What initially seemed to be a conversation about streaming revenues for artists more or less this week became a conversation … about Taylor Swift.
But it’s the debate behind Apple Music that is somewhat puzzling. Taylor Swift wasn’t the only one focusing concerns on Apple Music’s quarterly free trial. Labels were fixated on the same worry.
The reason this is odd is that it ignores the fact that even when users pay for a subscription, rates are woefully inadequate. Music Business Worldwide reported a study from France that confirms what many had suspected. Majors get a whole lot of the cash from a subscription fee. Most of the money stays in the hands of the labels; artists see as little as 11% of that ten dollar monthly fee. (The one bright spot: they’ll get a bit more if they’re registered as the writer, too – separate fee.) These numbers seem to be typical not only of France and something like Spotify, but other countries and Apple Music, too. (One difference: Europe takes an astonishing bite in the form of tax, which is a bit frustrating in a business that already has razor-thin revenue.)
The most telling stat to me is the one that was least reported from that study. Net income is an stunningly low 5% for the labels. The MBW article is suspicious of that figure, but I could believe it isn’t far off the mark. Essentially, marketing costs are such that labels are very nearly paying to have their music played. And that seems feasible given that a lot of people play music after searching for it – without the marketing budget, that music might not get played at all.
So kudos this round not to Taylor Swift, but to Ohm & Sport, who this week built a tool called Eternify. The Web app finds 30 seconds of your favorite artist and plays it over and over again – running up play counts and revenues. Leave Eternify running, and you can at least get beer money. But the app – whose 30-second loops prove oddly hypnotic if you actually leave your speaker on – just shows the absurdity of the streaming business model.
Eternify figures revenues of half a cent per play. Spotify has estimated fees as high as $0.08, but you still get the idea. And even if Apple Music sets a higher rate, you can do the math. Streaming earns a fraction of what downloads did.
Early analysis says Apple’s payments to indies are an even worse deal. A paltry $0.002 per stream make the whole thing virtually worthless. Europe takes tax out of that, too. And for an insight in why the free trial was so controversial, estimates pegged the per-stream fee there at as little as $0.00047.
This should lead to some other questions, like:
1. If streaming is earning next to nothing, why not simply have your music streaming for free, where you can more easily promote it?
2. If you’re not getting paid by streams, isn’t it more valuable to have a lot of data about listeners? Everything from planning tours to releases can benefit from that information. Will Apple provide that to artists?
3. Why can’t Apple make it easier for apps like Bandcamp to let you purchase your music? Surely this would do more to benefit independent artists than any of the lip service paid the topic in the Apple Music launch.
4. If most of the overhead in digital music is marketing, what can be done to make discovery and sharing easier and lavish marketing budgets less necessary? And, presuming artists made sure they got a share of the expanded proceeds, wouldn’t that do more for expanding revenue than worrying about a free trial?
5. Will Apple, given their control of the store, also encourage people to buy downloads of what they’re streaming?
We’re lucky DJs currently prefer downloads, and we’re lucky for the vinyl resurgence. But this still places recording artists in enormous trouble. Maybe streaming is an inevitable progression; maybe there’s no way to coax bigger subscription rates from listeners. But that means at the very least artists will need to look for other revenue sources to make recording music worthwhile.
Try Eternify for yourself below. I earned about 15 cents for myself in the time it took me to write this, then turned it off. Services like this can get music removed from Spotify rather than genuinely earning money. But as performance art, I think it works.
http://eternify.it/
Just don’t actually expect this to work as a solution, I should clarify – it’s more conceptual protest than actual tool. (As noted in comments, it could get your account shut down as it violates terms of service.)
And for a very different take on digital downloads, don’t miss The Verge covering Vimeo. Sure, this is video and not music, but some of the implications are clear.
Eternify is a terrible, insipid idea. Using it and things like it is specifically prohibited by the terms of service for Spotify and others. So using it may simply get your account closed. These services also look for fraudulent usage, such as what Eternify does. It’s easy to spot. The services will remove content and/or not pay artists for fraudulent plays. So using it may get your music kicked off the service.
If you don’t like having your music on Spotify, etc. then stop paying Tunecore or whoever $50 per album per year to have it up there and take it down.
If you’re a fan and you think artists should be paid more, go buy their album. If you already have a copy, buy one for a friend. Or go buy merchandise. Or see a show. (If you’re an artist and you don’t have merch or performances, maybe focus on that for a while).
Eternify has a poor understanding of how the streaming revenue model works.
The biggest problem for everyone is that people (in general) just aren’t paying for music. Attacking subscription services is not helpful in the least.
I’m not seriously suggesting you use this to make sure you get paid on Spotify. Updated the story.
No, I think the point is, this is performance art. It demonstrates just how flimsy the rate structure for streaming is.
I don’t see what’s wrong with their understanding of streaming revenue; these figures are consistent with what even Spotify reports.
And I don’t think you can generalize that people aren’t paying for music, when they are. They’re simply paying less overall – in a steady backward shift.
Certainly it’s up for criticism.
People like me are paying a lot more money for music that we used to. 120€/year on music is a lot more than 1-3 albums a year. Some people are paying for music first time in their lives.
I used to spend lot of money on music when i still was a dj. Then 12″ was the only medium for new songs. But after that not so much.
The way how spotify and others split the money is the problem, but for now we just have to live with it. It’s good times for people who write mainstream hits.
wither way i think you should BOTH come follow me on Spotify today:)
But it seems like they’re still not paying for music. or, at least, musicians aren’t seeing much cash out of the deal.
They’re paying for the service and seem to have been convinced by the services that they’re ‘doing right by the musicians’ now, which clearly is a bit of a joke when you look at the numbers.
Well said, people often tend to think that they did right thing when they quit torrenting and started paying for Spotify. This is dangerous – unless music is bought it hardly matters whether you got it from Spotify or what.cd.
Spotify TOP-50 songs make ton of money from streaming.
I’m betting there’s a steep dive of income after that, though. aka ‘the long tail’
Maybe everyone who isn’t a mainstream artist should just drop off steaming services. Turn the whole thing into a streaming service for ‘Now’ compilations and tootle off to bandcamp. I don’t see why a combination of social media presence and a reseller such as bandcamp wouldn’t or couldn’t be more effective than accidentally turning up in the ‘radio’ section of a larger artist than you.
I’m betting there’s a steep dive of income after that, though. aka ‘the long tail’
Maybe everyone who isn’t a mainstream artist should just drop off steaming services. Turn the whole thing into a streaming service for ‘Now’ compilations and tootle off to bandcamp. I don’t see why a combination of social media presence and a reseller such as bandcamp wouldn’t or couldn’t be more effective than accidentally turning up in the ‘radio’ section of a larger artist than you.
hey i pay my bill every month off of Spotify and other streaming services. Its has actually become quite lucrative when i sty on my promotion job.
Can you give us a round about number on you being lucrative with “Spotify” and other services? Because I haven’t seen or heard of any (not in the top 50) making a livable income on streaming services.
…and please, I don’t mean to be rude or nosie, I’m just trying to wrap my head around this streaming aspect of the music industry. I don’t know why any (non DJ) would ever buy when they could stream. Thanks in advance for any insite you can give.
Yes indeed. I do a lot of Direct Facebook, twitter, and P2P promo. Which helps me see a consistent and growing amount of streams every month. My music is on Spotify, Rdio (which pays a little more), xbox, Playstation, Tidal, etc so I can’t give you exact payouts for individual services without checking the books but approximately 400000 combined plays earned me about $1000 with little effort. Mind you it’s only me that does everything for myself so with no overhead, this becomes a part of my living wage. Now all I have to do is make it grow. I actually encourage my fans not to buy my music. #IXL #YAHLAY
I think you’ve misunderstood the pont of Eternify and Peter’s article.
I think you’ve misunderstood the pont of Eternify and Peter’s article.
Actually my music is distributed for free and i love every bit of free money i get! come follow me and the funk on Spotify today!
Eternify is a terrible, insipid idea. Using it and things like it is specifically prohibited by the terms of service for Spotify and others. So using it may simply get your account closed. These services also look for fraudulent usage, such as what Eternify does. It’s easy to spot. The services will remove content and/or not pay artists for fraudulent plays. So using it may get your music kicked off the service.
If you don’t like having your music on Spotify, etc. then stop paying Tunecore or whoever $50 per album per year to have it up there and take it down.
If you’re a fan and you think artists should be paid more, go buy their album. If you already have a copy, buy one for a friend. Or go buy merchandise. Or see a show. (If you’re an artist and you don’t have merch or performances, maybe focus on that for a while).
Eternify has a poor understanding of how the streaming revenue model works.
The biggest problem for everyone is that people (in general) just aren’t paying for music. Attacking subscription services is not helpful in the least.
I’m not seriously suggesting you use this to make sure you get paid on Spotify. Updated the story.
No, I think the point is, this is performance art. It demonstrates just how flimsy the rate structure for streaming is.
I don’t see what’s wrong with their understanding of streaming revenue; these figures are consistent with what even Spotify reports.
And I don’t think you can generalize that people aren’t paying for music, when they are. They’re simply paying less overall – in a steady backward shift.
Certainly it’s up for criticism.
People like me are paying a lot more money for music that we used to. 120€/year on music is a lot more than 1-3 albums a year. Some people are paying for music first time in their lives.
I used to spend lot of money on music when i still was a dj. Then 12″ was the only medium for new songs. But after that not so much.
The way how spotify and others split the money is the problem, but for now we just have to live with it. It’s good times for people who write mainstream hits.
wither way i think you should BOTH come follow me on Spotify today:)
But it seems like they’re still not paying for music. or, at least, musicians aren’t seeing much cash out of the deal.
They’re paying for the service and seem to have been convinced by the services that they’re ‘doing right by the musicians’ now, which clearly is a bit of a joke when you look at the numbers.
Well said, people often tend to think that they did right thing when they quit torrenting and started paying for Spotify. This is dangerous – unless music is bought it hardly matters whether you got it from Spotify or what.cd.
Spotify TOP-50 songs make ton of money from streaming.
I’m betting there’s a steep dive of income after that, though. aka ‘the long tail’
Maybe everyone who isn’t a mainstream artist should just drop off steaming services. Turn the whole thing into a streaming service for ‘Now’ compilations and tootle off to bandcamp. I don’t see why a combination of social media presence and a reseller such as bandcamp wouldn’t or couldn’t be more effective than accidentally turning up in the ‘radio’ section of a larger artist than you.
hey i pay my bill every month off of Spotify and other streaming services. Its has actually become quite lucrative when i sty on my promotion job.
Can you give us a round about number on you being lucrative with “Spotify” and other services? Because I haven’t seen or heard of any (not in the top 50) making a livable income on streaming services.
…and please, I don’t mean to be rude or nosie, I’m just trying to wrap my head around this streaming aspect of the music industry. I don’t know why any (non DJ) would ever buy when they could stream. Thanks in advance for any insite you can give.
Yes indeed. I do a lot of Direct Facebook, twitter, and P2P promo. Which helps me see a consistent and growing amount of streams every month. My music is on Spotify, Rdio (which pays a little more), xbox, Playstation, Tidal, etc so I can’t give you exact payouts for individual services without checking the books but approximately 400000 combined plays earned me about $1000 with little effort. Mind you it’s only me that does everything for myself so with no overhead, this becomes a part of my living wage. Now all I have to do is make it grow. I actually encourage my fans not to buy my music. #IXL #YAHLAY
I think you’ve misunderstood the pont of Eternify and Peter’s article.
Actually my music is distributed for free and i love every bit of free money i get! come follow me and the funk on Spotify today!
Eternify is a terrible, insipid idea. Using it and things like it is specifically prohibited by the terms of service for Spotify and others. So using it may simply get your account closed. These services also look for fraudulent usage, such as what Eternify does. It’s easy to spot. The services will remove content and/or not pay artists for fraudulent plays. So using it may get your music kicked off the service.
If you don’t like having your music on Spotify, etc. then stop paying Tunecore or whoever $50 per album per year to have it up there and take it down.
If you’re a fan and you think artists should be paid more, go buy their album. If you already have a copy, buy one for a friend. Or go buy merchandise. Or see a show. (If you’re an artist and you don’t have merch or performances, maybe focus on that for a while).
Eternify has a poor understanding of how the streaming revenue model works.
The biggest problem for everyone is that people (in general) just aren’t paying for music. Attacking subscription services is not helpful in the least.
I’m not seriously suggesting you use this to make sure you get paid on Spotify. Updated the story.
No, I think the point is, this is performance art. It demonstrates just how flimsy the rate structure for streaming is.
I don’t see what’s wrong with their understanding of streaming revenue; these figures are consistent with what even Spotify reports.
And I don’t think you can generalize that people aren’t paying for music, when they are. They’re simply paying less overall – in a steady backward shift.
Certainly it’s up for criticism.
People like me are paying a lot more money for music that we used to. 120€/year on music is a lot more than 1-3 albums a year. Some people are paying for music first time in their lives.
I used to spend lot of money on music when i still was a dj. Then 12″ was the only medium for new songs. But after that not so much.
The way how spotify and others split the money is the problem, but for now we just have to live with it. It’s good times for people who write mainstream hits.
wither way i think you should BOTH come follow me on Spotify today:)
But it seems like they’re still not paying for music. or, at least, musicians aren’t seeing much cash out of the deal.
They’re paying for the service and seem to have been convinced by the services that they’re ‘doing right by the musicians’ now, which clearly is a bit of a joke when you look at the numbers.
Well said, people often tend to think that they did right thing when they quit torrenting and started paying for Spotify. This is dangerous – unless music is bought it hardly matters whether you got it from Spotify or what.cd.
Spotify TOP-50 songs make ton of money from streaming.
I’m betting there’s a steep dive of income after that, though. aka ‘the long tail’
Maybe everyone who isn’t a mainstream artist should just drop off steaming services. Turn the whole thing into a streaming service for ‘Now’ compilations and tootle off to bandcamp. I don’t see why a combination of social media presence and a reseller such as bandcamp wouldn’t or couldn’t be more effective than accidentally turning up in the ‘radio’ section of a larger artist than you.
hey i pay my bill every month off of Spotify and other streaming services. Its has actually become quite lucrative when i sty on my promotion job.
Can you give us a round about number on you being lucrative with “Spotify” and other services? Because I haven’t seen or heard of any (not in the top 50) making a livable income on streaming services.
…and please, I don’t mean to be rude or nosie, I’m just trying to wrap my head around this streaming aspect of the music industry. I don’t know why any (non DJ) would ever buy when they could stream. Thanks in advance for any insite you can give.
Yes indeed. I do a lot of Direct Facebook, twitter, and P2P promo. Which helps me see a consistent and growing amount of streams every month. My music is on Spotify, Rdio (which pays a little more), xbox, Playstation, Tidal, etc so I can’t give you exact payouts for individual services without checking the books but approximately 400000 combined plays earned me about $1000 with little effort. Mind you it’s only me that does everything for myself so with no overhead, this becomes a part of my living wage. Now all I have to do is make it grow. I actually encourage my fans not to buy my music. #IXL #YAHLAY
I think you’ve misunderstood the pont of Eternify and Peter’s article.
Actually my music is distributed for free and i love every bit of free money i get! come follow me and the funk on Spotify today!
Anu is right on. this is essentially a boot bot. playing music too many times will get it pulled.
Anu is right on. this is essentially a boot bot. playing music too many times will get it pulled.
Anu is right on. this is essentially a boot bot. playing music too many times will get it pulled.
Apple should never have been allowed into the music business. The solution is to get the rotten apple out of the picture and let them be a hardware company like they used to be. There is a solution to all this and I’ve been saying it for 20 years now. Make all the online music free and make everyone pay, even if you don’t download or stream it. A 5.00 fee added to every online subscription account the world over. Track downloads, not streams and use that to track earnings for artists and labels. Its simple and it lets us all benefit from it. We need to put making the music accessible to all first and profit second, this does that.
This is an insane solution. Added internet tax just for the entertainment industry, no way.
At least its a very different idea, we need some truly new ideas.
Apple should never have been allowed into the music business. The solution is to get the rotten apple out of the picture and let them be a hardware company like they used to be. There is a solution to all this and I’ve been saying it for 20 years now. Make all the online music free and make everyone pay, even if you don’t download or stream it. A 5.00 fee added to every online subscription account the world over. Track downloads, not streams and use that to track earnings for artists and labels. Its simple and it lets us all benefit from it. We need to put making the music accessible to all first and profit second, this does that.
This is an insane solution. Added internet tax just for the entertainment industry, no way.
At least its a very different idea, we need some truly new ideas.
Apple should never have been allowed into the music business. The solution is to get the rotten apple out of the picture and let them be a hardware company like they used to be. There is a solution to all this and I’ve been saying it for 20 years now. Make all the online music free and make everyone pay, even if you don’t download or stream it. A 5.00 fee added to every online subscription account the world over. Track downloads, not streams and use that to track earnings for artists and labels. Its simple and it lets us all benefit from it. We need to put making the music accessible to all first and profit second, this does that.
This is an insane solution. Added internet tax just for the entertainment industry, no way.
At least its a very different idea, we need some truly new ideas.
An alternative would be to lower the standard price for an album download, which is basically the same price as a physical CD that had all of the costs associated with selling a physical object.
In which world does downloading an album cost as much as buying the CD? Let me tell you that a CD over here in Denmark averages around 150 DKK, while the same album would cost around 80 DKK on iTunes.
I fail to see where the benefit should be to lower the download price even further.
An alternative would be to lower the standard price for an album download, which is basically the same price as a physical CD that had all of the costs associated with selling a physical object.
In which world does downloading an album cost as much as buying the CD? Let me tell you that a CD over here in Denmark averages around 150 DKK, while the same album would cost around 80 DKK on iTunes.
I fail to see where the benefit should be to lower the download price even further.
An alternative would be to lower the standard price for an album download, which is basically the same price as a physical CD that had all of the costs associated with selling a physical object.
In which world does downloading an album cost as much as buying the CD? Let me tell you that a CD over here in Denmark averages around 150 DKK, while the same album would cost around 80 DKK on iTunes.
I fail to see where the benefit should be to lower the download price even further.
F***ing hell Peter, musicians’ careers are going rapidly down the pan and you think this piece of crap is the “best response” to this crisis? Seriously?? In five years time you won’t be using cosy words like “conundrum” to describe this sad state of affairs either. And in 10 years time there may well not be a music business for you to write about. David Byrne was right. The internet IS sucking the life out of creative endeavour. And for “internet” read “people who want creative content for free.” Wish I could feel more optimistic especially with a family to feed.
I think it was better than Taylor Swift’s open letter, yes. “Response,” not solution.
Ha, I’ve never had people actually tear apart a headline *one word at a time*…
I though that this succinctly summed up the fundamental problem many people were raising with streaming. If you look at the revenue *per play of song*, it just doesn’t add up.
So that means we either need to somehow maintain a download business, or else parlay whatever is happening in streaming to some other revenue streams. But it’s simply bonkers to be fixated on statutory rates during one vendor’s three-month trial when these fundamental questions are unanswered.
And since I agree that there’s a financial crisis here, I don’t think we’re really arguing.
Surely the best response to a problem would be one that effects some positive solution – like Taylor Swift’s did, in fact. Not just some fatuous gimmick. Sadly I think Apple Music is the last faint hope musicians have in reversing the all-pervading cultural concept of free music that is killing our careers stone dead. If anyone can pull this off then Apple can, but realistically it’s pretty hard to imagine that the public will readily return to paying for content they have been consuming at no cost for years now.
I’d dare to say that Swift’s response was to a great deal (if not entirely) only successful, because she is a popular mainstream act with hundres of thousands of fans and followers paying for her art. And she represents in a way a significant number of equally successful mainstream artists.
So, yes, I agree with Peter that – conceptually – this tool was a better, as in: more creative – response.
Why did Swift not support Eternify? Because she would have risked to harm her own business.
get a freaking job and support your family. quit neglecting your responsibilities. your music will be more rewarding if you don’t worry about feeding your family.
Actually I have a job already. I write music and have done professionally for 31 years and am way too old to do anything else. There are many thousands of others like me whose livelihoods are – thanks to this seismic shift in the public perception of the value of music -simply evaporating and you really think we care about feeling rewarded in any other way except financially?
well, apologies if that already was your job. and that may be the cause of your hysteria. the internet is not sucking the life out of the creative endeavor. David Byrne can toss those hot takes off because he can sit in his manor all day and live off the royalties of his past work.
there are other artists that are ‘older’ and are embracing the internet and doing it in a way that adds life to their creativity and opens new avenues for communicating directly with fans. it’s adapt-or-else in the modern economy; whether you make music, cars, computers, or medicine.
F***ing hell Peter, musicians’ careers are going rapidly down the pan and you think this piece of crap is the “best response” to this crisis? Seriously?? In five years time you won’t be using cosy words like “conundrum” to describe this sad state of affairs either. And in 10 years time there may well not be a music business for you to write about. David Byrne was right. The internet IS sucking the life out of creative endeavour. And for “internet” read “people who want creative content for free.” Wish I could feel more optimistic especially with a family to feed.
I think it was better than Taylor Swift’s open letter, yes. “Response,” not solution.
Ha, I’ve never had people actually tear apart a headline *one word at a time*…
I though that this succinctly summed up the fundamental problem many people were raising with streaming. If you look at the revenue *per play of song*, it just doesn’t add up.
So that means we either need to somehow maintain a download business, or else parlay whatever is happening in streaming to some other revenue streams. But it’s simply bonkers to be fixated on statutory rates during one vendor’s three-month trial when these fundamental questions are unanswered.
And since I agree that there’s a financial crisis here, I don’t think we’re really arguing.
Surely the best response to a problem would be one that effects some positive solution – like Taylor Swift’s did, in fact. Not just some fatuous gimmick. Sadly I think Apple Music is the last faint hope musicians have in reversing the all-pervading cultural concept of free music that is killing our careers stone dead. If anyone can pull this off then Apple can, but realistically it’s pretty hard to imagine that the public will readily return to paying for content they have been consuming at no cost for years now.
I’d dare to say that Swift’s response was to a great deal (if not entirely) only successful, because she is a popular mainstream act with hundres of thousands of fans and followers paying for her art. And she represents in a way a significant number of equally successful mainstream artists.
So, yes, I agree with Peter that – conceptually – this tool was a better, as in: more creative – response.
Why did Swift not support Eternify? Because she would have risked to harm her own business.
get a freaking job and support your family. quit neglecting your responsibilities. your music will be more rewarding if you don’t worry about feeding your family.
Actually I have a job already. I write music and have done professionally for 31 years and am way too old to do anything else. There are many thousands of others like me whose livelihoods are – thanks to this seismic shift in the public perception of the value of music -simply evaporating and you really think we care about feeling rewarded in any other way except financially?
well, apologies if that already was your job. and that may be the cause of your hysteria. the internet is not sucking the life out of the creative endeavor. David Byrne can toss those hot takes off because he can sit in his manor all day and live off the royalties of his past work.
there are other artists that are ‘older’ and are embracing the internet and doing it in a way that adds life to their creativity and opens new avenues for communicating directly with fans. it’s adapt-or-else in the modern economy; whether you make music, cars, computers, or medicine.
F***ing hell Peter, musicians’ careers are going rapidly down the pan and you think this piece of crap is the “best response” to this crisis? Seriously?? In five years time you won’t be using cosy words like “conundrum” to describe this sad state of affairs either. And in 10 years time there may well not be a music business for you to write about. David Byrne was right. The internet IS sucking the life out of creative endeavour. And for “internet” read “people who want creative content for free.” Wish I could feel more optimistic especially with a family to feed.
I think it was better than Taylor Swift’s open letter, yes. “Response,” not solution.
Ha, I’ve never had people actually tear apart a headline *one word at a time*…
I though that this succinctly summed up the fundamental problem many people were raising with streaming. If you look at the revenue *per play of song*, it just doesn’t add up.
So that means we either need to somehow maintain a download business, or else parlay whatever is happening in streaming to some other revenue streams. But it’s simply bonkers to be fixated on statutory rates during one vendor’s three-month trial when these fundamental questions are unanswered.
And since I agree that there’s a financial crisis here, I don’t think we’re really arguing.
Surely the best response to a problem would be one that effects some positive solution – like Taylor Swift’s did, in fact. Not just some fatuous gimmick. Sadly I think Apple Music is the last faint hope musicians have in reversing the all-pervading cultural concept of free music that is killing our careers stone dead. If anyone can pull this off then Apple can, but realistically it’s pretty hard to imagine that the public will readily return to paying for content they have been consuming at no cost for years now.
I’d dare to say that Swift’s response was to a great deal (if not entirely) only successful, because she is a popular mainstream act with hundres of thousands of fans and followers paying for her art. And she represents in a way a significant number of equally successful mainstream artists.
So, yes, I agree with Peter that – conceptually – this tool was a better, as in: more creative – response.
Why did Swift not support Eternify? Because she would have risked to harm her own business.
get a freaking job and support your family. quit neglecting your responsibilities. your music will be more rewarding if you don’t worry about feeding your family.
Actually I have a job already. I write music and have done professionally for 31 years and am way too old to do anything else. There are many thousands of others like me whose livelihoods are – thanks to this seismic shift in the public perception of the value of music -simply evaporating and you really think we care about feeling rewarded in any other way except financially?
well, apologies if that already was your job. and that may be the cause of your hysteria. the internet is not sucking the life out of the creative endeavor. David Byrne can toss those hot takes off because he can sit in his manor all day and live off the royalties of his past work.
there are other artists that are ‘older’ and are embracing the internet and doing it in a way that adds life to their creativity and opens new avenues for communicating directly with fans. it’s adapt-or-else in the modern economy; whether you make music, cars, computers, or medicine.
I reckon we should wait and see how popular Apple Music ends up being before we give in to total despair (although I admit, it’s tempting…). Once the free period is over, Apple have said they will give 71.5% of their $9.99 a month subscription rate to the labels. Whether that’s a significant amount or not entirely depends on how many people subscribe, and that’s entirely dependent on how compelling the Apple Music service is for those first three months, and whether they can entice people away from not paying for (or listening to!) music at all.
The potential is staggeringly enormous, simply because Apple already have 800 million customers and can make this a frictionless way of getting music for those people. Just to see how big that potential is, think what would happen if everyone subscribed. That would bring in $69 billion for the music industry (for comparison, the industry made only $15 billion from recorded music globally last year). If 1 in 10 customers sign up, then that would still double the entire global digital income of the music industry.
Simon
I reckon we should wait and see how popular Apple Music ends up being before we give in to total despair (although I admit, it’s tempting…). Once the free period is over, Apple have said they will give 71.5% of their $9.99 a month subscription rate to the labels. Whether that’s a significant amount or not entirely depends on how many people subscribe, and that’s entirely dependent on how compelling the Apple Music service is for those first three months, and whether they can entice people away from not paying for (or listening to!) music at all.
The potential is staggeringly enormous, simply because Apple already have 800 million customers and can make this a frictionless way of getting music for those people. Just to see how big that potential is, think what would happen if everyone subscribed. That would bring in $69 billion for the music industry (for comparison, the industry made only $15 billion from recorded music globally last year). If 1 in 10 customers sign up, then that would still double the entire global digital income of the music industry.
Simon
I reckon we should wait and see how popular Apple Music ends up being before we give in to total despair (although I admit, it’s tempting…). Once the free period is over, Apple have said they will give 71.5% of their $9.99 a month subscription rate to the labels. Whether that’s a significant amount or not entirely depends on how many people subscribe, and that’s entirely dependent on how compelling the Apple Music service is for those first three months, and whether they can entice people away from not paying for (or listening to!) music at all.
The potential is staggeringly enormous, simply because Apple already have 800 million customers and can make this a frictionless way of getting music for those people. Just to see how big that potential is, think what would happen if everyone subscribed. That would bring in $69 billion for the music industry (for comparison, the industry made only $15 billion from recorded music globally last year). If 1 in 10 customers sign up, then that would still double the entire global digital income of the music industry.
Simon
People are fast and ready to dis streaming music for paying little to artist whereas in the USA, terrestrial radio has NEVER, EVER, paid a artist a cent unless they were the publisher or the songwriter too. The performing artist gets NOTHING. BMI and ASCAP are geared only for and pay only to songwriters and publishers.
The difference is that radio didn’t allow you to play your favorite albums whenever, wherever and as often as you’d like. Unlike radio, streaming services render the process of buying music obsolete for a lot of people.
People are fast and ready to dis streaming music for paying little to artist whereas in the USA, terrestrial radio has NEVER, EVER, paid a artist a cent unless they were the publisher or the songwriter too. The performing artist gets NOTHING. BMI and ASCAP are geared only for and pay only to songwriters and publishers.
The difference is that radio didn’t allow you to play your favorite albums whenever, wherever and as often as you’d like. Unlike radio, streaming services render the process of buying music obsolete for a lot of people.
People are fast and ready to dis streaming music for paying little to artist whereas in the USA, terrestrial radio has NEVER, EVER, paid a artist a cent unless they were the publisher or the songwriter too. The performing artist gets NOTHING. BMI and ASCAP are geared only for and pay only to songwriters and publishers.
The difference is that radio didn’t allow you to play your favorite albums whenever, wherever and as often as you’d like. Unlike radio, streaming services render the process of buying music obsolete for a lot of people.
Very interesting points made here Peter… i think that whole business model is still in flux and eternify puts the existing one ad absurdum:)
Very interesting points made here Peter… i think that whole business model is still in flux and eternify puts the existing one ad absurdum:)
Very interesting points made here Peter… i think that whole business model is still in flux and eternify puts the existing one ad absurdum:)
At the bottom of all this is:
– who are the artists? Should they not include, along with the ostensible performers, the writers/arrangers/orchestrators, tech people on the recording, instrument builders, producers, publicity people, and the people maintaining the medium of transmission? and what’s the statute of limitations of each of those creator’s share of the artistry, since in reality, all intellectual property is really common property, while copyright provides for a limited monopoly on that IP. (A side effect of this is that all DRM should provide for the eventual release of an artwork into the public domain. If it cannot do this, it is an illegal infringement on communal rights, which actually trump individual rights).
– what is payment? Should it not be just a cash transferral, but also acknowledgement of authorship and all the inalienable roles in creating this experience?
– what is the work they are paying for? The experience of 4 minutes of air pressure fluctuations, the creative act of designing the music, the act of distributing a version of the performance that is best compatible with its reproduction, the amount of information and the cost of delivering it, the phenomenon of being affected by the music? Should the value depreciate over time or usage, or should it appreciate as it becomes part of the cultural ecosystem?
– who should pay? consumers? distributors for the right to distribute it? The general populace, perhaps through a government service, who benefit both directly and indirectly from the aforementioned emotional affectation and spray of cultural memes?
– should there be an organization between the source of payment and the artists? A case could be made to compensate all of those cultural transactions, and negotiating a formula for each of these stakeholders ought need to be done on a case-by-case basis. This organization (or class of organizations) is also therefore a stakeholder itself, with a claim to credit and compensation. It could be public, and as such accountable to public values, or private, accountable to whatever private entities are accountable to.
Once these issues are straightened out, the amounts involved can be talked about with an eye to negotiating fair fees: fair to the producers, fair to the consumers, and maybe even fair to the middlemen. Then the little dots can be connected between the true producers and the true beneficiaries.
For further reading: Lewis Hyde, The Gift and Common As Air.
At the bottom of all this is:
– who are the artists? Should they not include, along with the ostensible performers, the writers/arrangers/orchestrators, tech people on the recording, instrument builders, producers, publicity people, and the people maintaining the medium of transmission? and what’s the statute of limitations of each of those creator’s share of the artistry, since in reality, all intellectual property is really common property, while copyright provides for a limited monopoly on that IP. (A side effect of this is that all DRM should provide for the eventual release of an artwork into the public domain. If it cannot do this, it is an illegal infringement on communal rights, which actually trump individual rights).
– what is payment? Should it not be just a cash transferral, but also acknowledgement of authorship and all the inalienable roles in creating this experience?
– what is the work they are paying for? The experience of 4 minutes of air pressure fluctuations, the creative act of designing the music, the act of distributing a version of the performance that is best compatible with its reproduction, the amount of information and the cost of delivering it, the phenomenon of being affected by the music? Should the value depreciate over time or usage, or should it appreciate as it becomes part of the cultural ecosystem?
– who should pay? consumers? distributors for the right to distribute it? The general populace, perhaps through a government service, who benefit both directly and indirectly from the aforementioned emotional affectation and spray of cultural memes?
– should there be an organization between the source of payment and the artists? A case could be made to compensate all of those cultural transactions, and negotiating a formula for each of these stakeholders ought need to be done on a case-by-case basis. This organization (or class of organizations) is also therefore a stakeholder itself, with a claim to credit and compensation. It could be public, and as such accountable to public values, or private, accountable to whatever private entities are accountable to.
Once these issues are straightened out, the amounts involved can be talked about with an eye to negotiating fair fees: fair to the producers, fair to the consumers, and maybe even fair to the middlemen. Then the little dots can be connected between the true producers and the true beneficiaries.
For further reading: Lewis Hyde, The Gift and Common As Air.
At the bottom of all this is:
– who are the artists? Should they not include, along with the ostensible performers, the writers/arrangers/orchestrators, tech people on the recording, instrument builders, producers, publicity people, and the people maintaining the medium of transmission? and what’s the statute of limitations of each of those creator’s share of the artistry, since in reality, all intellectual property is really common property, while copyright provides for a limited monopoly on that IP. (A side effect of this is that all DRM should provide for the eventual release of an artwork into the public domain. If it cannot do this, it is an illegal infringement on communal rights, which actually trump individual rights).
– what is payment? Should it not be just a cash transferral, but also acknowledgement of authorship and all the inalienable roles in creating this experience?
– what is the work they are paying for? The experience of 4 minutes of air pressure fluctuations, the creative act of designing the music, the act of distributing a version of the performance that is best compatible with its reproduction, the amount of information and the cost of delivering it, the phenomenon of being affected by the music? Should the value depreciate over time or usage, or should it appreciate as it becomes part of the cultural ecosystem?
– who should pay? consumers? distributors for the right to distribute it? The general populace, perhaps through a government service, who benefit both directly and indirectly from the aforementioned emotional affectation and spray of cultural memes?
– should there be an organization between the source of payment and the artists? A case could be made to compensate all of those cultural transactions, and negotiating a formula for each of these stakeholders ought need to be done on a case-by-case basis. This organization (or class of organizations) is also therefore a stakeholder itself, with a claim to credit and compensation. It could be public, and as such accountable to public values, or private, accountable to whatever private entities are accountable to.
Once these issues are straightened out, the amounts involved can be talked about with an eye to negotiating fair fees: fair to the producers, fair to the consumers, and maybe even fair to the middlemen. Then the little dots can be connected between the true producers and the true beneficiaries.
For further reading: Lewis Hyde, The Gift and Common As Air.
And the service is closed. That didn’t take too long time. But it’s good idea to make 30″ songs and repeat those.
i hear that. come follow me and my music on Spotify
And the service is closed. That didn’t take too long time. But it’s good idea to make 30″ songs and repeat those.
i hear that. come follow me and my music on Spotify
And the service is closed. That didn’t take too long time. But it’s good idea to make 30″ songs and repeat those.
i hear that. come follow me and my music on Spotify