New bands can’t compete on streaming

Cols

Interesting but depressing article about the challenges facing new acts on streaming - they simply can’t compete with established acts.

Effectively, it’s like trying to join a game of Monopoly after nearly all the properties have been bought.

Classic bands accused of crowding out new music on streaming services https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55717156

darthed1981

It does rather frustrate me that streaming, an idea which provides excellent value for the consumer and generates billions in revenue, gets the blame.

Now, the people who run streaming, the record labels, sure, they deserve the blame, as they have followed their usual form and used the technology change to fuck artists as hard as they possibly can.  A lot of artists get a tiny percentage of "digital revenues".

It's a superstar economy business in which the biggest superstars are always the big record labels.

A lot of revenue is generated by streaming, enough that Spotify can drop huge sums on podcasts by right-wing nutters and Harry and Meghan (the combination of those two things is making me feel like cancelling my subscription).

But what's the alternative?  The old model is deader than dead and isn't coming back.  Streaming is great for the consumer and it does generate revenue, which limewire and napster sure as hell didn't.

The new music business seems to be a lot more focussed on building and retaining a small and loyal fanbase.  No gigging kind of wrecks that, but if a mercury prize winner is moving back with parents, maybe she should look at all the youtubers plush pads and reassess her own business model?

"It's a shit business" - which ultimately means, it's a business, and if you aren't making money then you are failing in the business.

barnstorm

It's unsustainably good value, though. People now believe that if access to tens of millions of songs costs £9.99 a month (or literally nothing but a willingness to hear to ads), then that's what it's worth. Which is mental; consider what you'd be prepared to pay for access to just your ten favourite songs if all existing formats disappeared somehow. Recorded music has always been a bargain.

It's fine to take the position that if artists aren't making money under the current system, they're failing and ought to find something else to do, but that has to go hand-in-hand with an acknowledgement that there will be dramatically less good music made in the future. It's not just talentless dreamers who are struggling.

darthed1981

barnstorm said:

It's unsustainably good value, though. People now believe that if access to tens of millions of songs costs £9.99 a month (or literally nothing but a willingness to hear to ads), then that's what it's worth. Which is mental; consider what you'd be prepared to pay for access to just your ten favourite songs if all existing formats disappeared somehow. Recorded music has always been a bargain.

It's fine to take the position that if artists aren't making money under the current system, they're failing and ought to find something else to do, but that has to go hand-in-hand with an acknowledgement that there will be dramatically less good music made in the future. It's not just talentless dreamers who are struggling.

I'm not sure that's the case though - sure in the past I personally used to spend more than a tenner a month on music, but the average joe did not, so for the average joe, surely the amount of revenue is UP?

rze99

The rates per play for the artists are too small. That’s obvious. My kids 19 and 21 think a tenner a month is good value. But it is at the expense of artist revenue. 

We put our tracks on YouTube and get maybe a thousand plays per video on average. Zero income. 

Good job I have a real job. 

darthed1981

rze99 said:

The rates per play for the artists are too small. That’s obvious. My kids 19 and 21 think a tenner a month is good value. But it is at the expense of artist revenue. 

We put our tracks on YouTube and get maybe a thousand plays per video on average. Zero income. 

Good job I have a real job. 

Streaming generates HUGE revenue.  The enquiry that is ongoing is really looking to stick the labels for keeping all the money.

Cols

Revenue of the music industry as a whole is on the rise again, after years of decline.  

Despite that, there’s less money than ever making its way back to the artists.  The predominant form of “consumption” of music (urgh) is now streaming, which is bad for new artists; because the payments are based on how many times a song is streamed, familiar favourites will have a comfortable advantage over new material.

And despite its vast revenue, Spotify never seems to actually turn a profit.  It posted losses of hundreds of millions of dollars in 2020. 

hollywoodrox

I wonder if noddy holder has seen his revenue drop on his royalties on Merry xmas everyone’ since streaming appeared  

darthed1981

Cols said:

Despite that, there’s less money than ever making its way back to the artists.  The predominant form of “consumption” of music (urgh) is now streaming, which is bad for new artists; because the payments are based on how many times a song is streamed, familiar favourites will have a comfortable advantage over new material.

Yeah that's an interesting point which might end up (legally) reflected in the outcome of the enquiry.

If I were to listen to a new band, constantly all month, say err... Tempesst, then I would logically expect the £7 of my £10 that goes to the labels to be directed entirely at them, but it won't work like that.  In reality, they would get pennies.

The "user specific" model would be far fairer, and of course, would be similar to the revenue from a CD sale.

Hick81

I think the overall point is fair enough. You only have to look at festival lineups to see how crowded they are with bands who haven’t been relevant in years. But it’s also what people want. 

David Byrne wrote a good book explaining a lot of the financials ‘How Music Works’. 

barnstorm

darthed1981 said:

Cols said:

Despite that, there’s less money than ever making its way back to the artists.  The predominant form of “consumption” of music (urgh) is now streaming, which is bad for new artists; because the payments are based on how many times a song is streamed, familiar favourites will have a comfortable advantage over new material.

The "user specific" model would be far fairer, and of course, would be similar to the revenue from a CD sale.

The Universal boss mentioned it as a possibility in the session, which was new, but I won't hold my breath! It's unclear to me how invested the majors are in the future health of the music-making industry, because having hoovered up almost all properly popular music between them, they could never put out another new record and still make a killing.

Re. more revenue, it's true that some people who previously didn't buy many CDs now have a streaming subscription, but less than half of Spotify's users pay for Premium, and any way you cut it the earning potential for most artists is smaller than when CD sales were the norm.

Last time I did the maths (and the per-stream rate won't have got more generous), the average artist's cut of an £8 CD sale (which was about a quid) equated to around 4000 streams.

Additionally, the shopper who liked a CD they'd bought probably went on to buy more from the artist in the future, and perhaps the artist's whole back catalogue, too. There's currently very little direct financial benefit to being discovered by someone who ends up loving you, but who only streams music. Maybe you see a benefit in merch or ticket sales, but that's not a given at all, and making the most of those potential revenue streams isn't straightforward.

And it's worth remembering, too, that all artists previously enjoyed a certain number of purchases from people who ultimately didn't like the music all that much. Even those of us who still buy albums aren't filling artists' pockets in quite the same way we used to, because we're not making 'I'll give it a go' purchases as often, or at all. (I'm not asking to go back to being disappointed by x% of CDs I buy, for the record!)

Grumpyrocker

Seems it would be much fairer if the tenner I paid Spotify was shared among the artists I actually listened to, rather than just going into a big pot. I'm giving money to Taylor Swift and Kanye but never listen to them. 

Moleman

Looks like some of the old bands (or rather, older musicians from the 1960’s) can’t make streaming pay either:

https://guitar.com/news/music-news/david-crosby-sells-song-catalogue/

fields5069

There's an interesting Joe Rogan interview with the Black Keys on YT, where Patrick in particular has a few things to say on the music business.

Moe_Zambeek

Moleman said:

Looks like some of the old bands (or rather, older musicians from the 1960’s) can’t make streaming pay either:

https://guitar.com/news/music-news/david-crosby-sells-song-catalogue/

Isn’t that more because he stuck millions of dollars up his nose and through his liver? Allegedly...

Cols

Thinking about it, the financial distribution is reversed compared to pre-streaming days.

To take myself as case in point - mostly I listen to Queen, Led Zep, Sabbath, Free, etc.  Old stuff.

However, the last time I actually bought one of their albums was years ago, so they don’t make any money off that repeated listening.  Being a total dinosaur, I buy my music as CD or - shock - vinyl.  I don’t use any streaming services.

If a cool new album is released, I buy it and the artist gets a little bit of money from it.  I might not listen to it as much as my old favourites, but the artist still receives some money for their new music.  Which seems fair, because the band just had to pay for recording the album and needs to recoup that outlay.

If you transferred my listening habits to streaming, the distribution of money would be completely reversed.  All the old bands would hoover up the majority of my subscription from my repeated listening, while the new music would get whatever crumbs fell from the table.

Basically, new music doesn’t pay very well for the artists any more.

WiresDreamDisasters

Saying that your sub money should to go the artists you listen to and that it would be fairer is like saying you shouldn't have to pay for the NHS or the buses because you don't use them.

I don't buy it. Doesn't seem logical to me.

You're paying for a subscription. It's not Spotify's fault that you're not using it to the fullest.

The only way any of this will change is simple - stop using it. Start buying CD's and vinyl again. Start actually supporting your bands instead of looking for a great sweatshop deal on your music consumption.

fields5069

I enjoy the "sweatshop" consumption for what it is, it expands my horizons. But I don't see the need to "own" whatever I listen to. There are ways and means of making this fairer, it sounds like the commercial model isn't working for everyone.

darthed1981

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Saying that your sub money should to go the artists you listen to and that it would be fairer is like saying you shouldn't have to pay for the NHS or the buses because you don't use them.

I don't buy it. Doesn't seem logical to me.

You're paying for a subscription. It's not Spotify's fault that you're not using it to the fullest.

The only way any of this will change is simple - stop using it. Start buying CD's and vinyl again. Start actually supporting your bands instead of looking for a great sweatshop deal on your music consumption.

Except that the enquiry is specifically about making streaming fairer, i.e. making more of the massive revenues from streaming get to the artists.

CDs are dying on their behind sales-wise, and the vinyl revival is likely very temporary, streaming is the future.  The opportunity of government intervention is to make that inevitable future fairer.

Personally, I still love buying signed copies of things by my favourite bands, but I'm nearly 40, most people under 25 will never have bought a CD, and aren't about to start.

darthed1981

Cols said:

Thinking about it, the financial distribution is reversed compared to pre-streaming days.

To take myself as case in point - mostly I listen to Queen, Led Zep, Sabbath, Free, etc.  Old stuff.

However, the last time I actually bought one of their albums was years ago, so they don’t make any money off that repeated listening.  Being a total dinosaur, I buy my music as CD or - shock - vinyl.  I don’t use any streaming services.

If a cool new album is released, I buy it and the artist gets a little bit of money from it.  I might not listen to it as much as my old favourites, but the artist still receives some money for their new music.  Which seems fair, because the band just had to pay for recording the album and needs to recoup that outlay.

If you transferred my listening habits to streaming, the distribution of money would be completely reversed.  All the old bands would hoover up the majority of my subscription from my repeated listening, while the new music would get whatever crumbs fell from the table.

Basically, new music doesn’t pay very well for the artists any more.

That's a very good point but you forget where the major labels utterly rake it in... reissues.

Since they surprised themselves by selling all the same albums again on CD in the 80s (they all thought they would need new music recorded for CD) and making billions, reissues have been massive.

Then there are reunion tours, merchandise, oh and of course remasters.

It's all just a big strategy to take money from your pocket and put it in theirs.

So the major labels with major artists are sort of laughing, the kids who got Queen from their Dads generate revenue from streaming, the Dads rush out and buy the Queen with Adam Lambert album.

Of course the poor new artists get very little promotion as a result.

Ultimately to really support new bands, you probably just need to go to gigs and buy a t-shirt, and that's that.

Musicwolf

There are separate issues here.

How much to the streaming companies pass on to the artist (% of the whole pot) - the question here is whether the streaming company has too much strength and therefore it's about ethics, should they be paying more?

How is the money distributed i.e. per play or some other formula.  Fair in this situation depends upon which side you are coming from.  Probably a more sustainable model would be to weight things a little more in favour of the new artists such as a sliding scale whereby you get more credit for your first x thousand plays then less for the next thousand and so on.  I bit like the way the higher earners pay more income tax.

Do musicians have a right to be paid a living wage?  Absolutely not.  It's like any skill, it doesn't matter how hard you worked or how talented you are it depends upon the commercial value and competition in the market place.  A top Rugby League player works as hard (actually probably harder) than a Premier League Footballer, but they get paid a fraction of what the Footballer earns.  Why?  Because football attracts bigger audiences and sponsorship money.

I think that making serious money from recording disappeared some time ago.  There was a time that bands went on tour in order to promote records, now it's the other way around.  The real problem is that gigs are off the table right now, although some bands are trying to get around this by streaming sessions.