advertisement


Why I will not give money to streaming platforms

I agree - I still buy all my albums for download rather than just streaming them - partly for this reason. I’ve even bought albums I don’t even like that much just to support the artist!
 
Likewise, ill take a listen once online but anything I like I buy, usually direct from the artist site.
 
I've realised looking at my initial post it might appear to also be judgemental to end-users. I was referring completely to the platforms (e.g. Spotify et al). I don't blame the end user for using them as I certainly see the lure of having everything right at your fingertips and I think most on here would pay a premium if they knew that the extra went to the artists.
 
The article is a bit of a rant really. If Spotify are on "an aggressive campaign away from music" (can't say I'd noticed myself), then surely in his eyes that should be a great thing, because apparently they don't pay enough to musicians anyway.

In reality I don't actually believe it's the streaming services that are at solely fault here, it's also the labels for agreeing to give away their content for practically nothing.

There's also way too many musicians out there who think they should be able to make a living from music....
 
The whole model of how pro-musicians make money is in turmoil. Traditionally touring was there to support & promote album sales.
Now, not that many people under 30 yrs old go out & buy a cd, vinyl or even downloads. Not in the same way that people used to. Even the vinyl resurgence is a relatively niche market.
The biggest bands have ( until recently at least) made their money from tours, with sponsorship deals. For everyone else, it’s bloomin’ tough.
If artists were to get more £ per download or stream, the subscription costs to the end user would probably rise significantly, & would people happily pay more?
Anyone starting their career in music now is going to be in for a tough time to make a comfortable living.
 
Tw99 said:
The article is a bit of a rant really. If Spotify are on "an aggressive campaign away from music" (can't say I'd noticed myself), then surely in his eyes that should be a great thing, because apparently they don't pay enough to musicians anyway.

In reality I don't actually believe it's the streaming services that are at solely fault here, it's also the labels for agreeing to give away their content for practically nothing.

There's also way too many musicians out there who think they should be able to make a living from music....
Click to expand...

I can assure you the vast majority of labels have no say whatsoever in how much they get paid from streaming platforms. Your choice is sign up and take what's on offer or get nothing.

The flipside of streaming that's rarely mentioned is that it benefits deep catalogue, where stream revenue often dwarfs download revenue.
 
sq225917 said:
Likewise, ill take a listen once online but anything I like I buy, usually direct from the artist site.
Click to expand...
Same here.
I have access to Tidal but always buy what I like.
Apart from believing that musicians should be able to earn something decent from their craft/art, my reasoning is that a lot of stuff I have and like from previous decades is not available to stream and consequently that a lot of today's stuff I like will disappear from streaming services in the future.
 
A pal of mine worked for Universal and was in the room when Daniel Ek (Spotify CEO) pitched his deal at them. Basically it was a protection racket scam, let me stream your artists music for a few quid or the Napster types will steal it for free.
The music industry just didn’t understand the power of the internet for so long...hence why we are where we are today.
 
So I paid a horn section the standard session rate (plus tip) for my last single. In order to recoup only what I paid for the horn section, I would need in the region of 30,000 streams...

...not including the cost to put each track up on Spotify, the extra cost for mastering for their platform, plus the cost of MCPS licencing and mechanical royalties. I don’t bother with that level of industry engagement. Spotify* is a straight-up scam & Ek has never done an honest days work in his life.

*Its not just Spotify, Tidal, Amazon,Google and Apple all maintain a similar structure.
 
The creative arts are about the only thing we are world leaders in; it brings in countless £££’s & I believe is our biggest export.

Not too much of a stretch to understand that it is important for artists to be able to eat.

I am sorry, but those who just stream via Spotify, Tidal etc are part of the problem. Support the artists, buy product.
 
Music, like any other art form (or sports for that matter) has a very small percentage of really successful artists.
For every Ed Sheeran or Beyoncé, there are thousands of musicians who never get to progress beyond playing local pubs or the ever shrinking club circuit. Regardless of talent levels.
Of course, young musicians have to have the belief that they are going to be the next big thing & deserve to make the big £££.I guess that’s what tw99 is referring to?
It’s a hard apprenticeship & you have to develop a thick skin, or else you will never succeed.
Some that fully deserve recognition & financial reward will never get it, equally there are plenty of talentless charlatans who through pure luck go on to be household names. I guess it was ever so.
 
manicatel said:
Music, like any other art form (or sports for that matter) has a very small percentage of really successful artists.
For every Ed Sheeran or Beyoncé, there are thousands of musicians who never get to progress beyond playing local pubs or the ever shrinking club circuit. Regardless of talent levels.
Of course, young musicians have to have the belief that they are going to be the next big thing & deserve to make the big £££.I guess that’s what tw99 is referring to?
It’s a hard apprenticeship & you have to develop a thick skin, or else you will never succeed.
Some that fully deserve recognition & financial reward will never get it, equally there are plenty of talentless charlatans who through pure luck go on to be household names. I guess it was ever so.
Click to expand...

Yes, my point was that while lots of people might like to make a living through music, painting, sculpture, writing, photography, acting, sport, whatever... Realistically there are only a certain number of people who will be able to do that because there is a limited capacity for it in the economy. Everyone else has to face getting a day job.
 
I guess it's hard to generalise. If you're a classical musician I imagine income comes from session fees and concerts (and classical fans still buy lots of physical product). If you're a grime artist you're more likely to be monetising your youtube channel.

I do think it's got harder for musicians to make a living though - the perceived value of music has dropped to virtually nothing.
 
Anyone know payments to musicians how this compares to radio royalties?

I use streaming a bit like the I used to use the radio - if I like anything it tend to buy a hard copy but there are quite a few artists I've now got records of CDs by which I wouldn't have bought without a listen first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top