Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2020 16:47:03 GMT -6
christopher , I’ve run a small tech consulting business for 20+ years in Silicon Valley. The people in Silicon Valley starting these successful companies are wicked smart, have access to amazing capital resources, come from Ivy League schools, and are hungry for success. These people are way smarter than all of us and have all the connections and advantages to boot. I’ve worked along side them and while I’m smart, I’m not that level of smart. I think the train has already left the station in regards to an “artist friendly streaming platform”. The big dogs have lost (investor) money for so many years in order to gain one precious thing: ADOPTION. Once you have mass adoption, then the profits come. I don’t think that anyone with any money to invest is going to fall on their sword for the sake of musicians and songwriters. You would have to lose millions a month for a long time to compete with these guys. That said, some artists have leverage where they could only choose to release on certain fair platforms if they knew about one. Those signed to labels probably don’t have that kind of control. I’ve seen people only releasing on vinyl etc and this idea might be akin to it. "Successful" is the qualifier. Spotify is not financially successful at anything other than moving investor capital into the pockets of its owners, executives, and employees. Many start ups are outright scam that would not survive without continual new investor capital to show their previous investors profitability. That is a ponzi scheme. Adoption means nothing unless you make money from it. The more users they have, the higher their costs. Spotify has millions of users in many countries but nobody pays outside of the US and UK. Why would they? They can't raise the price without losing paying customers. They cook the books to show profitability on paper. Just like Uber and WeWork. These are ponzi schemes supported by low interest rates and bad lending that hurt legitimate businesses trying to eek it out. If Spotify was a record distributor and Uber a cab company, they would be shut down by financial institutions, regulatory agencies, or the competition in the marketplace. Bandcamp and selling records at shows make most artists much more money than Spotify. If you're a songwriter or composer, this isn't an option. Bandcamp is much better than selling all the rights to your recording, which was often the only way many independent acts got a record out at all in the 80s and 90s. Then the label would cook sales figures to not pay any royalties afterwards. The same as today with streaming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2020 17:05:35 GMT -6
Thanks for this topic, it’s really important. I hope you don’t mind me having a little daydream. We here are all pretty smart people who find solutions to problems. Why can’t we solve this problem that tech has given us? Do we start our own musician friendly streaming service? Just bypass the labels, start fresh as new music creators? Here’s some math. Let say a song is 3 minutes.. $0.005 royalty If a user listens: - 24/7: royalties would cost over $72 per user per month. So we can’t have users just letting it run forever, that doesn’t work. - average 3 hours per day: royalties $9 per month. Better. - average 1 hour per day: $3 per month. I think this is doable, but we’d have to charge twice as much to cover running the business. (Hopefully) This gives me an idea: What if the user pays for the royalty themselves? If it only costs a penny to hear your favorite song, knowing it’s helping directly the artist..what true music fan would turn that down? How about we give users tokens.. say 600 jukebox tokens per month: $6.. they could earn more tokens by watching ads, or buy more. The tokens don’t roll over, because we need their monthly pay (I think).. just refill every month. Anyway.. I wish it was as simple as starting a server and making it happen. : [ I think $3/mo is WAY too low.
I think $9/mo is still too low.
$20/mo is about the sweet spot. I think that most people who like music would go for 20, if there was no "free" competition. What has devalued music is the pervasiveness of piracy, be it illegal piracy like Bittorrent or so-called "legal" piracy like Spotify and Pandora. Maybe even more. When I was in college most people I knew spent AT LEAST $20/mo on recorded music and money was worth a lot more back then. Remember, $20/mo was only 2 or 3 albums. Most college kids back then bought at least that many. Many of my friends had a wall of milk crates or the equivalent.
Even $72/mo isn't that bad if you compare it to what people spend on cable TV and internet.
There's nothing to buy for $72 a month now unless you want to buy collectors LP reissues and overpriced 80s CD pressings. The quality of new releases is at an all time low. It's been going down since the mid 90s. I'd say the music industry shot itself with the corporate homogenization of radio, CD price fixing, allowing big box stores to break CD MSRP undercutting record stores, killing the single, focusing on selling "albums" that were one or two hits written by a professional songwriter and the rest filler, and trying to co-opt entire genres into trendy pop music. Napster and BitTorrent were just the heart attack that did them in. Piracy actually drives sales of underground music that there was no way to hear in the 90s unless you randomly bought the one very marked up import copy in an independent record store. I've heard very few artists in the past decade interesting enough to even warrant something like a Peel Session.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 3, 2020 18:03:42 GMT -6
I like Bandcamp. I didn’t realize they have a 3 stream limit per song. That’s great! In my experience there’s only one thing wrong with bandcamp, but there’s an easy fix. The problem is their name. Indie and garage artist might be ok with it, but most people I’ve told won’t even check it out. Clients want to appear professional to people and honestly the word ‘bandcamp’ is word association with school bands, which identifies with amateurs.
All bandcamp has to do is make a sister site (or 10) like many web companies do, all with different names or maybe different genres. Stay away from negative name association. Can even target market better. That way users can use the bandcamp service but it’s more appealing to their taste and style.
If bandcamp could just get a little more popular and crossover into the main genres, it might be the hand that forces the movement
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Feb 3, 2020 18:47:15 GMT -6
I like Bandcamp. I didn’t realize they have a 3 stream limit per song. That’s great! In my experience there’s only one thing wrong with bandcamp, but there’s an easy fix. The problem is their name. Indie and garage artist might be ok with it, but most people I’ve told won’t even check it out. Clients want to appear professional to people and honestly the word ‘bandcamp’ is word association with school bands, which identifies with amateurs. All bandcamp has to do is make a sister site (or 10) like many web companies do, all with different names or maybe different genres. Stay away from negative name association. Can even target market better. That way users can use the bandcamp service but it’s more appealing to their taste and style. If bandcamp could just get a little more popular and crossover into the main genres, it might be the hand that forces the movement I see your point, a cooler name would be better. However, at this time when you post, "hear/buy my music at this link", I don't think people who are interested in hearing/buying will decide not to click it due to the name. The main thing for me was not giving my music away for free, which is essentially what I'd be doing on the most popular streaming sites, which imo is a fools game. If more independent musicians/bands drew this line, we'd all be better off imo.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 3, 2020 21:01:32 GMT -6
Another thing - They're gauging "wealth" or "value" by stock valuations, not by income.
Which is fine, as long as the ponzi scheme lasts....
Not exactly. For example in 2017 five of Spotify’s senior executives earned a combined total of $26.5 million. That's personal wealth for one year, not future stock sale wealth. Ponzi or not, string 10 years of that personal income together and it's a lot of personal income. I'm not putting it down, just pointing out the executives are doing pretty well without any potential stock benefits. FWIW: I'm about to release an album and I'm not going to stream anywhere but a few Youtube videos to promote the album. Everything else is going to be Bandcamp, which limits streaming to three per song. I understand, and empathize, with those unhappy with the streaming model. It sucks. I was referring more to how they valuate the stock to lure more suckers in to invest.
Famously, some big wheel with Spotify once stated in an interview that Spotify's product is not music or anything having to do with music. Spotify's real product is Spotify - in other words, constantly inflating stock prices due to their corporate image.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 3, 2020 21:39:46 GMT -6
Sorry, couldn't resist.....
"Did you ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" - John Lydon
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Feb 3, 2020 22:07:16 GMT -6
I think $3/mo is WAY too low.
I think $9/mo is still too low.
$20/mo is about the sweet spot. I think that most people who like music would go for 20, if there was no "free" competition. What has devalued music is the pervasiveness of piracy, be it illegal piracy like Bittorrent or so-called "legal" piracy like Spotify and Pandora. Maybe even more. When I was in college most people I knew spent AT LEAST $20/mo on recorded music and money was worth a lot more back then. Remember, $20/mo was only 2 or 3 albums. Most college kids back then bought at least that many. Many of my friends had a wall of milk crates or the equivalent.
Even $72/mo isn't that bad if you compare it to what people spend on cable TV and internet.
There's nothing to buy for $72 a month now unless you want to buy collectors LP reissues and overpriced 80s CD pressings. The quality of new releases is at an all time low. It's been going down since the mid 90s. I'd say the music industry shot itself with the corporate homogenization of radio, CD price fixing, allowing big box stores to break CD MSRP undercutting record stores, killing the single, focusing on selling "albums" that were one or two hits written by a professional songwriter and the rest filler, and trying to co-opt entire genres into trendy pop music. Napster and BitTorrent were just the heart attack that did them in. Piracy actually drives sales of underground music that there was no way to hear in the 90s unless you randomly bought the one very marked up import copy in an independent record store. I've heard very few artists in the past decade interesting enough to even warrant something like a Peel Session. Your outlook on current music is really unfortunate. I don’t think I’ve ever been out of great interesting new music to listen to. Maybe you’re not looking hard enough, or perhaps the genre you enjoy is dead. Lots of absolutely fantastic records with great writing, engineering, mixing, etc going down... I can understand the frustration with the current model, but that has nothing to do with there being “no good music”
|
|
|
Post by donr on Feb 4, 2020 0:01:09 GMT -6
I’ve been waiting to chime in here until I could think about what to say.
From my perspective as an old timer recording artist who once sold a fair amount of records (when they were black and 12" round,) streaming, as what the recorded music business now is, is finally starting to pay off, and pay out.
Streaming is really a melding of what used to be radio play, and record sales, back when people wanted to own the physical manifestation of a sound recording. Now, streaming is pretty much all there is. I know this because I don't really want to own physical product anymore. I just want to hear whatever I want whenever I want, and to sample new songs and artists quickly and easily.
After years of competing with FREE in the early days of the web and fast internet, recorded music is finally again getting compensation, and the public is once again becoming acclimated to paying something to hear recorded music on their devices. Not like you can't go to youtube, but youtube is paying creators now, and didn't used to.
I'm bummed that some writers and music creators here have seen their income dwindle over time from past compositions and recordings. That has not been my experience lately. Not sure exactly why, but things are improving.
As an artist, my legacy recordings, which generate the bulk of recording income since they were first popular, shrank as physical product sales declined, and Napster was free, then got a little bump after iTunes introduced the first viable online marketing of recordings, then streaming really caught on as what people wanted. Physical sales are about 10% now, and hardly anyone buys downloads now except HD tracks, which is a very small market. So, streaming. My band started to see significant improvement in earnings recently compared to 5-10 years ago. Why? Well, Amazon, Apple, Spotify, Google, Youtube all started paying. And every click is accounted for.
Yeah, most of the streams are the hits, but even our deep tracks are listened to more than they would if consumers had to buy a physical recording to even see if they liked it. People are clicking on my tunes and the band’s tunes, even though the hits are all now approaching 40 years old. Not the kind of numbers the chart artists today are getting, but somewhere around 10 million plays/year total. That translates to money that’s paying the mortgage and the bills. And that’s after dividing with the other band members. So the new popular artists today with big numbers are making serious money from streaming. Probably more than they would have gotten from record companies back in the day.
As a writer, a lot of income comes from mechanical licensing in film and tv, but there’s still ‘radio’ play in terrestrial over-air, digital sat and background usage, and the ratio is around 50-50. Streaming pays about half there, but I don’t think the deal for writers is quite as good as it was in the heyday of publishing companies getting the lion share of music royalties. But it's better today than it was five years ago, not worse.
I do think the recent increases in royalties deemed by the gov’t’s rate court has had an effect.
One thing worth mentioning. Spotify made a deal with major labels years ago to insure their participation by giving them an equity position in Spotify. SONY sold half their stake sometime over a year ago, and they shared the sale income with their artists, which was a standup thing for them to do. A one time windfall, and I salute SONY for it. They didn’t have to, and I don’t know if the other labels have done anything similar.
At ten dollars/month any streaming service that has the content is a bargain. I subscribe to both Apple and Spotify. I prefer Spotify’s UI to Apple’s. Yes, music has been devalued compared to the ‘record company’ era. But it’s not like no one is making a living from recorded music. Lots of people are.
I’m bummed that talented people that used to make bank on their catalog are suffering. Are the gross numbers down for consumption of their efforts? I don’t think my band is any more popular than it ever was, but maybe it is. Don’t think I’m not grateful. I am, every day.
I've heard that half the total income from digital music comes from catalog artists. Don't know if that's still true, the streaming charts are now populated with new artists I've never heard of. But I do think people that are listening to their own playlists on the streaming services are sticking heavily to music they already know.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Feb 4, 2020 0:21:54 GMT -6
Thanks for this topic, it’s really important. I hope you don’t mind me having a little daydream. We here are all pretty smart people who find solutions to problems. Why can’t we solve this problem that tech has given us? Do we start our own musician friendly streaming service? Just bypass the labels, start fresh as new music creators? Here’s some math. Let say a song is 3 minutes.. $0.005 royalty If a user listens: - 24/7: royalties would cost over $72 per user per month. So we can’t have users just letting it run forever, that doesn’t work. - average 3 hours per day: royalties $9 per month. Better. - average 1 hour per day: $3 per month. I think this is doable, but we’d have to charge twice as much to cover running the business. (Hopefully) This gives me an idea: What if the user pays for the royalty themselves? If it only costs a penny to hear your favorite song, knowing it’s helping directly the artist..what true music fan would turn that down? How about we give users tokens.. say 600 jukebox tokens per month: $6.. they could earn more tokens by watching ads, or buy more. The tokens don’t roll over, because we need their monthly pay (I think).. just refill every month. Anyway.. I wish it was as simple as starting a server and making it happen. : [ well...that platform sort of exists. It's called patreon. And was started for exactly that. However, you still have to convince people to donate to your cause. But it works pretty well for some.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 4, 2020 0:52:34 GMT -6
A critical distinction. And one most don't understand.
I have 2 vintage 87's that are worth $2.2k each.
They should be worth about $400.
They will likely be worth $5k+ in 10-15 years. But they may be worth only $25 by that time. It all depends on what people are willing to pay, and what they believe the value of something to be.
Sure wish the music world was free market. But hasn't this been what the music world has always been, at least in the last half century? And now it's just become the unfettered demon that was always bound to happen due to the nuclear reactor of unbound and uncontrolled exploitation? In other words, here we are now? Like it or not. And I don't. But then unfettered "free market" capatilism. Yeah,these are the results.... Free market seems to be pretty bad....
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 4, 2020 6:18:12 GMT -6
I see your point, a cooler name would be better. However, at this time when you post, "hear/buy my music at this link", I don't think people who are interested in hearing/buying will decide not to click it due to the name. The main thing for me was not giving my music away for free, which is essentially what I'd be doing on the most popular streaming sites, which imo is a fools game. If more independent musicians/bands drew this line, we'd all be better off imo. ...sorry if I'm going to rain on your parade a bit. I'm from New England and we have had attitudes. 😂😂 You're much more likely for random people to stumble upon your music on Spotify than on Bandcamp. What's your goal with releasing this album? Do you already have fans that want to hear an album? If not, the only people who will pay for the album are friends and family. And they'll buy it on whatever format you suggest, just to support you. I don't think cutting off Spotify will generate more money for you. Unless you have a great marketing plan in place with a bunch of content ready to go (and luck on your side), don't get your hopes up. Be prepared for 5-30 record sales.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Feb 4, 2020 6:42:22 GMT -6
Sure wish the music world was free market. But hasn't this been what the music world has always been, at least in the last half century? And now it's just become the unfettered demon that was always bound to happen due to the nuclear reactor of unbound and uncontrolled exploitation? In other words, here we are now? Like it or not. And I don't. But then unfettered "free market" capatilism. Yeah,these are the results.... Free market seems to be pretty bad.... Music streaming isn’t free market because the rate is set by legislation. It’s price controlled. That’s John’s beef.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 7:28:58 GMT -6
There's nothing to buy for $72 a month now unless you want to buy collectors LP reissues and overpriced 80s CD pressings. The quality of new releases is at an all time low. It's been going down since the mid 90s. I'd say the music industry shot itself with the corporate homogenization of radio, CD price fixing, allowing big box stores to break CD MSRP undercutting record stores, killing the single, focusing on selling "albums" that were one or two hits written by a professional songwriter and the rest filler, and trying to co-opt entire genres into trendy pop music. Napster and BitTorrent were just the heart attack that did them in. Piracy actually drives sales of underground music that there was no way to hear in the 90s unless you randomly bought the one very marked up import copy in an independent record store. I've heard very few artists in the past decade interesting enough to even warrant something like a Peel Session. Your outlook on current music is really unfortunate. I don’t think I’ve ever been out of great interesting new music to listen to. Maybe you’re not looking hard enough, or perhaps the genre you enjoy is dead. Lots of absolutely fantastic records with great writing, engineering, mixing, etc going down... I can understand the frustration with the current model, but that has nothing to do with there being “no good music” The latter. Metal has dried up unless you’re young and just getting into it. Then you can drop a hundred a month easily in reissues and used records. Unfortunately, there are great records, some of which were on major labels, young guys just can’t afford. The major and big independent labels only sign wannabe pop stars and the Greta Van Fleets of 1993 death metal. Mercyful Fate is out of print. Most of the new electronic music I listen to is free. Half of it I couldn’t even pay for if I wanted to because it’s only on SoundClound.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Feb 4, 2020 8:32:02 GMT -6
I see your point, a cooler name would be better. However, at this time when you post, "hear/buy my music at this link", I don't think people who are interested in hearing/buying will decide not to click it due to the name. The main thing for me was not giving my music away for free, which is essentially what I'd be doing on the most popular streaming sites, which imo is a fools game. If more independent musicians/bands drew this line, we'd all be better off imo. ...sorry if I'm going to rain on your parade a bit. I'm from New England and we have had attitudes. 😂😂 You're much more likely for random people to stumble upon your music on Spotify than on Bandcamp. What's your goal with releasing this album? Do you already have fans that want to hear an album? If not, the only people who will pay for the album are friends and family. And they'll buy it on whatever format you suggest, just to support you. I don't think cutting off Spotify will generate more money for you. Unless you have a great marketing plan in place with a bunch of content ready to go (and luck on your side), don't get your hopes up. Be prepared for 5-30 record sales. Thanks Jesse. I'm not looking for a big payday. I feel pretty strongly against streaming for all the reasons stated. We'll see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 4, 2020 12:28:57 GMT -6
This thread has been quite helpful for me, and I'd especially like to thank donr and others who have shared their personal, hands on experience with streaming, the numbers, etc.. Which (fortunately for them) has been quite different than mine. And I will happily agree that in 2020 things are significantly better (streaming wise - not bottom end wise though) than 2014. I'm thrilled that donr is getting 10M streams a year and is able to have significant splits with the band and still able to pay his mortgage and the bills. I'm getting about 8M a year, don't have to split with anyone else, and it's still only around $2,100 a year for me. What's wrong with this picture. There is surely something wrong as the math is not adding up, and this thread has begun to help me make sense of the nonsense. For that I am grateful to all of you!!! I am personally in control of a pretty large catalog that I've written over the last 25+ years. Over 1000 pieces of music. In addition, there are another 1000 or so that I have released ownership of to various companies. But here's an important factor that comes into play - Virtually ALL of this music was written as underscore as "Music for Picture" - cause that's what I do. It was never intended for "public listening" on the radio, sat, digital radio or streaming. AND YET....there it is. All freaking over the place. As companies struggle for survival, new opportunities open up, and they start to adapt - or die. The reputable ones like Don's example of Sony get it right. The others are pond scum, and keep every penny for themselves. That seems to be where the production music companies that I have worked for, and licensed to have fallen. I can GUARANTEE you that zero of the dozens of contracts I have signed have allowed my music to be used in the fashion it is being used in today, and even if the contracts are vague (which many of the old ones were since we were/are in a paradigm shift), they still should be compensating me accordingly. In fact, they are not. The only streaming money I see is coming from the WRITERS performances in BMI. And there's the rub. I've got albums on Spotify with me as the artist that I never did, never "OK'd", are not mentioned in any contract, and which I had no idea were even on there. I don't even have a clue who the record company is, or how to find them. To make things worse, I have music on those streaming services (Spotify, Apple, Amazon, etc.) that came from a license that was legitimately "purchased" for use under visual medium, which were then mis-appropriated, and put out under another companies name as a "record album" which is taking ALL the profits of the streams - I'm getting $0.000000 per stream on those. SOME companies though are stupid (??) enough to actually put me down as the songwriter. LOL. I own the masters and they are putting out THEIR album under THEIR record company with THEM as the artist and then crediting me as writer. That's rich. At least I get my $0.000256748278683 cents per stream from those. Unfortunately, there is not enough time in the numbered amount of days I have left on this spinning orb to track all of it down and kill it. And as soon as you do a digital takedown, it springs right back up again. There is no decent legislation or laws in place to deal with this BS, and MORE than enough disreputable people that will keep taking advantage..... So...... A plan is slowly formulating in my mind. I have much more research to do. I need to find all these placements, make an analysis as to how they are generating clicks, and then I will solidify the concept that is brewing in my mind, and put my counter-measure, anti-music-terrorist plan into motion. If I remember in 5 years (it will probably take years to put things into place), I will report back and share the results here. The outcome may be minimal - maybe I can generate 10X's what streaming is getting me now for a still measly income stream. Or maybe it will generate 2-3 full time incomes. Who knows. It's really hard to know without doing it. We certainly can't predict the future of course and this stuff seems to morph and change monthly, but it might be possible. The real wild card - I really can't take the time to promote all this music in traditional means, so it's going to be a cat and mouse game with me taking a playing card from the crooks and trying to do the same in legitimate fashion. We'll see how that goes. But in the meantime, I FREAKING PLAN ON BEATING THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME. Time will tell. AGAIN, many thanks to every person who participated and shared their insights on this thread. If successful, I WILL share the plan with y'all.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Feb 4, 2020 12:34:51 GMT -6
The internet has disrupted the record business like it has just about every business in one way or another. The labels completely wiffed the transition away from proprietary products available only from them.
Artists actually net quite a bit more today from streaming than they did when records were necessary. If aspiring artists promote their music by linking to a streaming site where the music resides, they'll get payed with every listen. They could offer CD's and downloads too directly, but you'd know nobody was listening for free.
Yes, there's no money in low numbers of streams, but that's the way it is. In the old days, a song writer would get a nickel say, for a spin on a major market radio station. But the assumption was that 50,000 or so people listened to that spin. When someone clicks on your song now, that's only one person/spin. And the artist in the day would get nothing for radio play. Radio was advertising for the record store/label. Only the writers earned.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Feb 4, 2020 12:49:46 GMT -6
>I'm thrilled that donr is getting 10M streams a year and is able to have significant splits with the band and still able to pay his mortgage and the bills. I'm getting about 8M a year, don't have to split with anyone else, and it's still only around $2,100 a year for me. What's wrong with this picture.<
I don't know what your deal is, drbill, and who controls your compositions and recordings. With numbers like yours, maybe there's something wrong with how it's accounted for, especially if you did much better in the past. In reality, more money is being generated today for content than in the early internet days, or even fairly recently.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Feb 4, 2020 13:29:12 GMT -6
Half of the income from catalog artists is considerably lower than their percentage of record sales in the '90s. That's interesting.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 4, 2020 15:51:52 GMT -6
This is all soooo depressing, makes a man want to flip off the money-grubbing world and reach for his favorite adult beverage. Thank God for Stella Artois.
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Feb 4, 2020 16:23:33 GMT -6
Lots of good discussion here, but I think the thing that keeps crossing my mind in regards to streaming, and royalties associated with streaming, is a theory that I have held my entire music career - that the more quality output I create, the more potential for Royalties and income. Thinking about the actual current streaming royalty rates can be very depressing, but I still believe that the best course of action individually is to keep turning out quality music. Creating a library and content that will survive over time, will provide the best potential for income, whatever the royalty rates are at. Of course, we as musicians should continue to fight for royalty rates that are more fair, especially current streaming standards. But the best thing we can do individually to ensure provision for our careers is to continue to make great music. The grind never stops…
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 4, 2020 16:51:26 GMT -6
Sure wish the music world was free market. But hasn't this been what the music world has always been, at least in the last half century? And now it's just become the unfettered demon that was always bound to happen due to the nuclear reactor of unbound and uncontrolled exploitation? In other words, here we are now? Like it or not. And I don't. But then unfettered "free market" capatilism. Yeah,these are the results.... Free market seems to be pretty bad.... No
|
|
|
Post by donr on Feb 4, 2020 16:53:39 GMT -6
Half of the income from catalog artists is considerably lower than their percentage of record sales in the '90s. That's interesting. I'd thought that CD sales of legacy artists in the 90's and late 80's was Boomers re-buying their faves in digital form. That couldn't last forever. But now Boomers that stream, even on Pandora or the 'radio' function of streaming services are still listening to their era of music. Most don't like that rap or hip hop. An unintended consequence of "free" music on the internet is younger people have discovered and avail themselves of the deeper tracks from older artists they might have heard about from the hits, because it's all up there. But mostly they're listening to the chart acts of today. Every generation needs music their parents dislike.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 4, 2020 16:56:16 GMT -6
This is all soooo depressing, makes a man want to flip off the money-grubbing world and reach for his favorite adult beverage. Thank God for Stella Artois. If you’re not drinking bourbon, you’re doing it wrong
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 4, 2020 17:05:02 GMT -6
This is all soooo depressing, makes a man want to flip off the money-grubbing world and reach for his favorite adult beverage. Thank God for Stella Artois. If you’re not drinking bourbon, you’re doing it wrong Bourbon is acceptable but a bit in the sweet side.
LAPHROAIG!!!
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 4, 2020 17:07:04 GMT -6
But the best thing we can do individually to ensure provision for our careers is to continue to make great music. The grind never stops… I believe this 100% and it's always been the goal for me. Even when producing disposable music for underscore that's here today, gone tomorrow. Cause guess what? It's not gone tomorrow. Somehow it's still alive.
|
|