Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Adam9, Aug 10, 2019.
Yeah, but not by much.....
"Another calculation shows that 1 million plays on Spotify translates to around $7,000, and one million plays on Pandora generates $1,650."
Spotify and Apple Music should become record labels so musicians can make a fair living
And 100% of that does not go to the artist.
Dude, get over it. What if all those millions of Pink Floyd album sales could not exchange hands in the used market and instead had to be destroyed? Would the artist really be better off? No. Their music lives on in new generations who buy Pink Floyd T shirts, posters, follow Waters and Gilmour as solo acts and maybe go see them live. They are getting compensated. All because a kid picked up a used CD somewhere and gave it a chance.
I'll give you a real life example. I discovered Collective Soul in the early 2000s after they already peaked. All because I picked up several old CDs used for the then low price of $3.99. I have since bought thier last 6 releases or so new. And paid for concert tickets to see them 4 or 5 times. I'm sure they are thankful that I discovered them via the used market.
The only people making money off of streaming are the streaming company CEOs and maybe the manufacturers of streaming devices.
I have fairly good audio equipment and don't think it's right that people who don't stream music are living in the past.
It's everybody's individual choice how they listen to their music. I don't come on here and virtually tell people what platform to use for playing music, because I respectotherpeople's preferred option.
I'm hoping this is a sarcastic joke.
I don't understand the negativity towards the article. The author was getting rid of CDs he no longer listened to, and felt that they should end with others who would appreciate them more. It made a lot of sense to me.
I have a HomePod situated in my bedroom and love the convenience of streaming music and discovering many new artists. But let's not get carried awaywith the audio quality because when listening to axmen the volume has to be cranked all the way up to 11 which Apple's portable smart speaker albeit decent sounding simply can't handle.
Music Magpie are good for common CDs or ones in relatively poor, but not completely trashed condition (although I've noticed the price paid for relatively common CDs has nose dived to as little as 5p recently). Anything £2 or over I will sell myself, as Music Magpie pay a maximum of £2.50.
The problem was never used CDs. It was people who bought new and used, ripped them, and then sold the CD. Plus the millions of others who listened to the music free via filesharing sites. If you could return to 1995, artists would be doing fine even with used sales.
The industry and many consumers have accepted the middle ground of streaming, but revenues are certainly less than the peak era of CD sales.
I don't buy many cds, but I would never get rid of the collection I have. Most are probably not easily replaceable. If for no other reason, they serve as physical backups to the music on my digital players,
all of which have been sourced from physical media (8k songs, nothing "downloaded")
Artists never made money from used cds (or records).
I parted with a lot of CD's once, invariably ended up buying them up again as time went on.
The article is just a dude expressing an opinion. He's not telling anyone to do as he does or dissing people who collect.
But of course any opinion that challenges or questions the predominant philosophy of this forum will be met with pitchforks. Talking about getting rid of CDs around here is like a red rag to a bull - c'mon are you kidding me?
So what is to be done?
Should we collect all CDs and destroy them? And should this be voluntary— or should the state confiscate them?And what about used vinyl? You don’t think the vinyl resurgence of the past decade isn’t going to lead to flood of used vinyl changing hands - and soon- as Boomers die off and Millenials get tired of lugging crates of heavy plastic every time they move?
I understand the industry’s concern and obviously the artists as well, but what do you expect consumers to do?
And here’s something else to consider — no one should assume that people will pay more for something they have been getting much cheaper. In other words not everyone who plunks down 3 bucks for a used CD will bay 15 for a new one ( or 20 for the vinyl) if the used one is unavailable.
Sometimes it’s the price itself that makes the sale.
I thought royalties in the US were only paid at point of sale. Of course, that point of sale may be distributor to retail store.
True, but the right to listen to the CD or LP was meant move from the previous owner to the new owner. The previous owner was meant to forgo the right to listen to the music. Of course, sometimes the previous would continue to listen on a new format, i.e., LP to CD or CD to streaming, and that's fine. The artist is duly compensated. But to expect items on which the artist has been compensated to disappear is wrong. Yes, you once paid me for a CD. Now, I expect you and everyone else to pay me to listen via Spotify. Not, you can pay me via Spotify and someone else can continue to enjoy that music license via the CD.
The poor resale value is a primary reason why I still have my sizable CD collection, now that I prefer accessing their content via ripped files and do not have a CD player (besides the disc drive in my computer). That, and I like the idea of having them around as another backup, plus the booklets often contain a lot of nice content.
But generally speaking, I have no real attachment to my CDs. I should probably sell off my more desirable titles, ie: Hoffman gold discs, etc.
The ironic thing is until very recently I was 90% into vinyl, 10% into digital (via CDs). Since setting up a music server, I now listen to digital maybe 60-70% of the time. I find the convenience and flexibility irresistible.
I get what you are saying, but in ways we're talking about two different economic theories here. Streaming
isn't a standard surplus-value model, so
it becomes an ethical excercise in formal
axiology in a certain sense.
One might even say the model outlay is a baby-step in the direction of what might just as easily turn out to be an incremental replacement of surplus-value capitalism with a quasi-marxian
model of non-proprietorship in the sense that by accepting the model, as an ethical principle, the stimulus is granted for the furtherance of the theory. To say that the streaming model is the only fair exchange
of labour-value (setting aside the industry's economic interests for the moment) is no different than arguing that every time I play my CD, the one I bought new at retail and for full price, I am depriving the artist of additional compensation. The same theory can be applied across the board - everytime I start the engine in my car which I bought and paid for as first owner, I am depriving the manufacturer of additional revenue. Every time I put on the pair of pants I bought new and at full retail cost from the clothing merchant, I am depriving the textile manufacturer of additional revenue. Now we're talking about a labour-value exchange not for the privilege of ownership, but one for continued use as a non-proprietor. The fact that music is an audible commodity that transcends physical format is irrelevant to this idea, because the relationship is virtual to privilege.
That may be true, but the concept of
transfer of labour-value exchange still
meets the criteria of applicability relative
to the economic model. The investment
return may take place ahead of royalty,
but the sale of goods can be ongoing.
At what point the parties in a contract
designate their respective gain should
materialise is a matter of provision.
With all due respect, some of this is making my head hurt.
Digital files sitting on a storage medium in your house are superior to physical audio/video formats because they save space without compromising anything.
Streaming is another cup of tea. You don't get to own the music, you totally depend on the service provider keeping in store the music you want to hear. If they decide to delete a specific item, if copyright laws demand it, or if the service goes bust, it's all gone. It's really just a large online jukebox, but not a surrogate for a collection regardless in which format. Files you own are.
I don't care for the format, but I do care for the music I once bought, at least most of it. If I could snap my fingers and every CD, record and cassette I own would be on a large hard drive, I'd do it instantly and get rid of the physical formats to gain that space. But in real life it's expensive and time consuming to digitise everything, so I don't and just keep functioning players around for all the formats that I own.
I wonder if some artists buy used CDs or records? I mean, if they're not earning much, it would be a way for them to pick up a few bargains and save money in the process. They are, after all, only human...
I’ve seen Cliff rooting through the CDs in BHF more than once. He’s always moaning that it’s all Beyoncé, Simply Red and Will Young.
The vast, vast majority of artists never made any money from the sale of records and CDs. A title had to sell 250,000 copies or so, before the recording advance, video production, legal, managerial and promo costs were all paid-for out of the artist's royalties.
Steve Albini hit a box full of nails on the head back in 1993 - The Problem With Music :Negativworldwidewebland - the music business has changed a lot, but it's still all business.
Exactly!!! Long live vinyl, baby!!
Separate names with a comma.