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

Also it doesn't help matters when Apple Music is blaring WE GOT 40 MILLION SONGS! How is a normal person supposed to digest that? Nobody is going to purchase 10,000 albums. So the only solution in 2018 is to listen to community playlists and make your own and leave it at that. Believe me, investing time into building an album collection is a decades-long endeavor that only 1% of the music listening public will even consider.

 

Maybe it was glib and not apt, but it's a product he produced so he should get paid for it unless he relinquished the right to the work.

 

What do stadiums and 'brand deals' have to do with great music? I have literally not found a single song from these 'big brand names' that moves me. It's 10000000% crap.

 

Radio was almost always a least-common denominator experience---background in the car, at work, wherever. If I really like some particular piece of music, I am going to purchase it. But for whatever reason, it's not that important anymore for the great unwashed masses to own their music and thus, no reason to purchase music. It's all part of a much larger scheme, a shift in society that is pushing people to 'rent' everything important in their lives rather than own it.

Most artistic persons begin their art out of the love for it, not for the goal of making a career out of it, let alone becoming rich. It's better for all of us if more people would choose to create their own music, as they used to do for centuries, before recorded music ever existed.

 

i dont think spotify gets their money from the streams. they get their money by people subscribing.
having a huge catalog of music is what keeps people subscribing.

So they dont make money of any particular song that gets streamed a million times. They count how many times its streamed so they can pay the record company and artists.

 

Yeah, it's definitely harder now, but on the other hand, as someone who listens via streaming now, I keep a running playlist of albums released in the past year (so at the moment, released between August 9, 2017 and August 8, 2018), and I routinely have about 1200 albums in that playlist (at the moment over 13,000 songs), much of which isn't very commercial (even though I'm also a fan of very commercial music/pop music), and I know that I'm missing a ton of new releases on that playlist. So it doesn't seem like there's much of a shortage of people making music yet.

 

And did he replace the Prius that he drove into some poor sod?

 

You call it a "rip-off" but Spotify has never been profitable.

 

Steve Miller did do a nice cover of "Zip A Dee Doo Dah" some years ago.

 

Sure, people will always make music because music is awesome.
But how many of those uncommercial artists are going to continue making music once they get sick of driving around in a van and sleeping on people's couches?

 

And if that's the case (and it likely is), why should Frampton keep getting paid over and over for something already purchased. He probably received compensation on it - by the same listener - back way back in 1976. Maybe even multiple times if they bought it more than once and/or in different formats.

 

Well this thread is about money, sold out stadiums and brand deals all contribute to income. Simple.

 

And yet its founders are billionaires. Our capital markets are severely broken, too, but that's a whole other conversation.

 

On paper, not liquid cash.

 

Nice, but he's no Bobb B. Soxx and the Blue Jeans.

 

If today's Major Artist was a grocery store, the "music" would be the "Gallon of Milk for 99 cents Sale", ie--just something cheap to bring traffic into the store, not where the real money is to be made...

 

The so-called failed musicians of the 1960's-1990's did not sell millions of singles and earn less than $2000 for their work. There were obviously scenarios where artists had successful sales and touring revenues along with strong radio play, and were underpaid by labels or had funds absconded by self-dealing representatives, but typically, if an artist did not succeed financially, often it was because their work did not resonate with the public.

 

Well now it's easy to make music just with a computer (and maybe a keyboard, guitar, etc.)

I've got friends who spend fortunes on stuff like boating hobbies, golfing hobbies, etc. and music hobbies, too--I have friends now who do something else for a living but still enjoy making music. I don't know why that wouldn't continue.

 

I've got over 10,000 albums.

 

The bottom line is that they are running a service that generates billions for record labels and for their own executive portfolios, but the artists, the actual parties who created and produced the commodity that is the source of the billion dollar service, are not sharing in the proceeds. That is the problem.

 

The bottom line is ..... there was $8.7 billion in streaming revenue in 2017 ..... and the artists are not getting a fair, or even reasonable, share of that revenue.

"The RIAA is supporting proposed reform legislation in Congress that would “modernize music licensing for the benefit of songwriters, recording artists, producers and digital music services alike,”

U.S. Music Revenue Rises, Boosted by Streaming Services – Rolling Stone

 

Oh, poor Peter, only receiving 1,700 grand for something he did 40 years ago!
Do you hear this? It's the world's smallest talkbox, playing you a sad song

 

Yeah, I don't have much of a physical collection any longer, but when I did, I had over 10,000 albums.

 

On the plus side, I only have three or four digital albums and a handful of singles.

 

If they've got enough paper to buy big houses and fancy cars, that distinction really doesn't matter.