Very interesting read regarding streaming services.

[ambient]

Posted on Facebook earlier.

[url="https://medium.com/@Innerviews/the-finger-s-on-the-self-destruct-button-8502f3cc4b5c"]https://medium.com/@Innerviews/the-finger-s-on-the-self-destruct-button-8502f3cc4b5c[/url]

[Damonjames]

I don't see them collapsing...

The sad reality is that until listeners begin to once again place a value on music, the payment for it will continue to fall.

[Guest Jecklin]

An interesting read.

I'm still undecided as to how useful streaming is full stop for niche or as they term them in the article cult bands.

Not getting money from plays is OK as long as you can turn the listeners into a fan or some kind of direct subscriber in a different way.

[cheddatom]

When we release a CD, it's put up for sale on itunes, amazon etc. but it's also added to these streaming services at the same time. I'm pretty sure we've made more off streaming than we have off downloads

...but we make more money flogging physical products at gigs, which I guess is the same for most smaller bands without financial backing. I don't see a big problem

[Guest Jecklin]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1436368042' post='2817582']
...I'm pretty sure we've made more off streaming than we have off downloads

...but we make more money flogging physical products at gigs, which I guess is the same for most smaller bands without financial backing. I don't see a big problem
[/quote]

That's interesting cheddatom, good to hear.
If I could enable a way for people who would stream my music to come to my gigs I would regard it as a very worthwhile exercise.

At the moment they are 2 separate audiences

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='Damonjames' timestamp='1436365640' post='2817547']
I don't see them collapsing...

The sad reality is that until listeners begin to once again place a value on music, the payment for it will continue to fall.
[/quote]

Couldn't agree more. It's all very well telling us to opt out of the major commercial services and use Bandcamp or Pledgemusic, but your average punter fears the unfamiliar - they'll look for your music on iTunes or Spotify, or whatever they normally use, and if they can't find it then they'll not bother.

[Subbeh]

Not interested in any of the streaming services until they start paying the artists a fair share. Until that happens I'll keep buying the old fashioned way.

[cheddatom]

It reminds me of the debate over milk prices. People say they care about farmers etc. but they still buy the cheapest pint, and the retailers keep offering it cheaper and cheaper.

Who is really setting the price? And why?

I can't see any real change happening without some form of price regulation, which isn't going to happen in my life time

[Dad3353]

I think musicians should be paid for playing music, not for people listening to it. One doesn't pay every time one looks at an artist's painting or sculpture. Live performance, fine; the audience pays. Recordings should be paid for on a 'one off' basis. To me, all this stuff about 'intellectual property' is a scam. Actors in films get paid for their performance, not for the folks going to the cinema. Yes, I was a professional musician for some years. It's become a cow for milking, imo, where folks get money even when sitting by the pool or doing their shopping. An unpopular view, I know, but there it is.

[AntLockyer]

I'm on my last month of Spotify premium. I'm going to start using Bandcamp and spending the £10 a month on there instead.

[smaz]

[quote name='Damonjames' timestamp='1436365640' post='2817547']
The sad reality is that until listeners begin to once again place a value on music, the payment for it will continue to fall.
[/quote]

This.

I've been a spotify premium members for a few years now. How much of that money has made it to artists, I don't know.

But, because I listened to Jamiroquai on there, it said I might like Brother Strut. I gave them a listen, and from then have bought 6 tickets to 3 different gigs (+ convinced someone else to get tickets to a show), and bought their album from them when I last saw them (so they got the money). Without spotify, I'd probably not have discovered them. So looking at spotify individually, they've made nothing from me - but because of it, they've gained more.

[Raymondo]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1436368042' post='2817582']
When we release a CD, it's put up for sale on itunes, amazon etc. but it's also added to these streaming services at the same time. I'm pretty sure we've made more off streaming than we have off downloads

...[b]but we make more money flogging physical products at gigs[/b], which I guess is the same for most smaller bands without financial backing. I don't see a big problem
[/quote]

I wondered if this was the case....

I recently acted as "sound engineer" at a gig,five acts (all just guitar vocalists) doing covers and originals.

Every one of them had business cards telling you about their Facebook page and streaming sites,not one of them had a cd to sell.


I would have bought a couple and the audience was,shall we say,similarly elderly? so I am sure a few more could have been sold too.

[ambient]

Something else interesting - http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/04/portishead-made-just-2500-off-34-million-streams/

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1436370859' post='2817615']
I think musicians should be paid for playing music, not for people listening to it.
[/quote]

So it's OK for the tech companies who run streaming services to make money out of it but not the people who actually produce the product that the service is all about?

[Guest Jecklin]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1436375808' post='2817687']
Something else interesting - http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/04/portishead-made-just-2500-off-34-million-streams/
[/quote]

Thanks for posting that.

[SteveK]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1436370859' post='2817615']
I think musicians should be paid for playing music, not for people listening to it. [b]1. One doesn't pay every time one looks at an artist's painting or sculpture[/b]. Live performance, fine; the audience pays. [b]2. Recordings should be paid for on a 'one off' basis.[/b] To me, all this stuff about 'intellectual property' is a scam. [b]3. [/b][b]Actors in films get paid for their performance, not for the folks going to the cinema.[/b] Yes, I was a professional musician for some years. It's become a cow for milking, imo, where folks get money even when sitting by the pool or doing their shopping. An unpopular view, I know, but there it is.
[/quote]
1. if you want to look at an artists painting or sculpture in the comfort of your own home, then you most certainly will pay.
2. How much? And by whom?
3. Not true, many actors will negotiate a % of the box office.

[ambient]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1436370859' post='2817615']
I think musicians should be paid for playing music, not for people listening to it. One doesn't pay every time one looks at an artist's painting or sculpture. Live performance, fine; the audience pays. Recordings should be paid for on a 'one off' basis. To me, all this stuff about 'intellectual property' is a scam. Actors in films get paid for their performance, not for the folks going to the cinema. Yes, I was a professional musician for some years. It's become a cow for milking, imo, where folks get money even when sitting by the pool or doing their shopping. An unpopular view, I know, but there it is.
[/quote]

If a song is played on the radio, Radio 1 or Radio 2 whatever. Then both the songwriter and and band (including the musicians playing on the session), get a royalty paid to them.

So what's the difference between that and someone listening via a streaming service ?

This is a screenshot of my CD Baby payments page. The amount I get varies enormously from as little as $0.0008 per play, to as much (sarcastically) as $0.010 per play. They owe me 42 pence, which I'm unable to withdraw, because it's below the withdrawal limit, kind of annoying, how many other 42 pences are they sitting on I wonder ?

[attachment=195908:Screen Shot 2015-07-08 at 19.50.16.png]

[Dad3353]

I know it's controversial here, but that's my point of view ...

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1436378408' post='2817727']
So it's OK for the tech companies who run streaming services to make money out of it but not the people who actually produce the product that the service is all about?

[color=#800080]Those that are working deserve to be paid. Those that have finished working deserve their rest. The musician is playing..? Pay him/her. The musician is at home watching TV..? Paid for what..? So no, the people that made the product should have already been paid for it at the start, not at every play/download/whatever.[/color]
[/quote]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1436381919' post='2817768']
1. if you want to look at an artists painting or sculpture in the comfort of your own home, then you most certainly will pay.

[color=#800080]Not once I've bought the painting. If friends come around, or if I want to hang it in my shop window, as decoration, I don't have to pay extra. Other folks get to appreciate it, maybe even increase the artist's renown, but no-one pays to look at it once the work is finished.[/color]

2. How much? And by whom?

[color=#800080]Whatever time is spent doing it, and by the record company. How do extras on films get paid, and by whom..?[/color]

3. Not true, many actors will negotiate a % of the box office.

...[color=#800080] and a great many more will not. I don't think that that's a decent system, no more than royalties. If you're working, you get paid. If you're not, you don't, same as any other job. Train drivers..? Milkmen..? Shop assistants..? What's the difference..?[/color]

[/quote][quote name='ambient' timestamp='1436381987' post='2817769']
If a song is played on the radio, Radio 1 or Radio 2 whatever. Then both the songwriter and and band (including the musicians playing on the session), get a royalty paid to them.

[color=#800080]And there's the rub. I don't think that royalties should exist in the first place. Being paid when one is no longer working doesn't square with my idea of a fair, just, moral world. I know that's the current situation; that doesn't alter my opinion.[/color]

So what's the difference between that and someone listening via a streaming service ?

[color=#800080]No difference. No royalties, for radio plays nor streaming. Live performance, whether streamed or broadcast..? The musicians should, of course, be paid, exactly like any other public concert.[/color]

...
[/quote]

Edited July 8, 2015 by Dad3353

[BigRedX]

Dad - your argument is full of holes. You say that musicians should only be paid while they are working? So a musician gets paid for the time they are playing a gig or laying down tracks in a recording studio, but not at other times - is that correct?

Well you've essentially priced every musician who isn't playing large venues or selling hundreds of thousands of copies of their work out of the market or reduced them to being solely hobbyists playing for the few scraps that might be thrown their way.

And what about the record companies and streaming services is it OK for them to continue making money off selling copies of the musicians' work and making a nice profit from it when the musicians themselves have to accept a one off payment and like it or lump it?

IMO you can't hold those views and in good conscience also be a moderator of musicians' forum.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1436387397' post='2817828']
Dad - your argument is full of holes. You say that musicians should only be paid while they are working? So a musician gets paid for the time they are playing a gig or laying down tracks in a recording studio, but not at other times - is that correct?

Well you've essentially priced every musician who isn't playing large venues or selling hundreds of thousands of copies of their work out of the market or reduced them to being solely hobbyists playing for the few scraps that might be thrown their way.

And what about the record companies and streaming services is it OK for them to continue making money off selling copies of the musicians' work and making a nice profit from it when the musicians themselves have to accept a one off payment and like it or lump it?

IMO you can't hold those views and in good conscience also be a moderator of musicians' forum.
[/quote]

In view of the last sentence, I shan't be contributing further to this topic. My conscience is my own. There are none so deaf as those that do not wish to hear.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Dad3353

[SteveK]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1436385310' post='2817808']
[color=#800080]The musician is playing..? Pay him/her. The musician is at home watching TV..? Paid for what..? So no, the people that made the product should have already been paid for it at the start, not at every play/download/whatever.[/color]
[/quote]
OK, so as I understand it, Dad3353 is saying that all musicians, agents, managers, record company execs etc should be paid an hourly rate. I'm guessing that after these hourly rates have been paid, any profits goes to the state

[Roland Rock]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1436396153' post='2817907']

OK, so as I understand it, Dad3353 is saying that all musicians, agents, managers, record company execs etc should be paid an hourly rate. I'm guessing that after these hourly rates have been paid, any profits goes to the state
[/quote]

I'm off for a practice - who do I invoice?

[wateroftyne]

Dad3353 - I don't understand your argument.

Generally speaking, while a musician is recording, they're investing money, and probably not getting paid during the process.

The reason being is that they're making an investment in that recording, which will hopefully generate some income.

That's not an unreasonable concept.

[Lw.]

I had to stop reading that original article after the first paragraph, everything in it is simply not true.

The streaming services are being pushed by the music companies (including indies) not technology firms, the royalties are actually quite simple if you have the slightest clue how the industry works (I think it's the tiny size of the payments that people can't seem to get their head around) & "times" in general aren't any more complicated for musicians than any other time; write songs, play songs.

My thoughts on streaming services in general; I think they're doing everything they can - they're being bent over a barrel by the large rights holders financially & then blamed for the size of the artist payments. Sure, it'd be nice if musicians were getting paid more than they are but the money has to come from somewhere & the market has kind of stabilized at £10 a month for streaming. And for the record I'm a premium Spotify subscriber.

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1436381987' post='2817769']
If a song is played on the radio, Radio 1 or Radio 2 whatever. Then both the songwriter and and band (including the musicians playing on the session), get a royalty paid to them.

So what's the difference between that and someone listening via a streaming service ?

This is a screenshot of my CD Baby payments page. The amount I get varies enormously from as little as $0.0008 per play, to as much (sarcastically) as $0.010 per play. They owe me 42 pence, which I'm unable to withdraw, because it's below the withdrawal limit, kind of annoying, how many other 42 pences are they sitting on I wonder ?

[attachment=195908:Screen Shot 2015-07-08 at 19.50.16.png]
[/quote]

It is all very speculative, but this could become the new model for the equivalent of radio payments. Radio 1 pays about £40 a play. This will go out to around 4 million listeners. Effectively this means you get 0.001p per listen.

The big difference is that radio gets to a wider audience who haven't chosen to listen to that track, whereas spotify will make suggestions. Long term this could become a viable model for musicians, and is certainly better than the blatant piracy that kicked the whole problem off in the first place.