Buy from the table

[MaxOfMetal]

First of all, great post.

donated

That brings up another interesting concept.

What do you (not you specifically, broj15, but everyone) think you're doing with your financial contribution to an artist?

Are you buying a physical product (merchandise) or an experience (live show), or is it not as direct as that? Are you investing in the future of the band to provide you with more music, merchandise, and shows down the line, or are you donating to thier cause, much like a gratuity?

These concepts alone muddy the waters of what "fair" compensation might be.

If I see a band live and buy a $50 sweatshirt, does that absolve me from having to pay directly for an album? If I donate to a band's Go Fund Me, am I entitled to not have to support them moving forward?

At what point has my fair share been paid? When is it up for renewal? If we can't answer this stuff, it's hard to hold content platforms like Spotify to a higher standard.

 

[broj15]

To answer your question, I guess Ill refer back to my previous post: that's all determined by whoever is donating money.

When I personally decide to donate to a band it's because they're either friends of mine who support me and I want to return the favor, or it's me saying "hey, I recognize what y'all are doing and I appreciate it enough to shell out my hard earned money to let y'all know that". I'll stop donating when I stop supporting what an artist does, or when I simply don't have the means to do so.

I feel like alot of artists, at least in the circles I run with these days (diy punk, hardcore, experimental, noise, etc.) Are of the school of thought that something that isn't tangible like a digital album doesn't hold the same amount of value as a physical release or merch, so they often do post the album for free/donation only. If you buy the physical copy or any other form of merch it comes with a download code so you can stream the album offline and not use your precious data, which I feel like is a good model. I know once you hit a certain number of free downloads on Bandcamp that they'll "cut you off" and you'll either be forced to put a price on the album, or Bandcamp will charge $1 for the download (still a bargain from the buyer's perspective). When that happens I've seen artists upload thier own material to MediaFire and include the link in the albums description so fans can avoid paying the $1. Of course it's completely up to the artist if they wanna go that route. They created it so if they wanna give it away for free then by all means, more power to them. Alternatively if they wanna wanna charge $10 for a digital download then that's fine too, but the material better be some "religious moment" level stuff for me to wanna pay that much for some data that I can't physically hold, and if I like an album that much I'm probably gonna want to own a physical copy anyways.

I feel like alot of that comes from so much emphasis being put on the live show environment and the actual "scene" aspect of the music for the genres I just mentioned. For us, putting our album out was just another promotional tool. It's a way for us to market ourselves to people outside our local scene that might not have an opportunity to see us live, so that way they can experience our music to some degree, and hopefully that will win them over and they'll wanna come see us, or better yet, offer to book a show for us when we do play outside of the city. Releasing music is just another promotional tool for us to get our name out there so we can play the shows we wanna play with musicians we respect/look up to. In other words, the album is supposed to get you hooked and the live show is supposed to make you stick around.

 

[budda]

Question:

Do people care when their preferred acts stop performing live? Or are they happy they saw them, and just look up live videos when they're feeling nostalgic?

Honest question, all my favourites are still out .

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Question:

Do people care when their preferred acts stop performing live? Or are they happy they saw them, and just look up live videos when they're feeling nostalgic?

Honest question, all my favourites are still out .

Honestly, with everything I have going on, between my family, work (third shift), and the work I do with a number of non-profits, I don't really go to shows anymore.

So, I don't really care who is or isn't touring anymore.

I care if bands break up or if there are significant lineup changes, but only so much.

 

[Demiurge]

Even though I have been incorrigibly old/cranky about the circumstances of seeing live music, I still like going to shows.

I feel like 85% of the time when I'm listening to music, I'm in the car, on-the-go, and not really in a position to really engage with and truly enjoy it. A live show is 100% engagement and one of the few times I really make an effort to get out. Not big on merch but I do buy physical albums.

 

[TedEH]

I don't have time at this very moment to type up the longer reply that I'd like to but:
- Steaming numbers on Spotify are not indicative of demand for a higher-priced product. Bring up the price and see the number of customers drop.

- At the end of the day, I'm in support of the original idea of supporting a band directly via their merch tables, and you can justify that in whatever way you want. I disagree only with the "Steaming is unfair" or the notion that artists are getting intentionally stiffed by anyone who could afford to do otherwise.

Buy merch? Yes. Do whatever you feel you need to do to support your music? Absolutely. I just have no bones to pick with Spotify or streaming rates, low as they may be.

 

[budda]

IMO there is a good discussion going here and I thank everyone for their contributions!

 

[Sogradde]

It depends, really. If you treat it like a job, do sheet music, studio sessions, live gigs etc. you should be paid like anyone else as stated in your contract. If you just do your thing solo or with your band and play whatever music/shows you like, the market will decide how much your music is worth to them. You may not be happy with the result but it is as fair as it gets.
Technological progress allows every bedroom player to release a professional sounding full length album with little to no monetary investment. The downside being, that you'll have to fight for people's money with every bedroom player who releases a professional sounding full length album made with little to no monetary investment. It's cool if you just want to get your music across, it's bad if you want to make a living off of it.

Misha had the right idea when he treated Periphery as a hobby and looked for money elsewhere.

 

[jsmalleus]

I think there are a few things we should take into account in regards to streaming. One is I believe we have a bit of a skewed idea of how many folks buy physical media given how many of us and our friends buy albums. We're not the norm at all, most people just stream, many don't even subscribe to a service and just free play or go to youtube because music isn't a big part of their lives. The problem also is as we get older and the demographic that spends more $ on music (teens/young adults) transitions to the folks who have always had streaming around as a medium, streaming is going to be the even more dominant medium. That nostalgia factor and full album digestion mentality that drives many physical media sales is just going to keep diminishing. Also, income inequality isn't going to be letting up anytime soon and the cost of goods isn't going to be going down, so people will likely be spending less of their $ on things like music as time goes on. Media quality (video, VR, etc.) has also increased and I'm sure having a crystal clear or interactive video of a concert on youtube decreases the need folks feel to go out and see bands live. Add all those things together and other revenue streams besides streaming dry up quite a bit. Given that, I think it's quite necessary for that 44% increase to take effect.

Also keep in mind in regards to "oh spotify isn't making any $" salaries are an expense on the books, repaying the folks who inject the initial capital is a financing expense, as is just about anything else you want to do and find an excuse write off as a business expense. If you work at any company with large amounts of $ coming in, you've likely seen the ridiculous, often extravagant shit that gets expensed as well so they can feel like they're a hot shot living the dream & living as or more lavishly than their peers. It's like it's monopoly $ to them, not real $. Take a look at some of the non-profits and "charitable" organizations out there and you'll see it's quite common that something like 15 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause while the execs are rolling around in $. There's ways to pay the artists, cover expenses, and operate at a profit, what the appeal to the artist royalty increase represents is nothing more than those folks not wanting to give the money to the artists rather than living a certain type of lifestyle. It's human nature, the people living that way are greedy, they don't say, oh this is enough, I'm happy with what I'm making and how I live. The issue at heart is they're living that lifestyle on the backs of the artists that make their business possible. They won't pay artists a penny more than they have to unless they're legally forced to, that's the whole nature of a corporation. They're also legally required to make the shareholders as much $ as possible. Standards have to be set and implemented legally, otherwise they'll just keep more revenue for themselves and afford themselves more elaborate benefits. Unless the majority of the population moves to cut out the middle man via bandcamp, buying from the artist, etc. (which they won't), then these types of changes are absolutely necessary, and especially as the industry condenses around these streaming platforms, there will be more times in the future where artists have to come together and make similar demands for adjustments.

 

[TedEH]

There's ways to pay the artists, cover expenses, and operate at a profit, what the appeal to the artist royalty increase represents is nothing more than those folks not wanting to give the money to the artists rather than living a certain type of lifestyle.

Do you have evidence that all the money going into Spotify is funding lavish lifestyles instead of back into the business? Or are you making an assumption on the premise that this is just how all business works because capitalism = evil or something? My very quick googling suggests that most of their expenses go to licensing - which, unless I don't understand how it works (and I very well might not), is the path that leads to artist payouts.

My next question: Is it really the streaming service who is deciding on what the artist ultimately gets or is it the label?

 

[jsmalleus]

Do you have evidence that all the money going into Spotify is funding lavish lifestyles instead of back into the business? Or are you making an assumption on the premise that this is just how all business works because capitalism = evil or something? My very quick googling suggests that most of their expenses go to licensing - which, unless I don't understand how it works (and I very well might not), is the path that leads to artist payouts.

My next question: Is it really the streaming service who is deciding on what the artist ultimately gets or is it the label?

Does a $566 million 17 year World Trade Center lease, with almost $31 million in upfront payments required for a company based in Sweden to begin with count? "The contract works out to $33.29 million a year on base rent alone, or $2.77 million a month." Being based in Sweden is it really necessary to have a high profile pad in one of the most expensive markets in the world (NYC)? I doubt it. And I doubt they're taking the light touch on furnishing their new crib either.

Labels are definitely a contributing factor in why artists don't get paid in proportion to the $ they generate, every middle man is taking a slice of the pie, some provide more service than others, but until the market changes and they can be cut out and the music still presented on a medium that people actually utilize, then musicians have to claw back what they can.

I'm not arguing most musicians should be able to make a living on their music, for most it's fine that it's a hobby, but I think they should be compensated fairly in proportion to the amount of $ they are generating and making these middle men, be they streaming services, labels, or whatever.

 

[GunpointMetal]

Music itself (any genre) is a throwaway commodity. You gotta have the branding, trinkets, merch, actual SHOW, etc to get people to spend money on it. If you're someone who wants to support an artist, listening to their music on Spotify isn't helping much, if at all, unless they're already getting enough listens to not really need yours. You need to go to their bandcamp and buy shirts, or limited run vinyl, and buy tickets to go see them when they come near you. I think it's pretty dumb of most of us (assuming most people here are playing some brand of metal/prog/niche rock music) to think we're gonna put out a record we made in our bedrooms in some obscure genre and the "right" people are gonna hear it and you're gonna make money from the music. I know I'm a niche inside a niche inside a tiny genre, and the chances of even getting to the point of breaking even are slim, so I don't spend too much time worrying about how much people are paying for my music, as long as there are some of them at our shows, and I see our shirts pop up every now and then, I think I'm doing alright for someone with a hobby.

 

[TedEH]

Does a $566 million 17 year World Trade Center lease, with almost $31 million in upfront payments required for a company based in Sweden to begin with count?

Not really. They have to work somewhere. How many people actually work there? What ends up being the costs of providing a workplace per person, and how would that compare to what they already are paying for things like salary? Could they have worked someplace cheaper? Sure they could. But why would they? They have incentive to "look like a big player" and attract talent to locations like this, and at the end of the day, it's probably not one of their larger expenses. I would imagine they spend much more on the actual technical distro side of things. And just because the building is expensive doesn't mean they're living like kings there either. They could be working out of a shoebox and it wouldn't solve anything in this discussion.

 

[Musiscience]

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.

Montreal’s is heading in the same direction (not that houses here aren’t already unnafordable).

 

[jsmalleus]

Their executive salaries don't look like shoebox livin' salaries to me:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/07/spotify-2017-tax-income/

"Could they have worked someplace cheaper? Sure they could."

Could they pay artists a couple fractions of a cent more? Sure they could.

 

[budda]

And we know Amazon has money.

But they still dont want to pay artists more, who allow their business to exist.

 

[TedEH]

We're not really asking for fractions of a cent though are we? It's already been said that you could double or triple the payments and it would still be a pittance.

Ok.... so lets say that we give each stream it's share of the executives salary.... that's 26 million for the top 5 execs, compared to 900 billion streams.
That would give us still less than half a cent per stream, which doesn't break our threshold for "fair payment" at all. Paying each stream a fair amount would be an insane amount of money.

 

[TedEH]

IMO the per-stream model just doesn't make any sense. Compared to an album sale - how many times do you listen to the same song on an album you've purchased? it could be once. It could be never. It could be thousands of times. It also doesn't directly correlate to anything that either brings in revenue - but rather incurs an expense for them. Number of streams are going to increase the technical load on the system and then also hit them with the streaming royalty amount, which could skyrocket at any moment, without accruing any extra subscribers.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

We're not really asking for fractions of a cent though are we? It's already been said that you could double or triple the payments and it would still be a pittance.

Ok.... so lets say that we give each stream it's share of the executives salary.... that's 26 million for the top 5 execs, compared to 900 billion streams.
That would give us still less than half a cent per stream, which doesn't break our threshold for "fair payment" at all. Paying each stream a fair amount would be an insane amount of money.

That's the thing, everyone wants to use nebulous terms like "more" and "fair" without actually saying how much more they would consider to be fair.

 

[GunpointMetal]

Maybe "fair" would be the company only collecting on the subscriber money and putting the money they charge advertisers on the free platform into artists? These services are more or less just advanced versions of satellite radio (which people were paying for, and I don't remember there being much hoopla about how much artists were making). Selling "art" has and probably always will be a losing endeavor for MOST artists/creators. There has never been a "heyday" for artists, there was a time where the ability to make art was out of reach to a lot of people, so the ones who could get the attention of the public got to make some money, and most everyone else didn't even participate. Now literally everyone with a social media account has a side hustle/art/etsy/podcast/YT channel or whatever that they feel like they should be monetizing, and can't understand by one person has a million subscribers and they only have 3. When everyone is throwing EVERYTHING at the wall to see what sticks, you run out of space real quick. Just make music, play shows, and be happy.