Spotify controversy continues, Joe B weighs in

Most musicians never made a living selling recordings. For every rock star out there, there have always been thousands of musicians who had to have a day job and most of whom never had a recording contract.

 

Troggy is of course correct. I was trying to go out of my way to be fair to the "OMG streaming is destroying musician's ability to make living selling recordings!" folks but indeed prior to 1920 no one did, for about 80 years a small number did, though one can of course argue about the size and the meaning of the size of that group, and maybe in 10 years no one will again, or an even smaller number.

 

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that streaming pays the artists adequately. It's just the latest way for artists' to get hosed, if what you're interested in is the rate per play.

However, there are beneficial aspects to streaming, such as the ability for unknown artists to instantaneously make their material available to a world wide audience. That was never going to happen 20 years ago, let alone 50.

 

What I meant is that STREAMING SERVICES aren't worth paying for. I use them sparingly, and only as an active way to figure out what to actually buy next (real CD's, with real money).

I certainly think MUSIC is worth paying for -- ABSOLUTELY. It's the streaming services that aren't worth a tinker's damn (to me). Yeah, I do listen to Pandora up to an hour a day, but literally only when I'm otherwise unable to listen to CD's -- literally in the bathroom in the morning, and on the subway.

I *never* rely on streaming as a reliable way to enjoy any particular music I like. If I like something enough to want to have it, I don't do downloads, and I don't rely on Spotify. I buy ACTUAL CD's whenever possible. And I never put up with burns of CD's either. Friends often offer to burn copies of things for me, and I'm always like "nah, if I like it enough to want to hear it more than twice, then I want and need to buy a legit copy of my own -- and not a download either".

Streaming is basically like the radio, far as I'm concerned. It's useful enough, but nowhere near as good as having a real CD that I can actually own, and reliably play for years to come.

 

ok, pardon my misinterpretation.

you know how it is, word-based forum, semantics, people misunderstand what you wrote, etc etc

carry on then.

 

I understand the two bands I mentioned would not want to give up their listeners on streaming music services, but they gotta (especially Lars from Metallica) just gotta be annoyed at how little they are making from these services. I know these two bands have multi-millions, but what will happen when the Stones stop the touring money making machine (likely to happen in the next ten years) and physical media and downloads have been pushed out of the market by streaming. It would be scary if their only future royalties were the pittance from streaming services.

 

In the Stones case how old do you think they are going to live to be?? If touring stops in 10 years I am sure they will have enough to live out their final few years (months?) on what they’ve made and not be concerned about the lack of money from streaming.

 

the Stones made their money already.

I dont know how wealthy they are, but they are never again going to enjoy the fabulous wonderfulness of the van tour and two to a room at the motel 6.

 

The question is of course if they are really making that little from streaming. Based on Spotify streams Nothing Else Matters (which seems to be their most popular song there with ~361 million streams) has made them ~$1.6 million alone (based on a payout rate of $0.00437 per stream). And those 13.5 million listeners each month also bring in a steady stream of cash, especially when they listen to more than 1 song. So for them it's not a pittance. The situation might be different of course for an artist who only has 15,000 streams, which Billboard counts as just 10 albums sold.

 

I can see the following scenario happening (if it hasn't already). Artists has an exclusive deal with Spotify or Pandora making an album ONLY available on the streaming service. No physical media or download.

 

Perhaps, and the market as it exists today will simply die.

I think more likely, they'll retain boutique releases. For example the Jethro Tull reissues are truly special what the books. The Dylan sets are fantastic too. I can see those types of releases continuing. Take the latest Tangerine Dream box, or the Be Bop Deluxe boxes, having those stream only robs them of a lot, imo.

 

I don't know, I find such comments a little asinine. Who are we to tell the Stones (or whoever), "You've already made your money,"? It's their writing, their performance, their music. They deserve to be paid for it yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

 

And they will be. Besides royalties from streaming, CD sales, publishing, and t-shirts and coffee mugs with the lips and tongue logo on them, every time a Stones song is used in a movie like this one, Mick and Keith at least will continue to get paid.

 

The people who run the Dylan Bootleg Series have been talking about wanting to get the Time Out Of Mind box set out before physical releases of the Bootleg Series are discontinued. They’re clearly at least considering a streaming-only future. The last two Beach Boys archival releases were streaming- and download-only. McCartney’s Flowers In The Dirt Archive Edition had a download-only component.

 

I know, but that kind of goes to the point of how music is devalued in modern society. As I said, I still think the price is a little high, then and now, and I have nothing against streaming, but it does make that point salient.

 

good point...

 

Ok, here come the charts. This first one is the gross revenue of the music industry. This data is from the RIAA's own website. This is all adjusted for inflation so it's in constant dollars:



The big orange hump was the CD boom, and that was mostly due to the record industry selling everybody the same music they already own on LP and cassette. But if you look over on the right, which is the number for 2018, you'll see that it's actually higher than 1982 and 1983.

And - and this is the most important part - most of this money is made without manufacturing, shipping, stocking or returning physical product. All they do is upload a file onto a server.

Again this is the record industries own data.

The other thing is is the record companies bought into the streaming services early on and put rules in the place that benefit themselves. Look at this chart. See that big green section that's three-quarters of the money? That's what goes to the record companies.



The artist got locked into bad compensation from streaming because of the rules put in place by the record company co-owners. They didn't specifically agree to this, but the language in the original contract covered every possible method of distribution ever invented until the heat death of the universe.

 

Amount spent worldwide on each leisure category in 2018:

TV: $300 billion
Video Gaming: $138 billion
Movie Tickets: $41 billion
Recorded Music: $19 billion

The problem music faces today isn’t so much how the pie is divided between streaming and physical media, it’s that music is devalued in the sense that consumers are massively more interested in moving pictures, on both big and small screens, and in video games than they are in music.

In 1970, music was a relatively bigger business because it was the only pre-recorded electronic entertainment you could buy for your home. Once VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, TV on demand, Playstation & XBox, and Netflix were invented, sound can’t compete with pictures + sound.

 

We also hear them complain more, thanks to the Internet.

Not that this is a bad thing or something they shouldn't do. But there could be a perception that there's a bigger problem than there used to be only because you get to hear these opinions today.

 

30 million plays on Spotify generates roughly $120.000 in total payout from Spotify.

If you (as the example in the video) are left with just $750 of that you should probably point the finger at someone else than Spotify.

 

This is largely ignored in these discussions. Making real money (comparable to a full time job or more) from music has never, ever been the norm. Even back in the so-called golden days this only happened to a tiny subset of every musician/recording released.

The vast majority of everything ever released has never made any money to speak of.

 

All these artists keep blaming Spotify, when the actual people ripping them off for the record labels, same as always. If I were a young artist there's no way I would sign with a label.

 

Here's the source for the second chart in my previous post:

Yes, Major Record Labels Are Keeping Nearly All The Money They Get From Spotify, Rather Than Giving It To Artists

 

Brilliant

 

I'm a musician. I can't afford £10 a month for Spotify.