How are musicians supposed to survive on $0.00173 per stream? New law proposed

darthed1981

digitalscream said:

Sporky said:

There are too many people publishing music for most of them to have any realistic hope of earning money from it. 

Honestly, most of the music being published doesn't deserve to earn any money in the first place. The home recording boom, great as it can be, has a lot to answer for.

Quite.

What is worth paying for - is always the question - what actually creates value?

Scarcity.

100,000 songs.  Per.  Fucking.  Day.... uploaded to streaming services.

Popular music is the least scarce thing on the planet, it's everywhere in huge quantities.

That's ignoring the fact that there was always a massive back catalogue, which we all have somewhere anyway (old vinyl, old CDs, our old MP3 rips) which we all like far more than new music in any case...

I get it, musicians struggle to earn a living at a point when we have heard of them, when they have a following, but the idea they are entitled to one when they can't generate a living in an entertainment industry?  Who else do we extend that to, do we have to subsidise the guys working for Disney now the MCU doesn't make money any more?

I'm very much in favour of a user-centric model for streaming (a bit like the OPs link, except that it's a fairer distribution of existing revenues, not trying to get the user to pay some money to the major labels for... err... Tay Tay? Then pay another tax to pay the artists as well).

chrisj1602 said:

It’s so bad.

Imagine releasing your debut single, it’s a hit, you get 10 million streams in a week, you’ve made it… you’re famous, but you’re still going to work on Monday because you’ve earned £17,300 and there’s 4 of you in the band, and whoever else is waiting for a cut… 

It’s no wonder ticket prices are up.

If you get 10m streams in one week, then everyone stops listening, your song might be shit, and it took a week for people to realise it...

If you get 10m streams EVERY week, then you have ACTUALLY made it, and can add that to touring revenue, merch sales, endorsements etc etc. and are earning a decent living.

Unless you are signed to a major label, but without sounding like a cracked record, that's a bit like signing a contract promising to go to prison and drop the soap.

darthed1981

... this stuff actually makes me a bit cross.

I buy vinyl and CDs because I want to support my favourite artists, and I like owning the music, tactile feeling of it, putting on an album etc. etc.

But that's MY CHOICE as a consumer of what to do with MY MONEY.  I don't like the idea of everyone being forced to pay more out because artists keep signing shit deals with major labels and don't get paid what they are "entitled" to.

distressed

Sporky said:

There are too many people publishing music for most of them to have any realistic hope of earning money from it. 

This, plus human nature. Average music listener will always choose tried-and-true.

There’s never been better times for newer bands, from theoretical standpoint. In the good old days we were spoon fed by the record labels and their A&R staff, and only handpicked and chosen ones were allowed to have record put out and to be aired on the radio and TV. You were either on a major label or dead.

Now, with the internet and practically unlimited resources to market yourself (assuming you have a decent band who works their asses off, puts out albums with quality songs and do serious tours), it’s all down to the consumers, more or less. And they will almost always choose to spend 100/200+ to see some big cat or nostalgia act from 60s and 70s than to discover newer bands, track them coming to their area and buy their albums and merch. Streaming is only a small part of the equation that favors big names, but in this day and age it’s not just fault of the system.

digitalscream

distressed said:

Sporky said:

There are too many people publishing music for most of them to have any realistic hope of earning money from it. 

This, plus human nature. Average music listener will always choose tried-and-true.

There’s never been better times for newer bands, from theoretical standpoint. In the good old days we were spoon fed by the record labels and their A&R staff, and only handpicked and chosen ones were allowed to have record put out and to be aired on the radio and TV. You were either on a major label or dead.

Now, with the internet and practically unlimited resources to market yourself (assuming you have a decent band who works their asses off, puts out albums with quality songs and do serious tours), it’s all down to the consumers, more or less. And they will almost always choose to spend 100/200+ to see some big cat or nostalgia act from 60s and 70s than to discover newer bands, track them coming to their area and buy their albums and merch. Streaming is only a small part of the equation that favors big names, but in this day and age it’s not just fault of the system.

Indeed. The home recording boom has created a false conviction in many artists that, because they've recorded an album, they're going to be able to make a living from music. The reality is that very little has changed from the 80s - you only get to make bank if you're signed to a big label, and even then usually only from side-channel money like endorsements and the like that the label can't touch. Only those at the very top get to make millions, but even then selling millions of albums is really just a way of inducing non-music-related companies to give you money based on your popularity.

Everybody else is left competing for the shit left caked on the bottom, and even then the more serious and talented musicians are held in no better regard than the no-talent hacks who can barely play notes in the right order.

Ultimately, if you want an actual realistic chance of earning a living from music, you need to be a teacher and play in function bands. For the rare few that can actually build a following, there are other options like YouTube, merch and maybe even making a profit from gig tickets. For everybody else, statistically-speaking, it's just a hobby and should be treated as such.

darthed1981

digitalscream said:
... no-talent hacks who can barely play notes in the right order.

Hey... I've not uploaded anything yet!

digitalscream

darthed1981 said:

digitalscream said:
... no-talent hacks who can barely play notes in the right order.

Hey... I've not uploaded anything yet!

No, but I have

Barnezy

Could make better music…. Taylor Swift and Sheeran seem to be doing pretty well

RocknRollDave

Related to this is this high price of concert tickets these days.
Yes, touring costs bands much more in overheads than ever before, but there is also the more pressing need to make a profit from a tour.

Bands used to tour to promote album sales. Now the music is an advert for the (hopefully lucrative) tour.