|
Post by EmRR on Oct 29, 2020 14:42:20 GMT -6
I noticed a former client with the following streams on Spotify for 3 songs:
69M 26M 23M
These songs were not hits. I can't find that they were placed in films or TV. I get nothing that explains it when I google them by band and title.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,013
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Oct 29, 2020 14:45:54 GMT -6
I noticed a former client with the following streams on Spotify for 3 songs: 69M 26M 23M These songs were not hits. I can't find that they were placed in films or TV. I get nothing that explains it when I google them by band and title. Even in the good old days of radio there was a lot nobody could explain, an old PD I knew called it the 12 year old girl factor.
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 14:51:27 GMT -6
I noticed a former client with the following streams on Spotify for 3 songs: 69M 26M 23M These songs were not hits. I can't find that they were placed in films or TV. I get nothing that explains it when I google them by band and title. If they were "hits" they would be in the 200M+ category at the very least. That amount of streams is a result of making records that appeal to the streaming era. Today it is NOT about getting your song on a TV show or a film (unless you're a composer for hire of course), or the ancient car radio. The money in modern record making is in making things that appeal to what is being playlisted. Where Billions and millions of listeners are actively steered every. single. day.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 29, 2020 15:49:20 GMT -6
The streamers still whine about not being able to turn a profit...and that’s with paying out only 10% to the creators. But when an impression is worth (supposedly) .005 cents, that is only .0005 cents split between the writers and publishers. That’s $500 per million. Got a publisher? Now you have at least $250. Got a co—writer? No you’ve got $125. How many independent artists ever even sniff one million impressions? This is not a living wage for intellectual property. Especially when songwriters (in the US) don’t have the right to negotiate pricing or the ability to withhold their music. The owners of the masters control that. (Labels) Many do. There are also many independent labels that indie artists are under that do pretty well. With streaming its all about playlists. If you're not making music that can fit into a playlist that people are interested in, if you're music is too different or old sounding, you're gonna have a bad time. That's where the streaming market is today. "Bedroom pop" for example. There are countless bedroom pop/laptop producer artists who make this shoegaze shit and they're making tons of money because that's whats "in" and trendy as far as streaming goes. But if you're on the other side of that and not within the margin of what's popular right now or being playlisted, you're not getting any help from Spotify and you're probably not gonna make anything.
So I should change what I write to make money. Ok. Good talk. The truth is, that independent might be making a decent wage - but you’ve heard of marketing, right? That costs money. Just found this tunemunk.com/spotify-royalty-calculator/So - 1,000,000 = $4000 to be split between all publishers and songwriters. That’s not enough. Period. And I guess why it gets me hot is that saying “you’re just not writing the right music if you’re getting screwed” is akin to saying “if you didn’t want that guy to feel you up you shouldn’t have worn that skirt.” Regardless of whether someone buys my music, We should be paid a fair wage.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,013
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Oct 29, 2020 15:57:10 GMT -6
Many do. There are also many independent labels that indie artists are under that do pretty well. With streaming its all about playlists. If you're not making music that can fit into a playlist that people are interested in, if you're music is too different or old sounding, you're gonna have a bad time. That's where the streaming market is today. "Bedroom pop" for example. There are countless bedroom pop/laptop producer artists who make this shoegaze shit and they're making tons of money because that's whats "in" and trendy as far as streaming goes. But if you're on the other side of that and not within the margin of what's popular right now or being playlisted, you're not getting any help from Spotify and you're probably not gonna make anything.
So I should change what I write to make money. Ok. Good talk. The truth is, that independent might be making a decent wage - but you’ve heard of marketing, right? That costs money. Independents were making money from heavy touring and merch. Now ....
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 29, 2020 15:58:26 GMT -6
So I should change what I write to make money. Ok. Good talk. The truth is, that independent might be making a decent wage - but you’ve heard of marketing, right? That costs money. Independents were making money from heavy touring and merch. Now .... Right. Prior to Rona, that was about the only way to return your investment.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,013
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Oct 29, 2020 16:02:46 GMT -6
Many do. There are also many independent labels that indie artists are under that do pretty well. With streaming its all about playlists. If you're not making music that can fit into a playlist that people are interested in, if you're music is too different or old sounding, you're gonna have a bad time. That's where the streaming market is today. "Bedroom pop" for example. There are countless bedroom pop/laptop producer artists who make this shoegaze shit and they're making tons of money because that's whats "in" and trendy as far as streaming goes. But if you're on the other side of that and not within the margin of what's popular right now or being playlisted, you're not getting any help from Spotify and you're probably not gonna make anything.
So I should change what I write to make money. Ok. Good talk. The truth is, that independent might be making a decent wage - but you’ve heard of marketing, right? That costs money. Just found this tunemunk.com/spotify-royalty-calculator/So - 1,000,000 = $4000 to be split between all publishers and songwriters. That’s not enough. Period. And I guess why it gets me hot is that saying “you’re just not writing the right music if you’re getting screwed” is akin to saying “if you didn’t want that guy to feel you up you shouldn’t have worn that skirt.” Regardless of whether someone buys my music, We should be paid a fair wage. To an extent we all change what we do to make money, the question we all have to ask is how much are we willing to change to make x amount of money? At what point do we find a new way to make a living? I know people in almost every profession who have asked this same question.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 29, 2020 16:03:04 GMT -6
I noticed a former client with the following streams on Spotify for 3 songs: 69M 26M 23M These songs were not hits. I can't find that they were placed in films or TV. I get nothing that explains it when I google them by band and title.
Nice but he does not get paid per stream!!
If he got the average 0,0038 cent per stream - this would make money. The streaming platforms use a pro rata calculation and this makes this way under MW....
Ask your client how much money he made - and you will start to cry.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 29, 2020 16:03:08 GMT -6
Like I said earlier, the only way I see this really working is for there to be a minimum wage paid to content creators. It will have to come from Washington. We would have to be lucky and have someone in office who gets the whole picture that has the clout to do something about it.
Right now the major streaming services pay a lot of money to Lobby to keep their rates low.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Oct 29, 2020 16:06:23 GMT -6
I noticed a former client with the following streams on Spotify for 3 songs: 69M 26M 23M These songs were not hits. I can't find that they were placed in films or TV. I get nothing that explains it when I google them by band and title.
Nice but he does not get paid per stream!!
If he got the average 0,0038 cent per stream - this would make money. The streaming platforms use a pro rata calculation and this makes this way under MW....
Ask your client how much money he made - and you will start to cry.
In fact, they do own it all. There are no biz partners outside of the distribution percentage.
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 16:32:09 GMT -6
So I should change what I write to make money. Ok. Good talk. The truth is, that independent might be making a decent wage - but you’ve heard of marketing, right? That costs money. Just found this tunemunk.com/spotify-royalty-calculator/So - 1,000,000 = $4000 to be split between all publishers and songwriters. That’s not enough. Period. And I guess why it gets me hot is that saying “you’re just not writing the right music if you’re getting screwed” is akin to saying “if you didn’t want that guy to feel you up you shouldn’t have worn that skirt.” Regardless of whether someone buys my music, We should be paid a fair wage. To an extent we all change what we do to make money, the question we all have to ask is how much are we willing to change to make x amount of money? At what point do we find a new way to make a living? I know people in almost every profession who have asked this same question. Exactly. It isn't realistic to expect a living and not adjust according to what is actually practical in order to make that living. I.E - making music that "sells" (figuratively speaking).
Of course everyone does this to different degrees and the point is to find a balance in which you're providing for yourself and still having fun, it's not easy.
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 16:35:48 GMT -6
Nice but he does not get paid per stream!!
If he got the average 0,0038 cent per stream - this would make money. The streaming platforms use a pro rata calculation and this makes this way under MW....
Ask your client how much money he made - and you will start to cry.
In fact, they do own it all. There are no biz partners outside of the distribution percentage. Yup. Not everyone is in slimey 95/5 big label screwed up deals. MANY artists operate within indie labels that have much better deals than what was normal 15 years ago.
69 million streams is about 300K for a non hit song that most people wouldn't even know outside of spotify. If you are making music for the modern age - the pay is not bad, but you have to be actively making music that has a place among whats being given a platform.
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 16:49:05 GMT -6
Many do. There are also many independent labels that indie artists are under that do pretty well. With streaming its all about playlists. If you're not making music that can fit into a playlist that people are interested in, if you're music is too different or old sounding, you're gonna have a bad time. That's where the streaming market is today. "Bedroom pop" for example. There are countless bedroom pop/laptop producer artists who make this shoegaze shit and they're making tons of money because that's whats "in" and trendy as far as streaming goes. But if you're on the other side of that and not within the margin of what's popular right now or being playlisted, you're not getting any help from Spotify and you're probably not gonna make anything.
So I should change what I write to make money. Ok. Good talk. The truth is, that independent might be making a decent wage - but you’ve heard of marketing, right? That costs money. Just found this tunemunk.com/spotify-royalty-calculator/So - 1,000,000 = $4000 to be split between all publishers and songwriters. That’s not enough. Period. And I guess why it gets me hot is that saying “you’re just not writing the right music if you’re getting screwed” is akin to saying “if you didn’t want that guy to feel you up you shouldn’t have worn that skirt.” Regardless of whether someone buys my music, We should be paid a fair wage. It's a balance. I agree it should be more per stream, and it would be nice if it was, but is 30-40% more per sale gonna get OP the result he wanted?
We all know a certain amount of pandering to what is viable in the modern age is required for a career in music. That's just business 101.
Priority should be: 1. does the music you're a part of have a real audience in todays day and age? 2. Are you marketing to the degree it needs and on modern platforms and in ways that are relevant?
Those will be the difference in a career before 30-40% more per sale or stream is, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 29, 2020 17:01:03 GMT -6
I'm not interesting in pandering to a Spotify playlist, not even a little bit. Guess I will go suck my thumb.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 29, 2020 17:07:28 GMT -6
Can someone link a playlist that will give me a good wage so I can hear what’s needed please?
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 17:09:16 GMT -6
I'm not interesting in pandering to a Spotify playlist, not even a little bit. Guess I will go suck my thumb. Do you not pander to whatever job it is that's paying your bills? If you're hired to compose for a TV show are you not pandering to some degree to what the show/director needs when they give you direction rather than do exactly what you want to do?
It's just reality. If you can push the envelope and create the next trend, beautiful. However if your objective is to pay the bills you have to look at what is working. Before this age the question was constantly "what's playing on the radio?"
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 29, 2020 17:17:29 GMT -6
I'm not interesting in pandering to a Spotify playlist, not even a little bit. Guess I will go suck my thumb. Do you not pander to whatever job it is that's paying your bills? If you're hired to compose for a TV show are you not pandering to some degree to what the show/director needs when they give you direction rather than do exactly what you want to do?
It's just reality. If you can push the envelope and create the next trend, beautiful. However if your objective is to pay the bills you have to look at what is working. In the 90's the question was constantly "what's playing on the radio?"
That's not my approach to art at all. That has never been my approach. In your metaphor, I "am" the director. I'd rather make the music I want to make and pay for my life some other way. This thread is not about me though. If the music catches fire, great, if it doesn't, oh well. I'm not terribly interested in the idea of pandering to the least common denominator or doing what's trendy to make a quick buck. The shoe doesn't fit, I can't wear it. I am interested in finding an audience, finding money for the music I do make. That part of the thread I am interested in.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Oct 29, 2020 17:25:21 GMT -6
Do you not pander to whatever job it is that's paying your bills? If you're hired to compose for a TV show are you not pandering to some degree to what the show/director needs when they give you direction rather than do exactly what you want to do?
It's just reality. If you can push the envelope and create the next trend, beautiful. However if your objective is to pay the bills you have to look at what is working. In the 90's the question was constantly "what's playing on the radio?"
That's not my approach to art at all. That has never been my approach. In your metaphor, I "am" the director. I'd rather make the music I want to make and pay for my life some other way. This thread is not about me though. If the music catches fire, great, if it doesn't, oh well. I'm not terribly interested in the idea of pandering to the least common denominator or doing what's trendy to make a quick buck. The shoe doesn't fit, I can't wear it. I am interested in finding an audience, finding money for the music I do make. That part of the thread I am interested in. Agreed 100%. Pandering is boring.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,013
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Oct 29, 2020 17:31:26 GMT -6
Do you not pander to whatever job it is that's paying your bills? If you're hired to compose for a TV show are you not pandering to some degree to what the show/director needs when they give you direction rather than do exactly what you want to do?
It's just reality. If you can push the envelope and create the next trend, beautiful. However if your objective is to pay the bills you have to look at what is working. In the 90's the question was constantly "what's playing on the radio?"
That's not my approach to art at all. That has never been my approach. In your metaphor, I "am" the director. I'd rather make the music I want to make and pay for my life some other way. This thread is not about me though. If the music catches fire, great, if it doesn't, oh well. I'm not terribly interested in the idea of pandering to the least common denominator or doing what's trendy to make a quick buck. The shoe doesn't fit, I can't wear it. I am interested in finding an audience, finding money for the music I do make. That part of the thread I am interested in. What we are saying is that in the non art world most of us have made compromises to get to where we are or in my case I guess were at so why is art different? I know it’s one of those deep moral questions but to some extent it’s a question we have to ask if we are going to go down this road. This is also the function the label and the single played in the good old days.
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 17:34:12 GMT -6
Do you not pander to whatever job it is that's paying your bills? If you're hired to compose for a TV show are you not pandering to some degree to what the show/director needs when they give you direction rather than do exactly what you want to do?
It's just reality. If you can push the envelope and create the next trend, beautiful. However if your objective is to pay the bills you have to look at what is working. In the 90's the question was constantly "what's playing on the radio?"
That's not my approach to art at all. That has never been my approach. In your metaphor, I "am" the director. I'd rather make the music I want to make and pay for my life some other way. This thread is not about me though. If the music catches fire, great, if it doesn't, oh well. I'm not terribly interested in the idea of pandering to the least common denominator or doing what's trendy to make a quick buck. The shoe doesn't fit, I can't wear it. I am interested in finding an audience, finding money for the music I do make. That part of the thread I am interested in. If you can't make music that fulfills you while simultaneously having a place in today's market than that's a different problem (and a pretty big one). I don't feel that way, as I know of many modern flourishing artists whom inspire me that make very inspiring and great records. Look at Tame Impala, headlined coachella 2 years ago. Or Childish Gambino - Redbone. 700M streams (2016) Great music.
And while you're response sounds honorable, not being mindful of what is being given a platform is something that hardly any huge artist in the past has done before. Paul McCartney was a genius marketer. He cared about what people wanted to listen to and that wasn't a bad thing. We must adjust and find our balance between the art side of things and the business side, ESPECIALLY, if you are you're own "director" as you put it.
The key is and always will be the balance between these, the "music" and the "business".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 17:35:53 GMT -6
The streamers still whine about not being able to turn a profit...and that’s with paying out only 10% to the creators. But when an impression is worth (supposedly) .005 cents, that is only .0005 cents split between the writers and publishers. That’s $500 per million. Got a publisher? Now you have at least $250. Got a co—writer? No you’ve got $125. How many independent artists ever even sniff one million impressions? This is not a living wage for intellectual property. Especially when songwriters (in the US) don’t have the right to negotiate pricing or the ability to withhold their music. The owners of the masters control that. (Labels) Many do. There are also many independent labels that indie artists are under that do pretty well. With streaming its all about playlists. If you're not making music that can fit into a playlist that people are interested in, if you're music is too different or old sounding, you're gonna have a bad time. That's where the streaming market is today. "Bedroom pop" for example. There are countless bedroom pop/laptop producer artists who make this shoegaze shit and they're making tons of money because that's whats "in" and trendy as far as streaming goes. But if you're on the other side of that and not within the margin of what's popular right now or being playlisted, you're not getting any help from Spotify and you're probably not gonna make anything.
In many genres, to get on the featured playlist is outright payola. You pay off someone to do it. Or you pay someone to pay someone. That's why you see some of the most insipid crap on the Spotify and Bandcamp lists. While some of the coolest punk, electronic, and metal stuff has under 100 bandcamp sales or is only available as a cd or lp from some distro and you have to wait 3 months to get it with the Trump Post Office. Or it's in another country and you're not going to hear it legally under Louis DeJoy at all.
Legendary bands have released stuff and it's not on featured playlsits in favor of ripoffs of ripoffs of ripoffs. The originator of the style, who typically was distributed or even on a major label, is left off them for their new material. The super popular old material, super popular offline with people old enough to own record and cd players, is not the most popular for the style online often, even if in the real world, they're the only act "who count" for that style and nobody else comes close to their lifetime physical sales, distribution, and influence. It's WTF. And yes some of the craziest stuff got on major labels in the 90s and early 00s. Bands whom would you never expect to see. A lot of the older acts crush it on YouTube but that doesn't mean that much. Lots of middle-aged to 60 something guys only stream on Youtube, which tends pay out the worst of the services that do pay out.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 29, 2020 17:55:24 GMT -6
We used to call it "selling out" and it wasn't a good thing. Not in my world, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 18:00:25 GMT -6
We used to call it "selling out" and it wasn't a good thing. Not in my world, anyway. Ugh...
Plenty of the most respected artists of all time let what is popular influence their art, much amazing music has come out of it. It isn't sacrilege. It's actually common.
And to be honest this thread was about making a living in the modern age. Not realizing your dream only the exact way you envisioned it without compromise. If you haven't compromised in some way, I doubt you make your living off of music.
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Oct 29, 2020 18:24:29 GMT -6
Don’t some songwriters sorta do both? Write songs with an ear on the “market” and what they think will be popular and write stuff that makes them “happy”? John Hiatt immediately comes to my mind. Didn’t he jokingly say he wrote “Perfectly Good Guitar” because he wanted a new boat?
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 29, 2020 18:42:30 GMT -6
Don’t some songwriters sorta do both? Write songs with an ear on the “market” and what they think will be popular and write stuff that makes them “happy”? John Hiatt immediately comes to my mind. Didn’t he jokingly say he wrote “Perfectly Good Guitar” because he wanted a new boat? The better question really is who doesn’t?
|
|