The Truth About Music Streaming

[masterhw]

If streaming services truly don't reward artists... why do the artists list their music?

I think the issue may well be the artists don't use the new medium well enough, convinced that their focus should be on selling "records", and streaming service revenue is regarded as a side thing to make a few pennies on the side. But does it have to be that way?

The contrast with video streaming services that will sell you digital rights to a movie is pretty stark. With music, I go to Spotify and the new album drops on the exact same day the "physical" album becomes available. Which means the streaming version directly competes with the urge to buy a new music album.

With movies, you have to wait months until you can *buy* (or rent) a new movie on Prime or such. And you'll have to wait even longer until it becomes part of the "free tier" with your basic subscription.

Clearly the music industry (or the artists) are not following the best practices that video content distribution models have established. No Hollywood actor b*tches about not getting paid by Amazon or Apple etc etc.

Maybe it should be as easy as... if your fav artist releases a new album, you can only get it as a CD or (maybe) a download (with the d*mn album notes!), but you have to wait for 2 months or so to get it streamed for "free" on Spotify and such.

Labels list the catalogues, and good luck as an artist building an audience without the preeminent way for people to discover you.

For pop and pop adjacent genres anyway, the money hasn’t really been in direct album sales since Napster. More of the income shifted to touring, brand cross promotion, music licensing, etc.
Limiting your reach to those who will purchase traditionally would come at an enormous cost to those other income streams. The (pop) music market is competitive enough you can’t be turning away business like that.

A trend that is taking place is more artists going independent. Marketing and distribution are traditionally what a label brings, but times have changed and artists can do this themselves. Big label artists are expected to put themselves on TikTok anyway, at a point what do you even need the label for.

If there is a change I’d like to see, it’s labels shrinking their share of the pie, as they struggle to remain relevant and justify taking a huge cut of a market they didn’t create. Streaming services aren’t perfect but they have democratized access both for artists to find an audience and vice versa. I can only see that as good.

 

[pablolie]

Labels list the catalogues, and good luck as an artist building an audience without the preeminent way for people discover you.

For pop and pop adjacent genres anyway, the money hasn’t really been in direct album sales since Napster. More of the income shifted to touring, brand cross promotion, music licensing, etc.
Limiting your reach to those who will purchase traditionally would come at an enormous cost to those other income streams. The (pop) music market is competitive enough you can’t be turning away business like that.

A trend that is taking place is more artists going independent. Marketing and distribution are traditionally what a labels brings, but times have changed and artists can do this themselves. Big label artists are expected to put themselves on TikTok anyway, at a point what do you even need the label for.

If there is a change I’d like to see, it’s labels shrinking their share of the pie, as they struggle to remain relevant and justify taking a huge cut of a market they didn’t create. Streaming services aren’t perfect but they have democratized access both for artists to find an audience and vice versa. I can only see that as good.

True - all that.

But what that screams out at me is also the fact many artists are utterly replaceable figure heads these days, they are just the latest flavor used by a successful production chain... and utterly controlled by those.

Touring and live audiences have clearly always been and will always remain a big revenue source, even for artists whose limited talent require them to lipsynch and such.

My point does remain though: I find it odd that the go-to-market for new movies is so different compared to new music. It may simply be music labels recruit dumber than movie studios.

 

[Overseas]

It also works the other way round. I listen first on streaming, then buy the goodies.

 

[pablolie]

It also works the other way round. I listen first on streaming, then buy the goodies.

I also subscribe to that - then again, movies give you a preview to tempt your buying/renting click, while music gives you the whole thing.

I buy several artists' music out of loyalty and because I want to support them... but resent the fact they count on that while giving their stuff away (supposedly) for free elsewhere.

 

[Mart68]

In the past wasn't touring a loss-leader and only done to promote physical album sales?

I paid £8 to see Clapton in 1986 - that's £24 today. Cheapest ticket to see him last year was £87.50

I've seen ticket prices to see 'tribute bands' - not even the real thing! - £35!

This is because touring has had to become a major revenue stream. Thanks to streaming it's now 300% more expensive to see live acts.

And no 'big' act ever plays the medium size venues anymore, the places with good acoustics and small enough to get some sort of intimate experience, you have to go to some ghastly arena or stadium and watch it on giant video screens since the stage is so far away its practically in the next county.

But hey we've got instant access to all the music in the world for £10.99 a month - even though no-one likes everything or has the time to listen to even a fraction of one percent of it, even if they listened full-time for the rest of their lives - but that's still got to be worth all the good things we've sacrificed to get it? No, not really.

 

[masterhw]

But hey we've got instant access to all the music in the world for £10.99 a month - even though no-one likes everything or has the time to listen to even a fraction of one percent of it, even if they listened full-time for the rest of their lives - but that's still got to be worth all the good things we've sacrificed to get it? No, not really.

you think it’s a bad thing to have access to most of the music ever recorded, because it makes seeing your favourite acts live more expensive? perhaps we have differing priorities…

 

[Mart68]

you think it’s a bad thing to have access to most of the music ever recorded, because it makes seeing your favourite acts live more expensive? perhaps we have differing priorities…

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, everyone has always had access to most music, it's just that prior to streaming it wasn't immediate access. You had to go to a store and buy the recording, or order it and wait for it to arrive in the mail - as I still do.

That's really all that's changed. That live performances are now far more expensive to attend as a result is just one of the many sacrifices made on the altar of instant gratification.

 

[Bland_username42069]

Before streaming people did not have access to most music. Record collecting was an incredibly expensive very time consuming business with many 10,000s of records only available to the cognoscenti at considerable expense.

 

[Mart68]

Before streaming people did not have access to most music. Record collecting was an incredibly expensive very time consuming business with many 10,000s of records only available to the cognoscenti at considerable expense.

Of course they had 'access' unless that word has developed a different meaning I'm unaware of. They just were not able to own it all which they don't with streaming in any case since it's just rental.

Since no-one has unlimited time and no-one likes 'all music' it simply isn't necessary to own or rent all of it or even a tiny fraction of all of it.

And the downsides of streaming are multiple, especially once you get into the intangibles.

I'm aware the genie is out of the bottle on this and is never going back in, I just think the 'It's all positive' position some have towards streaming is misguided.

 

[Bland_username42069]

Of course they had 'access' unless that word has developed a different meaning I'm unaware of. They just were not able to own it all which they don't with streaming in any case since it's just rental.

Since no-one has unlimited time and no-one likes 'all music' it simply isn't necessary to own or rent all of it or even a tiny fraction of all of it.

And the downsides of streaming are multiple, especially once you get into the intangibles.

I'm aware the genie is out of the bottle on this and is never going back in, I just think the 'It's all positive' position some have towards streaming is misguided.

I’ve heard 1000s of songs that I could never have found a copy of in a record shop.

 

[Mart68]

I’ve heard 1000s of songs that I could never have found a copy of in a record shop.

A claim that's impossible to prove or disprove.

Obviously music made since the demise of physical formats doesn't count. And if it's from before that period it must have existed on a physical format therefore must have been available to access at some point. The streaming service got a copy of it from somewhere.

 

[Bland_username42069]

A claim that's impossible to prove or disprove.

Obviously music made since the demise of physical formats doesn't count. And if it's from before that period it must have existed on a physical format therefore must have been available to access at some point. The streaming service got a copy of it from somewhere.

No it’s very easy to prove because huge numbers of records were only ever distributed in small locales with tiny print runs.

Hard core collectors of genres will tell you the time, money, and lengths they had to go to get hold of music in the field

 

[Mart68]

No it’s very easy to prove because huge numbers of records were only ever distributed in small locales with tiny print runs.

Hard core collectors of genres will tell you the time, money, and lengths they had to go to get hold of music in the field

So there was access it just wasn't easy access.

Not having things come easy isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is what I mean by the intangibles.

We made a lot of tape copies back in the day, that's how we had to get around problems of availability and expense.

 

[Bland_username42069]

So there was access it just wasn't easy access.

Not having things come easy isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is what I mean by the intangibles.

We made a lot of tape copies back in the day, that's how we had to get around problems of availability and expense.

So there was access it just wasn't easy access.

Not having things come easy isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is what I mean by the intangibles.

We made a lot of tape copies back in the day, that's how we had to get around problems of availability and expense.

There was access to a small amount of people in a small area of the world. If you wanted a copy you had to travel to the source and get on the streets. Record shops and fairs weren’t magic portals.

In the UK if you got into the rarified world of Texas psychedelia or Northern Soul records were jealously guarded so that only a handful of people had copies and these were not disseminated. Even today there are things that have not escaped cliques.

 

[Mart68]

There was access to a small amount of people in a small area of the world. If you wanted a copy you had to travel to the source and get on the streets. Record shops and fairs weren’t magic portals.

In the UK if you got into the rarified world of Texas psychedelia or Northern Soul records were jealously guarded so that only a handful of people had copies and these were not disseminated. Even today there are things that have not escaped cliques.

I think the difference here is that you see that difficulty level only as a negative thing and I see it as both a negative and a positive thing.

If I want venison for tea I just go to the supermarket and buy it (or at least I could if I didn't live in a poor area where the supermarket don't sell it )

I don't need to go out, hunt down a deer, kill it, skin it and gut it. That's both a good thing, and a bad thing.

 

[Peterinvan]

Streaming Compensation To Artists:

ChatGPT estimates that at my three hour a day consumption, Tidal paying the Artist (or is it their label) their average rate of $0.012 per track would cost me $17 a month. I would be willing to pay 50% more per month if Tidal paid a per track fee to my preferred artists. What will be a future without creative and talented musicians?
.

 

[Svarog98]

Streaming Compensation To Artists:

ChatGPT estimates that at my three hour a day consumption, Tidal paying the Artist (or is it their label) their average rate of $0.012 per track would cost me $17 a month. I would be willing to pay 50% more per month if Tidal paid a per track fee to my preferred artists. What will be a future without creative and talented musicians?
.

I hope that we never have to find out what a world without creatives would be. I’m thinking the same about the fee. Streaming services should show with the payment to the artists that it’s them that keep the business running

 

[masterhw]

Streaming Compensation To Artists:

ChatGPT estimates that at my three hour a day consumption, Tidal paying the Artist (or is it their label) their average rate of $0.012 per track would cost me $17 a month. I would be willing to pay 50% more per month if Tidal paid a per track fee to my preferred artists. What will be a future without creative and talented musicians?
.

I’m not sure I understand, Tidal does pay a per track fee. In this case since they’re paying more in fees than your subscription, you’re losing Tidal money.