Spotify Is An Enemy of Sustainable Arts

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Rosskolnikov, Mar 7, 2019.

  1. Rosskolnikov

    Rosskolnikov Designated Cloud Yeller Thread Starter

  2. Devin S

    Devin S What I heard is not what I hear

    From the article:

    In a joint statement, Google, Pandora and Spotify – who are all asking the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the CRB’s recent decision – said: “The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), in a split decision, recently issued the U.S. mechanical statutory rates in a manner that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. “If left to stand, the CRB’s decision harms both music licensees and copyright owners. Accordingly, we are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the decision."

    Google and Pandora are part of this too. I salute Apple for deciding not to join them. The average person probably won't care but as a musician naturally I hope this stupid appeal is shot down.
     
    Tuck1977, tug_of_war, benzo and 16 others like this.
  3. mikem60

    mikem60 Forum Resident

    Location:
    ohio
    Won’t don’t the Artists just refuse to let them use their Music??
     
    Carlox, LarryP, SandAndGlass and 9 others like this.
  4. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Here's the real deal.

    People will sacrifice others and the moral high ground for convenience. Convenience trumps everything. There are millions of users of Spotify who don't care what the artist is getting. There is a small minority who are bothered, and they'll say the right things, but they're still going to use the service because the convenience is just soooo convenient.

    People want cheap. As cheap as possible. We all know that if we're getting something cheap, then someone somewhere is getting shafted, but hey, they're invisible and out of reach, and mostly they're someone else, so what can you do?

    Look, millions of songs are now available, for free, on the Internet. You can hear them at home, and on the move. Coming from the 1960's as I do, this is akin to the opening of Pandora's box. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

    Still, bands can just make money by going on the road, right? Like that's just a matter of getting in the car and going to the local venue, plugging in and having a sing song. $50 a ticket, $70 a ticket, $90 a ticket. Why so much? Well, effectively, you have to subsidize the likes of Spotify, since artists no longer make significant money from music sales.

    And yes, 1% (or less) of the artists make a good living from streaming. But that's akin to saying "Everyone is rich, look at how much money Bill Gates has!"

    Truth.
     
  5. jay.dee

    jay.dee Forum Resident

    Location:
    Barcelona, Spain
    Let's not delude ourselves here - convenience is a frequently used argument in the discussions, but actually it's all about the price. CDs are already convenient, downloads are über-convenient, while the majority of listeners do not need millions of songs in their pocket, because most listen to what they they already like and know.

    The main allure of streaming is its current pricing, either ridiculously low or just free for all. Change the payment model to reflect the actual costs and consumption, and immediately lots of folks hit by the spiralling subscription fees will start to wax nostalgic about physical formats and downloads.

    Most people won't be happy about paying adequate money just for the convenience, so the streaming model is going to be viable only as long as the artists get screwed. And if the artists are to get a fair share, it will have to be extracted from the pockets of streaming platform customers.
     
  6. Bloom

    Bloom You're embarrassing me in front of the wizards

    Because users villify the artist, not Spotify, when their music isn't on there.
     
  7. showtaper

    showtaper Concert Hoarding Bastard

    Artists would be doing much better if the labels weren't taking the majority of the money. I've given up on the bands charging $150+ per ticket. It's not worth it to me. I'm spending that money on bands in smaller venues and buying their music directly from them. I'm getting better value for my dollar and they get to eat..........
     
  8. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    City of Angels
    The labels cut the deals and pocket the cash before the artists have even considered a streaming deal.

    This is the new reality.

    The other reality is that the world has enough songs now - more songs at this point are not worth as much as they were in 1971 or 1975, regardless of the quality.
     
  9. homeslice

    homeslice Forum Resident

    Location:
    london
    Spotify is £9.99 a month, which is absolutely ridiculous for what you get. what is that, 1 cd a month?
    Its much more content choice than you get with a comparable media streaming company like Netflix.

    I'd happily pay double that, but that wouldn't even start to pay artists properly. In reality it should be even more.
     
  10. Exit Flagger

    Exit Flagger Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    This pretty much sums things up.
     
  11. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Southwest
    Of course it is about the price. $10 a month for access to tens of thousands of songs and albums, which would cost consumers up to $50,000 of it were physical product. That is a huge disparity and one that is not sustainable — especially considering the streaming services are paying massive sums in licensing fees. Are people going to to okay paying $50 a month? Because ultimately these subscriptions are going to rise in cost. I’m sure Lefsetz will be thrilled with rising costs and no control over content.
     
  12. Maggie

    Maggie funky but chic

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    My grandmother said the exact same thing to my mother in 1957.
     
  13. stanley00

    stanley00 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nowhere USA
    The article isn't the most objective of sources.
     
  14. Audiowannabee

    Audiowannabee Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I buy music . dont stream . dont / wont give $100 + per month for internet bill.
    Brighthouse / AT&T can bite me.

    Ive spent LOTS of $$$ for discs.
    Blu ray Sacd DVDA and yes even those things called CD s

    My TV has an antenna and theres several redbox machines around the corner.

    My way.
     
    Eric_Generic, Carlox, ted321 and 20 others like this.
  15. seed_drill

    seed_drill Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tryon, NC, USA
    Sure she did.

    The point is that each new release isn't just competing with every other new release, but with a century of recorded content, the last 60+ years of which have been in acceptable fidelity.
     
  16. MikaelaArsenault

    MikaelaArsenault Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I'm hardly even on Spotify anymore.
     
  17. Bloom

    Bloom You're embarrassing me in front of the wizards


    Lol
     
    Dr. Pepper and Drifter like this.
  18. jay.dee

    jay.dee Forum Resident

    Location:
    Barcelona, Spain
    Let's make a quick calculation then.

    Spotify's gross revenue in 2017 was reportedly $4.5 billion, out of which some 45% allegedly got paid out to music labels. That would make $2 billion for 2017.

    Now let's imagine the labels distributed this whole amount evenly among 75K high profile artists, which generated 95% of the streams on Spotify. That would have made some $26K gross yearly per "artist", many of them being actually a group of people.

    It's hardly a working model that could bring the most successful artists any serious money, isn't it? :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
  19. Fastnbulbous

    Fastnbulbous Doubleplus Ungood

    Location:
    Washington DC USA
    Sounds like everyone owes Lars Ulrich an apology.
     
  20. Phil Thien

    Phil Thien Forum Resident

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    It would be interesting to see an analysis of how performers do under CD sales vs streaming. It is my understanding that this same sort of “the artists don’t get anything” argument existed before streaming, when CD sales dominated. That performers made money touring, and CD’s generated demand for those live performances.
     
    angelees, McCool71 and longaway like this.
  21. rebellovw

    rebellovw Forum Resident

    Location:
    Prescott, AZ, USA
    I love Spotify and Pandora. I like the try before you buy model. It sucked in the 70s when you bought a dud - you we’re stuck with it. I also love Hulu Netflix Prime and the others like ShoutTV. :nauga:

    :hide:
     
  22. Former Lee Warmer

    Former Lee Warmer Emotional Rescue

    Location:
    NoBoCoMO
    Well, I want to hear my music?
     
    Nascimento Brasil likes this.
  23. Stone Turntable

    Stone Turntable Dedicated Listener

    Location:
    New Mexico USA
    My small way of fighting back is to buy vinyl/downloads direct from artists I get excited about. Limited color vinyl with lossless files is common and a great deal, and the money actually goes to the artist, and not some Swede trying to lose money and rip off artists until monopoly pricing kicks in.

    (Extra points to the OP for giving Bob Lefsetz a swift kick for his neverending Spotify logrolling.)
     
  24. Former Lee Warmer

    Former Lee Warmer Emotional Rescue

    Location:
    NoBoCoMO
    Yup.

    I love finding great albums in the dollar bin.
     
    Audiowannabee and Fishoutofwater like this.
  25. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Baja Virginia
    I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I think that if the record label still owns the masters (the recordings) then it's up to the record label to to license them or not.

    Even if that's not the case, most artists are faced with a choice between not licensing their music for streaming, and having people stream it for free from unauthorized Youtube videos, or licensing it for a pittance.
     

Share This Page