Buy from the table

[budda]

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide....brq0Nhz1D_FSzPsTGXL4UxBgsHdRyynj8yxgcym2wZb8I

Short version: Gov't approves 44% rate increase in streaming royalties across 5 years in US. Spotify and Amazon file an appeal.

It's a good time to switch to Apple Music . Still not paying artists enough, but at least on the right side of this one.

But in reality, go to shows and buy music from the merch table.

 

[7 Strings of Hate]

Personally I think that it’s supply and demand thing and when you have a gazillion people shoving their music onto the Internet then the larger slices of pie that everyone used to split have now been divided into fractions and fractions and fractions. Frankly I can understand why music has very little value anymore and it’s because there’s just so much of it. For example cars have a certain value but if every man woman and child had 75,000 cars for each one of them then those cars wouldn’t have much value. Ideally people she get paid for their work But these days there’s just not enough demand for that type of work to earn the money. If buildings weren’t being built then construction workers wouldn’t be needed and that would be a simple concept that everyone understood and in this case music is actually something no one really needs but if they do there’s an infinite amount of choices

 

[budda]

The toronto housing bubble would like a word about supply and demand.

I just think artists should be paid fairly for their work.

Take away music and there are no streaming apps or curated lists or movie scores etc. Im aware thats not a possibility, but the industry is not kind to the very reason it exists.

 

[TedEH]

It's been discussed over and over again on this forum, but I don't think there is really a sustainable "business" anymore for music, for the reasons Strings of Hate already mentioned and more - and I'm still ok with it. I'm not convinced it has to be repaired into its former shape, or that it could be if we wanted it to be. It's not a need, and there already so much of it.

Same as what's been said in the "is music better now?" thread -> The barrier to entry is low, and the quality coming out of home-recordings and enthusiasts is approaching pro-level stuff (I'd argue that some current amateur stuff is better produced than professional stuff 20-30 years ago). I hate to say it, but I think if there reaally was an audience out there that wanted to support music in the sense that we say, then they would find a way to do it. But there's just not enough demand for that kind of thing anymore compared to how many people wish it could be their job.

I want to pretend that there's a demand for what I'm doing, that it's not a niche thing that has no choice but to be sustained purely as a hobby, but it's hard enough to drag people out to shows, or convince them to click on likes or stream the occasional song, let alone get them to shell out money for expensive merch. There's no money here, and I've made my peace with that - if anything I prefer it that way, for me.

Here's a dumb thought:
We argue all the time that some music is "too commercial sounding" and that "pop is garbage" and we like to tear down anything that sounds like it was made to fill the role of a product being sold instead of an art - but then we want the benefits of that business anyway? Those seem like contradictory goals. "Commercial music sucks.... but I want the structure that supported that to continue to be where money is made in music." As opposed to just embracing the great stuff being made by people in their spare time while they support themselves with proper careers, or find alternative funding, youtube, patreon, giving lessons, etc.

 

[budda]

The former shape wasn't any better man, people still got screwed out of their livelihoods .

I'm impressed that someone on a guitar forum thinks that artists shouldn't be fairly paid for their work.

 

[TedEH]

someone on a guitar forum thinks that artists shouldn't be fairly paid for their work.

I do think people should be paid fairly for their work. I don't think that what a person does with their own time or as a hobby necessarily constitutes "work" and needs to be treated as a profession. I don't think music should be about money at all or treated as work unless someone literally employed you to do it.

It's one thing to be employed to create a thing, it's a whole other story to create something first and then try to sell it.

Is music the only art where people create things up front, then insist that they should be paid for a thing that nobody asked them to do? I know it's brutal/insensitive to say it, but I think it's the truth. I don't know anyone in other media who do that. I mean that in the sense that I know people who are professional artists/ illustrators /etc. - including people who create music for a living - but they do it because it's a product they've managed to sell, or because they were commissioned/employed specifically to do that. And when there's no work to be done in that field, they do something else, or just do it for themselves. The pieces they get paid for are things that someone wanted and requested of them. It's a transaction, and it's fair. You know what's equally fair? If I don't want to buy something, I don't. If nobody wants to engage in the transaction - if nobody wants to buy music - then there's not really anything that can be done about it.

It's not a question of paying people fairly for their work -
It's a question of not diving into something and creating a product knowing full well there's no demand for it, then getting mad when it doesn't sell.

At the end of the day people are not willing (or in some cases able) to spend enough money to sustain everyone who wants to do this. It's either we pay the tiniest bits of the available money out to everyone who wants to participate, or pay a "fair" amount to only a handful of successful people, and nobody else gets an audience. Your whole $10 spotify payment now goes to 5 artists instead of thousands.

You know what I think the tradeoff would ultimately have to be? Going back to having to spend $20 per release to just own the album, and throw out any online listening. No more spotify, no more Apple music, or Youtube. Your library is now limited to only the things you've shelled out for. Much fewer people will have an audience, but the ones that do will be able to live like rock stars again. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this -> I'm sure any artist who has refused to put their stuff up for streaming on principal is thinking along similar lines.

I think artists should be paid fairly for their work, when they are working. But we've demonstrated, as a whole, that we're more than willing to create without the promise of getting paid - and that's on us. If you want to get paid for music, then stop doing it for free, I guess.

I'm 100% ok with making music for the sake of making music, not because I expected to be compensated for doing something I wanted to do in the first place.

 

[eggy in a bready]

Playing music has never been a money-making venture. However, the "industry" shifts to the benefit of the artist more and more every year. Thanks to the internet, it is easier to put yourself out there more than ever. Fans can now buy music directly from the artist, e.g. Bandcamp. Back then, you had to rely on a record label to create leeway for you.

There is no waning demand for music. Music is not getting "cheaper," or "losing value." You just aren't looking in the right places. If your shit is good, people will find their way to you eventually. And it's far easier to find the good shit these days.

 

[budda]

Is music the only art where people create things up front, then insist that they should be paid for a thing that nobody asked them to do?

To be honest, I think every art form does that . Writers, painters, sculptors, musicians - at some point, someone said "hey, I really like this thing you did. I'll pay you to more." and enough people propositioned enough artists that it became a legitimate job If you could find someone to pay.

You keep thinking I want every band or artist to have the rockstar lifestyle (it seems) - but I don't. I don't think *anyone* needs to be making millions off of whatever it is they do, but that's a whole other discussion .

But the fact that there can be 100 bands and 2 of them will be able to have their music cover most of their expenses is kind of wild. I don't doubt that it's the same for painters/illustrators etc.

Most bands and artists aren't being paid fairly for their work. Period. If spotify is telling a band that their song was played 1 Million times, but Spotify then only pays the band $30K for that 1 Million plays... that seems very skewed.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Most bands and artists aren't being paid fairly for their work. Period. If spotify is telling a band that their song was played 1 Million times, but Spotify then only pays the band $30K for that 1 Million plays... that seems very skewed.

What exactly is fair?

I don't know why artists are so dead set on vilifying someone who actually bothers to pay them.

There are dozens (probably hundreds) of ways people can access music and not pay.

But we can't really talk about going after the real issue because of what Metallica did nearly 20 years ago and the emotional response that everyone had.

Spotify isn't the problem. They're just a platform. It's not like that 1 million plays creates "1 million revenue units" for Spotify that they just don't feel like sharing. In fact, financially, Spotify doesn't make a whole lot of profit after operating costs. None of the streaming platforms do. They get revenue, but you have to operate the platform first.

 

[narad]

Most bands and artists aren't being paid fairly for their work. Period. If spotify is telling a band that their song was played 1 Million times, but Spotify then only pays the band $30K for that 1 Million plays... that seems very skewed.

Isn't fair only something we can define comparatively to other artists? Unfair kind of implies that to some extent there is another way they could make more money than what spotify pays them, or that they're making less than another artist that generates identical revenue for spotify.

 

[budda]

Isn't fair only something we can define comparatively to other artists? Unfair kind of implies that to some extent there is another way they could make more money than what spotify pays them, or that they're making less than another artist that generates identical revenue for spotify.

A very good question. Once Im not at work I am interested in exploring this.

 

[MerlinTKD]

Seems like there's a couple of different discussions going on here (all of which I find personally interesting and have all sorts of opinions about )

In response to work vs hobby: I hear what you're saying, that a "I did a thing so you just pay me!!" is kind of a skewed, entitled perspective on economy, but I think, for most artists, it's more of a "please support me financially so I can continue to make art" attitude; a request, rather than a demand. Also, it's been that way for all art since there's been civilization: some did art in their spare time, some few tried to do it full time and asked for help doing so, whether that came from sales or patronage or whatever. So it's not unique to music, or to the 21st Century digital age. Whether artists SHOULD be supported, and how, is a different topic

Regarding fair payment: I think most musicians' issues with streaming service rates are twofold: 1) the historical financial exploitation of music artists by studios and corporations in the 20th century (especially artists of color, but again, that's a different topic), and 2) seeing current corporate streaming services profit heavily while offering artists what seems like a pittance in return. I haven't looked into those profits myself, so I don't know if they're actually exploiting content providers or not, but given 1) above, and general corporate abuse happening right now (for example, GM making record profits, high executive bonuses, while laying off thousands of workers and closing multiple manufacturing plants), it's understandable to be suspicious, especially when they've been so opaque about how the actual numbers.

There's also the limited number of platforms available to get musical artistic output to the potentially buying public (which, in our capitalistic free market, works to depress competition), and the fact that the 'industry' has been moving from a physical product to a completely digital product for some time but is still in the throes of transition, which all just creates an economic environment unfriendly to very people providing the goods that economy runs on. But, sadly, twas ever so between the haves and havenots, the bourgeois and the proletariat, etc etc

 

[TedEH]

Spotify isn't the problem. They're just a platform.

I see the problem being more that the amount of music being made in general has gone up, the number of music products being sold is much higher, but entertainment budgets have not gone up to match. We can point fingers at who or whatever we want to say it isn't fair, but that money has to come from somewhere. You would have to convince people to pay a lot more for what they're already getting, or reduce the libraries down to just what's sustainable. Neither of those is an easy sell.

current corporate streaming services profit heavily

Except that, no - they are not profiting heavily. Spotify has been around for something like 12 years, and if a quick google search is to be believed, they've been operating at a loss for almost that entire time. YouTube's business isn't music, it's advertising- I wouldn't be surprised if the music itself makes them zero money. Apple is... well, they're Apple, so that's a whole other story.

"please support me financially so I can continue to make art"

I'm ok with that sentiment- If that's all it is. But it's often not. It sometimes also comes with a heaping dose of "this is what I have to do for a living, and I refuse to get sustainable employment on the side because it would compromise my artistic integrity" kind of an attitude. It's one thing to say "if you like this, support it and it'll be easier for me to make more", as opposed to saying "it's unfair that I'm not getting paid to do this".

 

[budda]

Show me the professional artist who refuses to side hustle though.

 

[Catalyst Collide]

I'm not going to wade too far into the debate that's happening - mostly because I just woke up and don't have the faculties yet, but I'll say this.
If you go to a show (especially if it's a touring band vs a local act), you like the band and have the means to do so - buy merch. I realize not everyone will have $10 - $20 extra in their budget to buy a shirt, but I don't think there is any better way to support a touring act than that. Yes, the cut of the door they get is income, yes the penny they get from a stream is (sort of) income, but nothing is better than the revenue they get when they sell merch and are on the road. For the size of bands that I think most people on this board are into, it can literally help them get to the next show (or decide if they're going to tour again). Bands not only get a larger profit from the merch, but in volume, it's what I'd call real money (versus the $100 they might get from 3 months worth of streams). Plus you get a cool shirt out of it (or not, I've bought shirts I didn't really care for just because I wanted to support the band).

Most of these smaller bands (and I classify small as bands playing playing clubs under 800 - 1,000 capacity) make close to zero dollars on their actual music. As a consumer, it's cool that I can listen to any song or album I want from any artist via spotify, youtube, bandcamp, etc and not have to pay anything. But as a consumer, it's also cool if the bands I like continue to be bands.

 

[budda]

Isn't fair only something we can define comparatively to other artists? Unfair kind of implies that to some extent there is another way they could make more money than what spotify pays them, or that they're making less than another artist that generates identical revenue for spotify.

Ok, done work, time to dig in a little.

Should we compare "fair" to other artists? I don't think so. I think we need to compare it as having done work, and comparing it to wages in general. I realize that's going to ruffle some feathers hear me out.

In the US there's server's wages, minimum wage, and then everything above that. I would wager there's a way to figure out what "server's wages" should be in the entertainment industry. It doesn't make sense to me that there are platforms which generate income based entirely on someone else's labour, but then don't pay a reasonable wage for that labour. The fact that now two massive corporations now say "hey, we don't want to pay you more for your work - which is how we exist" just doesn't compute. It's an increase over 5 years that was proposed, it's not like it's immediate like a tariff.

I'm pretty sure if someone authors a book, they get paid royalties. They spent years working on their craft, they may have spent years on the piece - I would love to know if those royalties are similar, above or below what spotify pays. What does Kindle charge for a book? What does Barnes and Noble pay publishers for books, and what do authors see from that? Do we have any authors who make any sort of income on here?

I'm also trying to understand how a company runs at a loss, for years. Shouldn't spotify just be dead or absorbed by someone else at this point?

For @TedEH I think we are discussing two separate things here. You're talking about hobbyists asking to be paid without demand for their work. I'm talking about the artists who clearly have demand *because there's people streaming their music* asking for more payment. 44% of $0.03 is now $0.0432 and that's across 5 years. You could double what streaming platforms pay artists and it's still laughable. The demand has been proven. Even people in bands on bigger labels still have day jobs or secondary jobs because operating costs of being in a band in 2019 have gone up. I don't think it's unfair to say "Hey, if you want us to continue to exist you'll need to spend a bit more." Most legitimate touring bands from DIY to major label are registered businesses that pay taxes, have expenses and report their profits and losses. It's literally small businesses saying "we can't exist without more support" and multinational corporations saying "We can't let that happen." I don't know how to make it clearer. I'm not discussing hobby/part time bands at all.

And we've likely all heard about how much profit Amazon had in 2018 - and yet here they are, telling artists "we really can't pay you more" .

 

[MaxOfMetal]

It doesn't make sense to me that there are platforms which generate income based entirely on someone else's labour, but then don't pay a reasonable wage for that labour.

Platforms like Spotify don't just exist. It takes a lot of work to run and market.

It's a company with over 4000 employees. They don't just sit in an abandoned football stadium and think of new and exciting ways to fuck artists on the Jumbotron.

Artists are the one getting a freebie if anything. How much music is meant specifically for streaming? If the product was going to exist regardless of streaming existing, than its not a stretch to say that streaming was ancillary enough that anything gained was unplanned income.

I'm also trying to understand how a company runs at a loss, for years. Shouldn't spotify just be dead or absorbed by someone else at this point?

That's an easy one: debt.

Debt can be both good and bad. My mortgage is "good" debt, because it's more likely that my home will appreciate. If I max out my credit cards buying rims for my trucks, that's bad debt because those depreciate. That's a super simplified explanation.

Spotify has shown investors that they're becoming profitable, or at least have the potential to, and until the situation is dire enough to scare away investors, they'll keep getting injections of funds from investors or from banks to keep functioning.

I'm talking about the artists who clearly have demand *because there's people streaming their music* asking for more payment.

Demand isn't a yes/no or on/off proposition.

Demand is tied to necessity and perceived value. Obviously music isn't necessary to live, but it's value to consumers has changed.

For example, if I have a restaurant and sell hamburgers at $5 a pop, and I'm busy and just barely profitable. But, if I raise my price to $10 I'll have comfortable profits. The market, which has access to a plethora of restaurants, will determine if my product still has demand. It's very possible that while they want my burgers they don't "$10 want them" and either go elsewhere...or dine and dash (piracy).

 

[Mathemagician]

Using metal as a broad example. People want to make something that doesn’t sell “metal”, yet want to take home salaries and make money like things that do sell IE “pop”.

If an artist is making music and no one is paying for any of it at all ever and they made barely $1k all in last year, then they ARE being paid fairly - no one seems it worth their $$$. It just fucking sucks. Especially when the band is making REALLY GOOD metal.

I try to buy albums, pay for tickets and buy a shirt whenever I can. But I happily pay for streaming so at least they get something. $0.00000001 cent as it may be.

Personally I think a big part of the reason plenty of older acts keep going like Metallica or Rolling Stones. People will keep paying for a known entity but they don’t seem to want to pay for new artists.

I like that Metallica will bring smaller bands to open for them sometimes, as that can lead to new fans. Same thing as when bands like slip knot or disturbed go on tour, it’s a huge win to be on one of those tours.

People knock djent for example, but if you were a new band in the last 8 years and DIDNT jump on that gravy train then that’s on you. Same thing like death-core or metal-core before that, or nu-metal even earlier. Now it’s prog-space-metal with headless guitars.

Buy low sell high guys, I think hiphop trance prog is up next.

 

[KailM]

I’m just gonna keep making black metal.

 

[broj15]

Idk, my bands have always gone strictly through Bandcamp (using the pay what you want option) and either self released our physical material or worked with a small, trusted, DIY label, usually ran by one of our friends/peers in the music scene. We understand we're a niche band and don't ever expect to make any real money off of it. That's why we all work full-time jobs. Sure, it would be nice to quit my day job and focus entirely on music, but I feel like people need to understand how unrealistic that is. Guitar music, for lack of a better term, is dead to the mainstream, unless you wanna count people like jack white, John Mayer, the Black keys etc. But even those artists aren't experiencing the same level of success they were 10 or even 5 years ago.

Not to mention, the metal musicians you see that aren't working day jobs aren't just getting thier money from streaming and music sales. It comes from merch sales, tours, sponsorships, side hustles (ie. Production & recording for other musicians) and studio work. I'd say that album sales and streaming revenue hasn't been any musicians bread n butter for a very long time.

I'm not saying people shouldn't get paid for thier art, but unfortunately the market determines the value of that art, not the creator. Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. If you don't like that then take it up with capitalism/the free market economy. It's like when a band with less than 1000 likes/followers asks me to book them a show and then they start talking about a guarantee. They might think thier time and effort put into touring is worth whatever they're asking, but if I know for a fact they don't have a following that would justify me agreeing to a guarantee then I'm not gonna play ball with them. Not saying I've ever stiffed a band (on the contrary, when the show's been a bust I've paid out of pocket to make sure everything is taken care of), but I'm also not trying to pay for someone else's punk rock vacation either.

If you don't like how Amazon, Spotify, apple, etc. Do things then don't use them. Simple as that. Bandcamp is seriously the best place for artists on the lower level to upload and promote thier material IMO. Yeah, you won't get paid every time someone listens to your music, but that means Bandcamp doesn't get paid either. THEY only make money when YOU make money, and in my experience we've always gotten to keep the vast majority of whatever was donated to us.