|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 1, 2015 13:54:51 GMT -6
You can probably state less than 50% will go to the rights owners, fairly safely. I think of the 10 million Monopoly Moneys we're talking, 2 million going to the artists would be an optimistic number. The money would have to be paid as a percentage of the Artist's allocation of the subscription of the subscription otherwise they risk having to pay more than was budgeted. People leaving on playlists, muting their laptop and going to cook dinner could listen to hours of music without ears being present. Expensive! If that's not the case I'd imagine the royalty income per play that is arranged will be so small that there is almost guaranteed surplus for Apple to pocket after the fact. Could an artist, pay for a family plan, set up 6 computers that would continually play the artist's music around the clock, break even in royalties with the subscription? Make a profit? I wonder. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 1, 2015 14:02:17 GMT -6
We won't know until we start seeing the PRO statements. In fact, how ARE these streams classified? Performance? I would think so. Mechanicals will still be the actual sales - which will probably drop dramatically. I do know this - Spotify and Pandora pay nowhere near the incredibly small amount they claim - they have paid me about 1/100th of what they claim they're playing per stream.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 1, 2015 19:16:11 GMT -6
I do know this - Spotify and Pandora pay nowhere near the incredibly small amount they claim - they have paid me about 1/100th of what they claim they're playing per stream. You can add to that the video streamers as well. Hulu and Netflix are a joke - PRO payment wise. Streaming as a BUSINESS model does not work unless there is advertising attached. Period. And big budget advertising at that. Until CONGRESS and worldwide governments work out this streaming thing, don't expect to be paid anything close to fair or similar to what radio / tv / cable paid out via PRO's in the past. Apple Music included. Why would Apple pay out 10X;s to their content providers compared what other streaming companies are paying? They won't. That's like your garage mechanic paying 10X's to his distributor when other mechanics are paying 1/10th the price because your mechanic likes the distributor and wants to pay them "fairly" (i.e.: 10X's more), and then charging you - the customer - the same price. Never gonna happen. Because it's an INSANE business practice to do that if you aren't FORCED to. And Apple is not going to make life good for musicians because they are cool, nice people. They are big business #1. Streaming has got to fundamentally change on the business / advertising front or musicians will be forever bending over and grabbing their ankles. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 1, 2015 19:36:20 GMT -6
I'm not talking about paying the same as radio...I'm saying they aren't even paying the small amount they CLAIM to pay. They CLAIM to pay around .000113 cents per stream. On one of my last statements, I had 90k streams and got paid $2.97. That's .000033 cents per stream. My math is horrific, but that ain't the same. I should have made $10.17! lol...ok, so it's not THAT much difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jul 1, 2015 21:01:51 GMT -6
Johnkenn So how does a songwriter nowadays make a living?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 1, 2015 21:42:45 GMT -6
I sure hope they start making a good living off royalties..... if we go to a flat rate system it's not good for anyone but the labels. It would ensure the songwriters way of life, but take away the chance of a single going viral and the songwriter paying off their mortgage and taking a 3 month holiday in the Turks. It also makes it harder for indie artist to get good quality songs and then we risk losing talent. This whole issue of the royalties is such a bigger issue than John Q Public understands. They love music, but they don't understand what is going to happen if they don't start paying for music again. If they could really understand how a free music system would effect the future of music, I can't imagine they would embrace it as they do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 21:57:40 GMT -6
I'm an anti-stuff person, I'm moving in a few months I have a bed, a MacBook, iPad, iPhone, Antelope Zen, Focal CMS40s, backpack full of mics, two guitars, two pairs of jeans and that's all. I don't clutter shit up whatsoever. I own a couple select albums on Vinyl but I get uncomfortable with too many things around me. No shirts or shoes? How do you get into restaurants??? :-) Funny you mention shoes, I got five pairs for christmas from loved ones trying to tell me something. The horror I tell you, it keeps me up at night. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 1, 2015 21:58:20 GMT -6
We won't know until we start seeing the PRO statements. In fact, how ARE these streams classified? Performance? I would think so. Mechanicals will still be the actual sales - which will probably drop dramatically. I do know this - Spotify and Pandora pay nowhere near the incredibly small amount they claim - they have paid me about 1/100th of what they claim they're playing per stream. BOC gets SONY Records 'sales' income from streaming, and I get SONY/ATV Music writer's income from streaming, but it's been bupkis as a % of the total so far, even though the numbers of streamed 'plays' are seven figures/period. Apple has correctly seen streaming as the future becoming the present. They also seem to value content, at least they have in the iTunes era, first with the hated DRM, necessary to persuade rights holders to take a chance on it, and second with the money split. They took less than most retailers as %. Then they saved the music biz' ass with the Apple ecosystem and success of the iPod, and iPhone. It amazes me how the record labels utterly and completely whiffed the digital transition. Not a good idea among any of them. Just no idea how to do their core business of monetizing their recordings in the new medium. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 1, 2015 22:02:09 GMT -6
I do know this - Spotify and Pandora pay nowhere near the incredibly small amount they claim - they have paid me about 1/100th of what they claim they're playing per stream. You can add to that the video streamers as well. Hulu and Netflix are a joke - PRO payment wise. Streaming as a BUSINESS model does not work unless there is advertising attached. Period. And big budget advertising at that. Until CONGRESS and worldwide governments work out this streaming thing, don't expect to be paid anything close to fair or similar to what radio / tv / cable paid out via PRO's in the past. Apple Music included. Why would Apple pay out 10X;s to their content providers compared what other streaming companies are paying? They won't. That's like your garage mechanic paying 10X's to his distributor when other mechanics are paying 1/10th the price because your mechanic likes the distributor and wants to pay them "fairly" (i.e.: 10X's more), and then charging you - the customer - the same price. Never gonna happen. Because it's an INSANE business practice to do that if you aren't FORCED to. And Apple is not going to make life good for musicians because they are cool, nice people. They are big business #1. Streaming has got to fundamentally change on the business / advertising front or musicians will be forever bending over and grabbing their ankles. There's the "is it radio, or not radio" dilema. With streaming, you're paying for radio, and not owning, but leasing historical recordings. |
|
|
|
Post by levon on Jul 1, 2015 23:19:01 GMT -6
Johnkenn So how does a songwriter nowadays make a living? He gets a day job. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 1, 2015 23:56:42 GMT -6
Pray you get a single on the radio...before your publisher gets tired of paying you advances.
|
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Jul 2, 2015 4:41:42 GMT -6
She loves you yeah yeah yeah, she loves you yeah yeah yeah yeah..
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 2, 2015 9:11:30 GMT -6
Apple doesn't care about music, they care about profits. Whatever gets those is what they will do, the rest is imaging like that geeky guy they used on their commercials a couple of years ago. No different than any other corporation, it's only about the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 2, 2015 10:28:50 GMT -6
Apple doesn't care about music, they care about profits. Whatever gets those is what they will do, the rest is imaging like that geeky guy they used on their commercials a couple of years ago. No different than any other corporation, it's only about the bottom line. That's the conclusion I keep arriving at. I don't think the average artist could upload their content and just set back for an enjoyable ride. I'm looking at it as promotional mainly. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 2, 2015 10:36:36 GMT -6
Apple doesn't care about music, they care about profits. Whatever gets those is what they will do, the rest is imaging like that geeky guy they used on their commercials a couple of years ago. No different than any other corporation, it's only about the bottom line. I agree, but they've had a talent for getting a lot of people to pay more than commodity prices for their tech and gadgets. Expecting talent and writers to 'partner' with Apple in their streaming launch was a misstep, but I hope the payout from Apple Music will be commeasurate with the payout from iTunes downloads. If it isn't, then the general digital monetization of music is a failure, unless government sets a value on it. Which I wouldn't want, philosophically. How much would anybody pay for streaming every recording ever made? I'd do $20/mo, but no more than that. I just don't listen that much to other people's music. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 2, 2015 10:53:28 GMT -6
Maybe the answer is to bill by how much you listen. But I bet the income would be less than if by subscription. I've spent a lot of money over the decades on LP's, cassettes and CD's I don't listen to.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 2, 2015 11:08:28 GMT -6
When I listen to my own stuff too much while writing or arranging, I clear the palate by looking for something fresh to expand, but I don't buy much music anymore. When listening to other people I hear words or music that goes a completely different way. I find inspiration in "hearing what isn't there". Not too much or I get overload and sidetracked from projects.
But I like the idea of everything being in a centralized location. That spells big profit for, in this case Apple. Are they that keen on maintaining a good relationship with content providers or are they prone to dictate terms after a brief honeymoon period with writers.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 2, 2015 12:01:25 GMT -6
I'd do $20/mo, but no more than that. I just don't listen that much to other people's music. Don - I agree that most would not pay more than $20 per month, but $20 per month is not going to make any streaming service's business model viable in a financial sense if they are paying content providers anything close to fairly. The ONLY way to get that working is a government subsidy or BIG MONEY advertising. And at this point, I think the ship has sailed for putting any degree of advertising on a service people are paying for. There are only two options at this point. --- Streaming service doesn't make enough to stay in business. OR........ --- Content providers don't make enough to stay in business. Which do you think will win? |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 2, 2015 12:14:12 GMT -6
When you think about it, it's only been a very short period of history, from the Edison phonograph until today that musicians and composers have made any sort of prosperous living. Maybe that window is closing.
|
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Jul 2, 2015 12:30:05 GMT -6
When you think about it, it's only been a very short period of history, from the Edison phonograph until today that musicians and composers have made any sort of prosperous living. Maybe that window is closing. Wow, that's a great point! Maybe good music will go the way of the dinosaur, hit by a comet of greed, ineptitude, and lack of foresight. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 2, 2015 13:40:35 GMT -6
When you think about it, it's only been a very short period of history, from the Edison phonograph until today that musicians and composers have made any sort of prosperous living. Maybe that window is closing.You may be right. I just hate to see it end so that the tech boys can hit another tech bubble and make more billions than they already have.... I mean, how much cash do you need. As of LAST year, Apple has 160 Billion in CASH reserves - enough to BUY OUTRIGHT 483 of the S&P 500 companies. Microsoft has $85 Billion in reserve. I can't even imagine how much Google has. Between the three of them, they could just about own the world. Just for comparison purposes, the US federal government only has $ 49 Billion in reserve to run their entire gov, military and all..... And here we are, wiling to bend over AGAIN?!?!?!?!  ? Because it's a cool service? Really? We need lobbyists and decent management or we are screwed. Meanwhile. while apple is racking a few more billion this week, world class musicians are leaving music and flocking to get a "day job" to even feed and get health insurance for their families. Because the window is closing? If it's closing, it's only because musicians are freaking stupid. How much corporate greed is enough? I say screw Apple and leave them streaming nothing. No content, no business. Period. Then maybe they and other streamers will negotiate fairly. I mean, wasn't the original agreement with Apple Corp (the Beatles) and Apple Computer that they would never enter the music business? LOL That didn't last long did it? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 2, 2015 14:15:32 GMT -6
Musicians, songwriters and singers only made money when they had a direct relationship with fans. Today's corporate patronage is little better than the royal patronage of the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 2, 2015 14:21:32 GMT -6
Musicians, songwriters and singers only made money when they had a direct relationship with fans. Today's corporate patronage is little better than the royal patronage of the past. I think it's the ubiquitousness of music today. Once upon a time, you'd hear something cool on the radio, and if you wanted to hear it at your whim, you had to go the record store and pay what they were asking for it, after buying a record player first. It's just not that dear a commodity now. There's too much music, frankly, to absorb. Same with TV. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 2, 2015 14:39:34 GMT -6
I tend to agree Don, but that's a little shortsighted IMO. If it was 100% true, Apple wouldn't be standing to make (on conservative estimates) 1 BILLON per month with their new service. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 4, 2015 12:50:52 GMT -6
I just got this going, the streaming quality seems half decent, but what confuses me(i haven't read into the details at all), i was under the impression this is a paid subscription..right? why are they running commercials? I'm not interested in PAYING for a monthly subscription and having to listen to commercials...? am i missing something?
|
|
? Because it's a cool service? Really? We need lobbyists and decent management or we are screwed. Meanwhile. while apple is racking a few more billion this week, world class musicians are leaving music and flocking to get a "day job" to even feed and get health insurance for their families. Because the window is closing? If it's closing, it's only because musicians are freaking stupid. How much corporate greed is enough? I say screw Apple and leave them streaming nothing. No content, no business. Period. Then maybe they and other streamers will negotiate fairly.
