Who's joining Apple Music Tuesday?

I wish you were wrong, but I think you're absolutely right.  With all those turds in the pipeline, all the good stuff will get so diluted that it won't have a chance of being heard by enough people for the talented few to make a living.  It used to be difficult to make a living in music, it took a lot of hard work just to eke out a meagerly existence, now it is becoming just about impossible.  Unless you're cute like Justin Bieber, setting 12-year-old female hearts atwitter, or a reasonably attractive girl willing to expose yourself, the chances of true success are limited.

But, it seems to me that the current broken model is what is driving the junk at us. Again with the garbage example, but if you build upon the garbage filling the net now, everything is going to sink down from the load of trash. Take the gatekeepers away and let people find their own musical equilibrium instead of rewarding them for the horrendous garbage of cookie cutter... (insert terminology here).

Well, I wasn't aware that you had to pay for the privilege of hearing the unknown. That doesn't sound like any form of radio to me. The only person who would win in that scenario is knuckle dragging bleep maker. Is this what Apple is doing - pay to hear?

You're right, of course, I wasn't trying to imply that we could go back in time.  The genie's out of the bottle, kids want music to be free even if that means the end of quality.

This model may be better as a listener, as long as you know what you want to listen to.  I'm not sure how it's better as an artist.

Hasn't there always been a lot of garbage music? I feel like this was true when I was a kid and now I still feel the same way. The majority of music just isn't very interesting. It's nothing to do with whether or not there's an A&R rep to sign off on Steely Dan's musical hedonism or whether they can do it in their bedroom for nearly free instead because it assumes the label guys have any taste in music in the first place.

The really interesting music of the 80's and 90's on - Techno, Hip Hop, Indie, Hardcore Punk, Noise, Alternative Country, Drum and Bass, Acid House, Trip Hop, Doom Metal, Black Metal etc. was born with no label endorsement and no commercial interest. The labels came in after the fact to scoop up the fat the artists had worked to create.

I won't be buying the service because I keep most of the music I own hosted natively, I don't always have internet. I'd guess the streams would be variable, but the batting average is probably 128 AAC, which is about 256 mp3. Not bad quality! If it's 256 AAC it's higher quality than mp3 @ 320kbps.

Really though? I mean listen to the first Pixies album (Come On Pilgrim) and they just sound like a bunch of Talking Heads wannabes. The Monkees and a million others were a cheap cash in on the British Invasion/Hippy era.

For every Kate Bush there was a 1000 Olivia Newton-Jobs.

True originals...I would venture to say you could count them on two hands. Anyway, I wasn't looking at this as radio or performance royalties, I'm looking at it as replacing album sales or mechanical royalties. I don't know how they're going to determine that though. So if I don't buy the new Jason Isbell album - I just stream it 10,000 times with my $10 per month...is that considered a performance royalty every time I stream it? If it is, that means that artists will in essence have 12 singles out at one time. Since they will have data on which are being listened to the most, it will be a much more accurate picture of which songs are resonating with the public - and that will determine what gets played on terrestrial radio. That could be a huge advantage over the current system.

I got a email from one of the companies I use to get music to iTunes.

My music will automatically be added to Apple Music (search Peter Knight Black Snow EP)

So, I see how Apple will make a shitload of money off this...

1 million subscribers will mean 10 million USD a month (but I reckon most with families will go the family route)

Its going to be a terrific cash cow for them...

I don't know how much we as artists will get.

I used to get X amount per purchase, I don't know how much I will get per stream, or how many streams it will take to hit the same amount as one person buying a song.

Thats the rub...

cheers

Wiz

I see... That sounds less traumatic to/for me. I was looking at it like backroom payola deals determining who got up to bat.
Let the public sort the rubbish out. The cream will rise to the top. A wise saying: "A man's gift/talent makes room for him".

But' I don't think anyone should be barred from participating like in days of yore. Not in the new medium. Maybe it should be finely classified as to what category we want to write off as hopeless, to make the searches shorter. But I have a very wide range of tastes and don't want to be hindered in hearing new talent. A few bars is enough to determine if I've heard it before by someone who did it better.

A rather off kilter article with the same figures: www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/06/15/apple-responds-we-pay-71-5-percent-of-streaming-revenue-back-to-artists

That'd be nuts. I think people can spit on the per play figures if they want, 25% being absorbed by the middle man is pretty low when they control the supply to market. Spotify pays just under 70% and many others pay even less.

"As of this morning, Apple has made no concessions on its $0 free-trial royalty structure."

I guess this means they aren't selling during this period. I suppose it would uniting to build the system but I would imagine many will be reluctant to participate.

That brings it back to: "Who's joining Apple Music Tuesday? " ... up to speed.