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. It's not bonus payments. If you sell a piece of furniture or anything else you bought or built 43 years ago, you get paid for it unless you decide to donate it. If you consign to a third party you share in the revenue.
     
    JoeRockhead, tages and uzn007 like this.
  2. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    As someone else pointed out, one stream does not equate to one track on a CD. I have played Dark Side Of The Moon 100's of times since I bought the CD in 1988. And that also applies to all my favourite albums.
    Maybe a better Spotify pricing model is to charge a little more for the initial stream but it's your stream for free after that. That way if you only listen to a small set of albums, the subscription rate drops considerably.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
    WMTC, Catcher10, Markyp and 1 other person like this.
  3. lennonfan1

    lennonfan1 Senior Member

    Location:
    baltimore maryland
    loves me some Frampton. That '75 album was terrific.
    of course he should be compensated fairly for his work. The feather in his cap is that 40 odd years later, people still care. at 55 mil streams, I'd say they still care....a lot.
     
    WMTC, Retro Hound and O Don Piano like this.
  4. This shouldn't be just about an older richer artist who already got compensated over the years for the music. I assume that virtually any artist who has a song that streams 55 million times (new or old) would have received about the same amount of payment. That's is what is unfair to the artist, and creator.
     
  5. picassoson

    picassoson Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    I feel incredibly guilty supporting Spotify. The amount of music I stream is worth way more than $10 a month. What Spotify is doing is criminal. Record labels were so afraid of internet piracy and technology (mainly artists being able to sell direct to listeners) that they literally decided to just give away their catalogs for pennies on the dollar, with everyone winning except the artists. Spotify may be legal, but that doesn’t make it ethical.
     
    Catcher10, MoonPool, Markyp and 5 others like this.
  6. misteranderson

    misteranderson Forum Resident

    Location:
    englewood, nj
    I find it amazing that some music fans have a problem with musicians getting paid well for their work. It's roughly analogous to sports fans blaming athletes -- and only athletes -- for anything and everything that's wrong with pro sports, when athletes generate all the revenue, yet are paid less than some league officials and owners. Then again, this forum does read like a sports forum sometimes, so there you go.

    Your opinion of Frampton as a dinosaur has nothing to do with the issue at all, and your post reeks of jealousy. It has nothing to do with buying mansions and everything to do with making a good living.

    Oh, and I'm sure young musicians are absolutely thrilled with their streaming income.
     
  7. Frangelico

    Frangelico Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    Streaming is complicated and not an actual reflection of true demand. We intuitively know this from the ridiculous billion YouTube views of GNR’s November Rain and the “dominance” of charts by the likes of Sheeran and Drake due to “multiple” streaming hits.

    This could be manipulated - repeated listens/viewings, restarts, bots, fake accts, set up a streaming channel that constantly plays the same songs, music playing in the background, etc. The Billboard, etc calculations for conversion to sales are a joke. There should be an actual sales number and an entirely separate streaming number.

    The Frampton number seems too low but not too too low. I certainly don’t think he should get even close to a penny for a hit. “Maybe” a tenth (or a hundredth) of a penny which would have been $55,000 and still maybe too high. Fact is without streaming, much of it free, most people using these services will not be motivated to actually make a purchase (physical media or download) of any or most of what they’re listening to. And those paying their $5-$10 a month wouldn’t be purchasing the actual music either.

    I buy music, always paid for my CDs, LPs, Blu-rays, DVDs, downloads, pay for Amazon Unlimited, etc. I have friends that use free Spotify and other free services and they will not actually buy music anymore. I despised Napster and its ilk and I’m not a fan of free streaming and the questionable YouTube uploads, but the streaming numbers are grossly overstating true potential purchase demand.

    Would Frampton and others be better off removing their music from all streaming services, YouTube, etc potentially, or not, leading to higher actual sales from CDs, box sets, downloads, concerts? Maybe but this is probably very difficult to gauge.
     
  8. danielbravo

    danielbravo Senior Member

    Location:
    Caracas. DC
    This is something totally unacceptable for a musician, it is understood that the world keeps turning and that technology is evolving with the customs of the people. But there is no justification for a musician to tolerate this type of treatment.
    Personally I don't use streaming services and I still have an attachment for physical formats. Everyone to their own but there must be a balance after all
     
    Nick Brook, alexpop, tages and 4 others like this.
  9. misteranderson

    misteranderson Forum Resident

    Location:
    englewood, nj
    So Frampton's been paid enough, and in your opinion doesn't deserve to be paid any more. How much is enough?

    I have plenty of sympathy for artists at both ends of the spectrum.

    Less than $2k for 55,000,000 plays might as well be nothing.
     
    MoonPool, tages, Sidewinder43 and 2 others like this.
  10. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    Wow, I don't agree with much of that.

    But think about this - if every artist was given the sole rights to their back catalog tomorrow, taking the labels out of the equation - would Spotify survive a month?
     
  11. Tone

    Tone Senior Member Thread Starter

    Except if one is getting a pension, or Social Security... or book or music royalties, etc. :)
     
    WMTC, JoeRockhead, 4_everyman and 3 others like this.
  12. Dennis Metz

    Dennis Metz Born In A Motor City south of Detroit

    Location:
    Fonthill, Ontario
    Truly the work of the devil:cheers:
     
    danielbravo likes this.
  13. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    I never said that he shouldn't be paid. But it was the industry centered around the selling of physical media that made certain musicians multi millionaires in the last century. Buying that black piece of plastic was the only way of hearing the music properly in your own home and millions of people bought it.
    Then Andy Grove, Gordon Moore and Bob Noyce invented the microprocessor and the record industry used it to unwittingly destroy itself.
     
    danielbravo likes this.
  14. Frangelico

    Frangelico Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    I wasn’t arguing for streaming. You can’t give rights back to artists if they didn’t have those rights. Some of those rights belong to artists and some to labels. $1,700 seems low so let’s say Frampton was paid $55,000 for those streams - if that music was never streamed would he have made up the difference in actual sales of $55,000 - downloads, CDs, etc. My guess is with major current acts and big legacy acts yes. With Frampton and smaller or less popular acts maybe or maybe not.
     
  15. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    Okay, it’s not exactly like the radio. The question remains how much is a single stream actually worth? And you didn’t quote the part of my post that pointed out the only thing that will actually change this is artists collectively bargaining for better rates.

    How often do people post about buying used CDs for pennies on the dollar? In that scenario, the artist gets nothing after the first purchase. People here go on and on about the good old days when you could buy vinyl for next to nothing, again a scenario where the artist gets nothing.

    And yet somehow choosing to stream, where the artist at least gets something, is attacked as some violation of an artist’s rights.

    As I said, pay artists more, pay them more now, but don’t demonize the people who use these services, because people here regularly engage in consumer behaviors that result in the artist getting nothing at all and they get applauded for it.
     
  16. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    Well sure, saying artists would get the rights back is simply a scenario, a scenario that I believe destroys any argument that Spotify is good for artists.

    I can't put an amount of money on what Frampton should get. I have no idea. I know 1700 seems far too low, since it comes at the cannibalization of his old revenue streams.
     
  17. Entitlement is a double edged sword. But, is this entitlement if a middleman (streaming services) and the record companies are making a living from your work?

    I guess we need to know what kind of payments streaming services make to artists with whom they deal direct (not through a record company) if such a desirable artist exists (that they would want to deal direct with).
     
  18. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    It's not the same thing. The artist will have made some money off that purchase. Some reasonable amount. Secondhand sales of music didn't start recently, it's been around forever - yet music sales did well until the Internet spoiled the party.

    I don't think anyone is demonizing streamers. Personally I just think it's a lousy way to hear music, but the fault - if any applies - is with the record labels. Trust me, they're earning more than Frampton, and they don't even have the infrastructure costs.
     
    HoundsOBurkittsville likes this.
  19. J_D__

    J_D__ Senior Member

    Location:
    Huntersville, NC
  20. He should put it on youtube. He'd make something like 55x that amount in ad revenue.
     
  21. J_D__

    J_D__ Senior Member

    Location:
    Huntersville, NC
    I remember Sting saying he earned $2000 a day just for the song Every Breath You Take.
     
    Deuce66 likes this.
  22. Not from streaming.
     
  23. Ben Adams

    Ben Adams Forum Resident

    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ, USA
    How much money did he make off a single play of the song that reached millions of listeners at once on a high-power FM station back in the '70s?
     
  24. Doggiedogma

    Doggiedogma "Think this is enough?" "Uhh - nah. Go for broke."

    Location:
    Barony of Lochmere
    Maybe it's just ol' Pete and his fam just hitting the Spotify "replay" button over. and over. and over...…..
     
  25. J_D__

    J_D__ Senior Member

    Location:
    Huntersville, NC
    Correct but, that's a lot of money for one song
     
    Shvartze Shabbos and Mazzy like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine