deserve enough money for a luxury house with pool for co-writing a non-hit with a guy who is a bit of a has been at this point (even if he once was a Beatle) is ridiculous.
And frankly Ringo is one of the artists least affected by Spotify as
- if anyone has an audience who still prefers collecting physical media it is an ex-Beatle
- his albums have been selling poorly since long before CDs let alone Spotify.
The CEO of Spotify demanding that artists speed up their output to provide more content for his company to market is the equivalent of a meat packing plant speeding up the production line to get more t-bones on the shelves for BBQ season and speaks volumes about the commodification of music as product rather than as the outcome of a creative artistic process. Combine this with the attitude displayed by some here that the actual content creators should be grateful for whatever meagre scraps they are allowed and it's no mystery as to why we are where we're at today.
I don't have anything against Robyn Hitchcock. I think it is a bad business decision based on short term goals. If he is OK with that, so be it. I would be planning long game if I were him. He's leaving where the vast majority of people are and potentially going into a small corner where no one else is, leading to eventual obscurity (IMO). Best of luck to him.
It's even better now for the music corporation big 3 as the on-cost for them to lease the content to the streaming services is minimal. They are now able to make revenue from content that in the past they would not be able to profitably release.
Streaming is the perfect sit on your ass & count the money business model for the major labels.
Yep. And so is Qobuz.
I received a paid version as a gift...I use it on occasion. I have no complaints.... : )
Not is dying but was dying. I was trying to point out to the poster that a music industry in decline pre-streaming wasn’t helping the financial viability of artists, which is what the poster was claiming about Spotify. Streaming revived the music business and without it who knows what state the industry would be in.
Nah. What Spotify's C-Suite creeps pull down for the work they actually do...that's gross.
I'm going to guess that most of us on this thread are either boomers or gen-x'ers. While we may embrace streaming as a new technology, the younger generation almost exclusively streams, and almost exclusively through Spotify. It is the gold standard of streaming for the kids.
I think it's important to remember that Spotify and streaming music in general is not really the main issue with the younger generations. The real issue is that this new generation does not want to be encumbered with anything. They don't want physical media. They don't want to own cars (they have uber). They don't want to own houses. When they do buy houses, they don't want huge houses even if they can afford them. It's just a whole different mindset that most of us 50-somethings really can't identify with. But blaming Spotify is a little like hating the player instead of the game.
Separate names with a comma.