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. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    That's because you can....KK Downing of Judas Priest was forced to sell his publishing rights to cover debt for one of his business ventures, he was making about $240,000-$300,000 year in royalties and this is a band that is not played that much on the radio or elsewhere. It's the one thing popular musicians never talk about is how much they make on publishing, cry poor while raking in the royalties.
     
  2. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    That is a another way to look at it.

    I believe artists deserve to be paid and make a living but the old "rock star" concept of becoming the rich for the rest of your life for something you did briefly in your youth seems oh-so-20th century now.
     
  3. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    How is it a bonus for "old acts?" It isn't as if the alleged new-found awareness is paying dividends. Great, people might discover Frampton, but the only ones benefitting are the corporations making deals for the music and the consumer who streams the music for virtually nothing, generating roughly $0.00003 per spin for the artist. How many concert tickets is Frampton selling to millennials and generation Y?

    This is not about artists becoming millionaires. There is a big gap between Led Zeppelin's revenues and $0.00003 a spin.
     
  4. Kiss73

    Kiss73 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Scotland
    What would a snowman know about steaming??.....other than to avoid.
     
  5. manco

    manco Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Look is it fair that even in 2018 the likes of Justin Bieber/Katy Perry/Taylor Swift/Gaga make $50 million/year, while very talented songwriters are languishing in poverty? That's the world we live in, entertainment value gets 99% of the profits.
     
    Aussie Music Lover likes this.
  6. manco

    manco Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Which is why you do it like Steven Wilson has for the last 25 years. Self produced, run your own label, have a home studio. It's super hard work, but you gain the dividends when you are 40+, not when you're 25. The days of being a millionaire songwriter at 25 are over.
     
  7. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C.
    Fixed that for you.
     
  8. lightbulb

    lightbulb Not the Brightest of the Bunch

    Location:
    Smogville CA USA
    Sorry, your vague analogy isn’t applicable here.

    Royalty payments, Contractual terms, Work for hire, Hourly wages, Paid labor for product, Flat lump payment, etc can vary accordingly, and should not be compared without making certain distinctions.
     
    RhodyDave125, ajsmith and somnar like this.
  9. manco

    manco Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    You get whatever the market will provide at the moment. Also why no laments for all the failed musicians of the 1960s-1990s pre-streaming? Cry for me, Peter Frampton?
     
  10. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    InStepWithTheStars and phillyal1 like this.
  11. Terrapin Station

    Terrapin Station Master Guns

    Location:
    NYC Man/Joy-Z City
    I've explained this a number of times, but one thing that people overlook is that if you have in the vicinity of, say, 30,000 streams of a tune, that's basically the equivalent of ONE average major market FM station playing your song just ONE time.

    Way back before the Internet, if ONE major market station played your song just ONE time, you weren't going to get squat from that.

    For something like a top NYC station playing your song just one time, that would be equivalent to about 150,000 streams.

    So 55 million streams is a lot, obviously, but in terms of a radio play equivalent, it's along the lines of 100 different stations playing your song, say, 15 times. That's respectable, but compared to the airplay that a tune like "Do You Feel Like We Do?" received, it's nothing.

    The conceptual hurdle is that people think of one stream as being significant. It's not. One stream is just ONE person listening to a radio station playing your song just one time. Radio stations aren't listened to by just one person at a time.
     
  12. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    It makes more sense when you consider all of them as "entertainers" instead of "musicians" or "artists". That way their income seems normal compared to other 'entertainers', such as the Kardashians.
     
    manco likes this.
  13. manco

    manco Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Yeah a radio listen is a much bigger impact because you might have thousands listening at one time, and then 'word of mouth' helps sell the music further. Streaming culture(Spotify, Apple Music, Google Music) does have shared playlists and I have taken advantage of that.
     
  14. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    That is a great explanation, Terrapin Station. People definitely overlook this. Most people don't take the time to make such conceptual hurdles, but rather seek the easiest possible explanation for anything, which leads to ridiculous conspiracy theories being booted as plausible....
     
    RhodyDave125 and ajsmith like this.
  15. manco

    manco Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It might seem elitist but there is a big difference in people who buy deluxe editions of prog-rock albums on Day 1 vs the 'unwashed masses' who casually listen to Beats 1 or whatever is thrown at them on streaming services. One is a deep listening experience to a complex musical project and the other is entertainment. It's background noise to the Millenials/Gen Z crowd. To most of them, music is not a fully immersive experience.
     
    SirMarc and Sear like this.
  16. Terrapin Station

    Terrapin Station Master Guns

    Location:
    NYC Man/Joy-Z City
    I've made a living as a musician/composer/arranger my entire life. I don't agree with the idea that we deserve to make a living via making music. It's nice that it's possible to do, and folks will exploit being able to make a living from it when it's possible. I just wouldn't say that we deserve to make a living from music in the sense that we need to make (especially legislative) moves to guarantee that we can. If we can't make a living from music we have to adapt and make a living with something else instead. I'd still be making music regularly whether I could make a living from it or not.
     
  17. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    Yeah that's fine. I didn't say you deserved to make a good living, but someone with talent and dedication should be able to strive for doing more than the open mic night at the local coffee shop on his nights off from the Amazon Distribution Center.
     
    vmajewsk, showtaper, Sear and 7 others like this.
  18. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C.
    This is all perfectly reasonable, and worth pointing out.

    But the other factor is that streaming hasn't only replaced radio. It's also replaced purchases of music. So to really quantify the effect, you have to take lost sales into account, and not just compare the exposure you get from one stream vs. one play on the radio.

    Regardless of how you break down the math, it's undeniable that it's harder for musicians to make a living now than it was in the pre-streaming era. If it's harder to make a living as a musician, then fewer people will choose to do so, which means there will be less new music to listen to (and probably a higher percentage of it will be highly commercial). That's bad for all of us.
     
    WMTC, Echoplex, SirMarc and 11 others like this.
  19. manco

    manco Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Is any artist on KScope working shifts at the Amazon Distribution Center? I think if you're already talented enough to make it onto even the lower tier labels like that you will make a decent enough living that you can rent an apartment and continue making music. Rolls Royces - no.
     
  20. seed_drill

    seed_drill Senior Member

    Location:
    Tryon, NC, USA
    I think the interest of the artist should trump the nebulous "public" interest. Once the artist passes away, however, I don't think the copyright should exist in perpetuity. A life in being plus 21 years, says I.

    It becomes a stickier question when the copyrighted material was created by a corporation like Disney. Mickey Mouse is more than a series of cartoons, it is a trademark. I don't think it serves the public interest to allow third parties to reproduce Disney videos and sell them at one tenth the price with little QC. On the other hand, when Disney sits on a property, like Song of the South, I do think someone should be allowed to make this available. I know certain registered trademarks have to be renewed and reused or they revert to being available. I'd like to see something similar for copyrighted material.
     
    WMTC, Dudley Morris and snowman872 like this.
  21. Jerquee

    Jerquee Take this, brother, may it serve you well.

    Location:
    New York
    The question is how much is each stream earning and what percentage of that is going to the artist?

    That's the way to see the magnitude of this rip-off.
     
  22. manco

    manco Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It's very simple then. For artists that have enough clout, you hold off streaming service and only provide whole album sales for a month. You don't even allow customers to purchase individual tracks on iTunes/Amazon. Any artist can restrict that on iTunes/Amazon already but choose not to.
     
  23. skimminstones

    skimminstones Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    id imagine a lot of those 55million streams are by people that already own or have owned the album before. Its not a potential 55 million missed sales of his album.
     
  24. SITKOL'76

    SITKOL'76 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colombia, SC
    In all fairness 55M streams isn't all that much today. Drake's last record streamed 132M in one day and 745M in one week. Major hits today stream those numbers weekly.

    Secondly today artists make most of their money touring. Taylor Swift and Beyoncé far outearn most of their peers today and it's no coincidence that those two play to stadiums almost exclusively around the world. Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars even Drake all tour expensively between eras.

    Lastly almost every major artist today does brand deals and makes money through other avenues as opposed to just music.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
    snowman872 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine