Is Spotify stealing artists money?

[ZEN MISTER]

Van Dyke Parks said something to the effect that 30 years ago, if he contributed one track to a Ringo album. It would buy a new car, but sum total of streaming of his music that year was IIRC , something akin to $700.

Streaming with its aggregate pay model is a blight on music .

 Buy, don't rent 

Billy

[mrbuzzardstubble]

I remember when this new technology emerged quite a few years ago, people were cock-a-hoop that finally artists were free from the clutches of the rapacious record companies. The old days don't look so bad now do they?

[metal beat]

1 hour ago, ZEN MISTER said:

Van Dyke Parks said something to the effect that 30 years ago, if he contributed one track to a Ringo album. It would buy a new car, but sum total of streaming of his music that year was IIRC , something akin to $700.

Streaming with its aggregate pay model is a blight on music .

 Buy, don't rent 

Billy

 

Can you blame the streaming companies,  or the consumers who no longer want to " buy " songs, let alone albums.

  Most consumers want music for free,  or as close to it as possible. 

 

  And now we have record companies doing their best to kill the vinyl comeback by milking the prices completely. 

 

 Be careful what we wish for. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by metal beat

[POV]

18 hours ago, betty boop said:

i am trying to remember which artist it was that in an interview said in this day and age you make a pittance off the streaming platforms... and the album sales are not where make money any more soo where they actually make money is in shows and merchandise... thats what brings in the cash and why shows also cost as much as what they are .. and the merchandise costs what it is 

 

its just the way world is going ... even though we do go to shows we can , we cant afford to go to many of the shows these days ... thats if can even get a ticket .. whcih are usually sell outs .. so folks are paying that i guess ... 

 

i'll keep buying physical media as i can... and pay our apple music subscription which no doubt pays its artists a similar pittance ... 

 

Yeah..it's interesting hearing perspectives from some newer and emerging artists where they essentially consider Spotify as a means to an end, to get their music out their and to advertise their live shows.  I'm not by any means endorsing Spotify's approach to royalties, just that as a part of this discussion, the best thing you can possibly do to support artists you love is turn up to live shows and buy merch.

 

There's an alternative version of this discussion where you talk about people not showing up to live shows, do they not care about artists in the same vein as people usin spotify indiscriminately and not caring?  Well it's different, but the chain of logic can be applied in my view.  I've been to live shows from touring international artists recently in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane that haven't sold out in small or medium sized venues.

Edited November 27, 2023 by POV

[POV]

17 hours ago, ZEN MISTER said:

Van Dyke Parks said something to the effect that 30 years ago, if he contributed one track to a Ringo album. It would buy a new car, but sum total of streaming of his music that year was IIRC , something akin to $700.

Streaming with its aggregate pay model is a blight on music .

 Buy, don't rent 

Billy

 

Every time this comes up I always say some variation of the same thing.  I have discovered more new music in the last few years via streaming services than I did in the 2 decades that preceeded it (before I was seriously using streaming services).  Often when I discover an artist or album that I really like I will purchase physical media (CD, LP or both) or pay for a digital copy.  Also I go to live shows whenver I can and I actually buy quite a bit of merchandise as well.  If not for streaming services then chances are that these bands would never have seen a dime of my money.

 

You're saying they are a blight, I see it very differently.  Certainly the revenue sharing models need review, and I for one would be very happy to pay more for streaming service subscriptions if it improved flow through of revenue to artists.

[rantan]

17 hours ago, metal beat said:

 

Can you blame the streaming companies,  or the consumers who no longer want to " buy " songs, let alone albums

 

Definitely yes.

If is not far from theft.

17 hours ago, metal beat said:

Most consumers want music for free,  or as close to it as possible. 

I agree but what I cannot comprehend is why people expect free music. I wonder what would happen if they visited their local bakery and wanted bread for 5 cents per loaf ( or even free ).

Of course that scenario can be described as absurd, but not paying for music is pretty much the same.

Just for balance I acknowledge and congratulate @POV for his efforts  in supporting live music and the bands themselves.

 

I am in the unfortunate position of not being able to afford attendance at major gigs by major bands, but I do attend smaller ( free or low cost) gigs and 99% of the time buy the CD or LP and merch.

[Demondes]

2 hours ago, POV said:

Every time this comes up I always say some variation of the same thing.  I have discovered more new music in the last few years via streaming services than I did in the 2 decades that preceeded it (before I was seriously using streaming services).  Often when I discover an artist or album that I really like I will purchase physical media (CD, LP or both) or pay for a digital copy.  Also I go to live shows whenver I can and I actually buy quite a bit of merchandise as well.  If not for streaming services then chances are that these bands would never have seen a dime of my money.

I Think in some ways streaming is simply doing what "free" FM radio did in the 70s to the 90's, but in both a better and worse way at the same time.   Also note FM radio was/is "free"

 

 

Better because as @POV states you come across a lot more new artists and music now via streaming than in the days of FM Radio where a select Cartel chose the winners and losers and only promoted a limited number of artists and songs to achieve that "smash hit" single or album.  Some of my bug bears with 80's and 90's FM radio in Sydney (TripleM looking at you)

1. whilst i understood why there was heavy rotation of new songs, you could almost set your watch time accurately as say Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" would always come on at 4pm

2. When stations got into playing classic hits from bands such as the Rolling Stones etc they would always play the same 3-4 songs, totally ignoring a huge back catalogue of equally good songs.  So you end with classic songs such as Bohemian Rhapsody (Queen) Eagles (Hotel California)  that I could not listen to for many years, even though I originally enjoyed them.

 

The bad side of streaming, FM radio offered expert curation (more along the lines of Triple J and PBS, ABC Classic etc.) via a presenter/narrator taking you on a musical journey/adventure, I think that longer term magic has been replaced to a degree on streaming by the element of surprise (but this is a somewhat of a short term hollow promise) of algorithms of the platforms (show me artists like X or Y).    Although I must say curation of playlist is more commonplace now than a few years back.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Demondes

[Dingbat]

I have always bought the music of artists I like, and always will, whether that be a physical copy, or a digital copy. Those of us on the thread responding as buyers of physical media, we're probably in the 0.01% of the population who bother to do this. From what I can tell, the only people who care about paying for music from artists are us (HiFi aficionados), musicians, or people involved in the music industry in some way (whether paid or unpaid).

 

Everyone else doesn't give a stuff at all. Just about everybody I know, they don't care. It is really interesting, they will pay for a car, for a house, possibly go to see live music, but as for actually paying for media, it seems to be a case of they don't see the value of it.

 

It doesn't matter what any of us on this thread think, everybody else in the world doesn't give a stuff about this.

 

But I don't know, despite this, all the really tiny, small artists, many of which I rather like, will hopefully find a way to keep on producing music.

[rantan]

14 minutes ago, Dingbat said:

 

Everyone else doesn't give a stuff at all. Just about everybody I know, they don't care. It is really interesting, they will pay for a car, for a house, possibly go to see live music, but as for actually paying for media, it seems to be a case of they don't see the value of it.

 

Very true and this is because we have been progressively conditioned by  large companies that nobody in the future will ever own a copy of the music they love.

Far better for large companies to make super profits selling subscriptions to a music service like Spotify or Amazon where cost of operation is next to nothing and the willing participants paying $15 every month .........forever and yet owning nothing.

 

So now, music has become disposable and musicians are treated like slaves. What I cannot fathom is the collective indifference to musicians and the feeling that music should be free, or perhaps not worthy of any kind of monetary outlay.

 

 

 

[Hydrology]

This is my "2023 Wrapped" banner...

 

[Gee Emm]

Young people (younger than us) see streaming akin to free to air radio.

They don't think about these things.

They don't have the history.

[POV]

19 minutes ago, Gee Emm said:

Young people (younger than us) see streaming akin to free to air radio.

They don't think about these things.

They don't have the history.

But they do turn up to live performances and buy merch.  I have a young adult daughter and her and her friends would go to 50+ live shows per year.

 

It’s worth keeping in mind that most artists make much, much more from touring than they ever will or could make from record sales.

[TerryO]

Latest news from Spotify.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/spotify-lay-17-employees-read-full-memo-ceo-daniel-ek-sent-staff-rcna127868

[Hi-Fi Whipped]

35 minutes ago, TerryO said:

Latest news from Spotify.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/spotify-lay-17-employees-read-full-memo-ceo-daniel-ek-sent-staff-rcna127868

They just keep spreading the love, just in time for Christmas!  

[rantan]

 

I truly wonder how these bean counters sleep at night,although I suppose when one has sold their soul,it is probably easy and not just because of this particular instance.

 

FWIW, (which is probably nothing ) this confluence of evil shall, never receive even one cent of my money.

I do wonder if anyone would ever be sufficiently outraged to adopt the same stance..........................but I already know the answer, which makes it even more lamentable.

[davewantsmoore]

38 minutes ago, rantan said:

but I already know the answer, which makes it even more lamentable.

Is it the consumers responsibility to fix this problem or the artists?

 

Why are artists' lunch getting cut by distribution platforms and record companies?...... I really and truly honestly don't think it is going to stop based on the consumers says so.    Sure, if we all mass-exit Spotify then Spotify will go broke (quicker than they otherwise will) .... but then someone else will come along to cut the lunch of the artists, with a slightly different model.   It ends when the artists do something about it for themselves.

[rantan]

I essentially agree with the above however, emerging or little known artists and bands have no other way to promote themselves on a large scale,so it should be a combination of consumer backlash AND artists advocating for reasonable remuneration.

[davewantsmoore]

23 minutes ago, rantan said:

emerging or little known artists and bands have no other way to promote themselves on a large scale

 

Does an emerging or little known plywood manufacturer have any way to promote themselves on a large scale? ... or is laminex group or Bunnings just "cutting their lunch".

 

26 minutes ago, rantan said:

artists advocating for reasonable remuneration.

No, very much.   This is not at all (IMVHO) the way.

 

Unless artists "take control" of the distribution platforms, and literally set their own renumeration.... then it will never change.

 

"Someone" must create the "open music directory" (or something), and let artists and consumers use it to deal direct.... or artists must charge their own path, ie. take control of their sales and marketing, etc.

 

Otherwise they will remain "employees" of the labels and distribution platforms.... and employees are an "expense".

 

Nobody can fix it other than the person who creates the music... otherwise it will always be "please sir, may I have some more".

 

Hopefully technology enables more business models going forward.

 

[rantan]

2 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

Nobody can fix it other than the person who creates the music... otherwise it will always be "please sir, may I have some more".

 

And it was ever thus.

The difference is now that music theft is abetted  and made easy via technology ( AKA the internet ) and 2/3 of **** all of people  give a schiit anyway.

Edited December 5, 2023 by rantan

[mrbuzzardstubble]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-05/spotify-cuts-1500-jobs-in-rising-costs-third-round-layoffs/103191016

[POV]

7 hours ago, rantan said:

 

I truly wonder how these bean counters sleep at night,although I suppose when one has sold their soul,it is probably easy and not just because of this particular instance.

 

FWIW, (which is probably nothing ) this confluence of evil shall, never receive even one cent of my money.

I do wonder if anyone would ever be sufficiently outraged to adopt the same stance..........................but I already know the answer, which makes it even more lamentable.

You think maybe this is a bit dramatic?  For a business that has historically struggled to make profit, it makes sense for them to look to reduce their cost base.  This is part of doing business.   Yes it sucks for the people impacted but as a business owner I know that if I don’t carefully manage our cost base then I will fail and all of my employees will be impacted.  Can tell you that nothing impacts sleep at night more than the prospect of not being able to cover wages of your employees.  
 

Sounds like so many other tech companies that over hired and found themselves with a bloated workforce and poor productivity.

 

Confluence of evil?   

Edited December 5, 2023 by POV

[POV]

6 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

Does an emerging or little known plywood manufacturer have any way to promote themselves on a large scale? ... or is laminex group or Bunnings just "cutting their lunch".

 

No, very much.   This is not at all (IMVHO) the way.

 

Unless artists "take control" of the distribution platforms, and literally set their own renumeration.... then it will never change.

 

"Someone" must create the "open music directory" (or something), and let artists and consumers use it to deal direct.... or artists must charge their own path, ie. take control of their sales and marketing, etc.

 

Otherwise they will remain "employees" of the labels and distribution platforms.... and employees are an "expense".

 

Nobody can fix it other than the person who creates the music... otherwise it will always be "please sir, may I have some more".

 

Hopefully technology enables more business models going forward.

 

I agree with this, if the objective of the artists is to get improved remuneration from distribution of their music then they should be leading the discussion or voting with their feet.

 

But…it’s also possible that artists acknowledge that the landscape of music revenue has changed and embrace this model and make it work to their advantage.  I have seen some recent interviews from Australian bands that are making the market work for them and they love Spotify and Apple Music…

[LHC]

Things are getting harder for emerging musicians:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-04/australian-live-music-venues-struggling-closing-down/103161974

 

"Australia has lost 1,300 small and mid-sized live music venues since the start of the COVID pandemic, one-third of the entire sector." 

 

"While demand for live music and large gatherings meant performance royalties are higher than ever before — concert income was up 400 per cent — fewer of those royalties were coming from small and mid-sized venues, and that money was going to a smaller pool of performers."

 

"Then there's the unprecedented influx of large-scale international touring acts, contributing to the reality that there's just not enough money to go around."

[LHC]

10 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Hopefully technology enables more business models going forward.

 

It is said that Taylor Swift became a billionaire because she is good at business (or can afford good business advices). It seems artists today have to be more than competent musicians, but excel in business (innovation and marketing) as well. 

[POV]

1 hour ago, LHC said:

Things are getting harder for emerging musicians:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-04/australian-live-music-venues-struggling-closing-down/103161974

 

"Australia has lost 1,300 small and mid-sized live music venues since the start of the COVID pandemic, one-third of the entire sector." 

 

"While demand for live music and large gatherings meant performance royalties are higher than ever before — concert income was up 400 per cent — fewer of those royalties were coming from small and mid-sized venues, and that money was going to a smaller pool of performers."

 

"Then there's the unprecedented influx of large-scale international touring acts, contributing to the reality that there's just not enough money to go around."

Exactly!  Not enough people go to live shows for smaller bands, so demand is down, so venues are closing.  Thats really part of my point, instead of complaining about Spotify take action!