Music Artists & the Royalties dilemma

[Bliss]

I just watched a report on how Apple in one day caved to Taylor Swift who fought for music artists to receive royalties during Apple's streaming music trial period. Pretty powerful lady right there.

During the segment, they used Pharrell's song, HAPPY. Since he wrote the song in 2013, Pandora have played it 43 million times. His royalty check so far? $2,300.

So how does this get rectified overall? Artists are asking Congress to change the streaming laws so they can get paid for their music more substantially, than just pennies.

I really feel for the artists and they deserve to be compensated, yet I absolutely love what Pandora and Spotify etc.

Anyone have any solution ideas?

 

[goodlove]

Wow ..only 2000 bucks....

 

[The Dark King]

I just watched a report on how Apple in one day caved to Taylor Swift who fought for music artists to receive royalties during Apple's streaming music trial period. Pretty powerful lady right there.

During the segment, they used Pharrell's song, HAPPY. Since he wrote the song in 2013, Pandora have played it 43 million times. His royalty check so far? $2,300.

So how does this get rectified overall? Artists are asking Congress to change the streaming laws so they can get paid for their music more substantially, than just pennies.

I really feel for the artists and they deserve to be compensated, yet I absolutely love what Pandora and Spotify etc.

Anyone have any solution ideas?

Yeah compensate appropriately. I feel far more the new and emerging artists who weren't around during the cd era so they didn't have the opportunity to amass tens of millions of dollars like Pharrel or T Swift. The compensation structure should probably look more like the division they get for shows. The problem with the music industry is it's run by people who think of it like business more than art so fare compensation isn't the goal its purely about extraction.
I'll do you one better not only pay artists but consumers as well. All of this shit is supported by our mental real estate. What we pay attention to holds value. I'm not saying in dollars necessarily but if I listen to Bad Blood a thousand times how about a one time free concert or at a much cheaper rate.

 

[Bookworm616]

I just watched a report on how Apple in one day caved to Taylor Swift who fought for music artists to receive royalties during Apple's streaming music trial period. Pretty powerful lady right there.

During the segment, they used Pharrell's song, HAPPY. Since he wrote the song in 2013, Pandora have played it 43 million times. His royalty check so far? $2,300.

So how does this get rectified overall? Artists are asking Congress to change the streaming laws so they can get paid for their music more substantially, than just pennies.

I really feel for the artists and they deserve to be compensated, yet I absolutely love what Pandora and Spotify etc.

Anyone have any solution ideas?

Good for Taylor Swift for speaking up.

What Apple was trying to do was wrong. Let them give their customers 3 months free service, but don't expect the artists to go along with not getting paid.

And sure, it won't hurt the Taylor Swifts of the world to not get paid for 3 months, but it does hurt the lesser known artists.

I'm liking Taylor Swift more and more. She's awesome.

(I cannot believe that Pharrell has only made $2300 from Pandora and Spotify. That is crazy and wrong.)

 

[samson1701]

The same guy that handles publishing for Bob Seager also handles mine (except Seager makes millions and I make pennies). He's talked to me at length about all of this and what it really boils down to is none of this would be an issue if the record companies had just given the masses what they wanted originally; an easier way to purchase music. They had first crack at setting up an iTunes like service, but they clung fast to CD's long past the time they should have. The result was services like Limewire and others that not only provided free music, but made new songs dead simple to acquire. Point, click, yours. All in a matter of seconds.

Next, because of the way they bungled the whole MP3 download thingy, they are deathly afraid they will get caught flat footed again so they'll agree to almost anything the tech industry wants to do. Even though, in the long run, it is damaging to the industry as a whole.

Many in the tech world believe that music should be free and artist should not have the right to make money from their creations past the first sale. In other words, I sell a song once and no matter what happens to it after that sale, wether it becomes a huge hit remade by another artist or a commercial uses it to promote a product, I should not get a penny more for it. These are the same people running these streaming services. That a huge problem to start with.

The large record companies hold all of the cards, they're just too afraid to flex their muscle. They either own or administrate most of the rights to the music that people are paying streaming services to hear. All they have to do is pull down their songs unless the streaming service raise their rates. And if they don't play ball, fuck 'em. They can go out of buissness. Which is what will happen if the consumer can't find the songs they like on said services.

People pay up to $200 dollars per month for cable TV, but the tech guys want us to belive those same people will only pay $10/month for music when they probably spend more time listening to music than watching TV. I think the average person would spend more on monthly music subscription if it gave them an easy, all inclusive, no hassle experience.

Kudos to Taylor Swift for her stance but there is so much more to be down.

Thanks for posting this, Bliss.

 

[goodlove]

Samson...you can go further back...napster

 

[SilverSmith]

Streaming Music: To Make $$$, You Better be A Superstar
06/2015
Source: USA Today



Taylor Swift has the right idea: Musicians should be better compensated for their online music. Problem is, she'll have to find folks willing to pay for digital music in the first place.

The rift between Apple Music and Swift over royalty rights obscured a hard truth about streaming music: Consumers love it, but they don't want to pay for it.

Spotify, by the far the largest music subscription service, has 20 million paying global subscribers.You would need five times that number of paid subscribers to make streaming music a decent revenue stream for most musicians, say analysts.

That's because of the way royalty rates are designed. The digital download pays the highest percentage, followed by premium services like Spotify and then ad-supported services, which pay much less than premium. Premium is 11 times higher than ad-supported.


The big acts are seeing money from streaming. It's the up-and-coming, working and mid-level acts that are seeing very little, and Twitter and forums are full of gripes from these musicians that they're getting lots of online exposure, but few dollars.

In the vinyl era, acts strived for gold (500,000 copies) and platinum (1 million). Now a band has to shoot for the moon to see serious money. Think 100 million streams, says Ted Cohen, managing director of Tag Strategic, a consultancy.


And the acts that get streamed the most, of course are the superstars. Spotify runs a weekly chart, showing the numbers of streams reaped by the top hits: This week, Rihanna's FourFiveSeconds is No. 1, with just over 15 million streams.

That equates to about $75,000, which has to be split with the music publisher, record label and the artist.

"What people don't realize is that income equality also applies to music," says music blogger Bob Lefsetz. "The rich will get richer, but the poor and middle won't do much better."

 

[The Dark King]

If people were smart they'd just bundle the services or add extra incentives. Great example is Amazon prime. For 100 bucks a year I get streaming movies music and free shipping not to mention deals on books.
They need to stop being so damn cheap and stingy. If you're looking to be a billion dollar artist you're an asshole. The fact you could make a shit ton of music doing your passion is reward enough. Same with record exec leeches, how much do they want living off someone else's talent. People will pay for easy convenient ways to get music.

 

[Tony Soprano]

[youtube]9ZZcKRQku74[/youtube]

 

[samson1701]

Streaming Music: To Make $$$, You Better be A Superstar
06/2015
Source: USA Today



Taylor Swift has the right idea: Musicians should be better compensated for their online music. Problem is, she'll have to find folks willing to pay for digital music in the first place.

This is what the tech guys are saying. No one knows if this is true or not. No one has tried to do streaming any differently than how the Sillicon Valley crowd says it should be done.

If people were smart they'd just bundle the services or add extra incentives. Great example is Amazon prime. For 100 bucks a year I get streaming movies music and free shipping not to mention deals on books.
They need to stop being so damn cheap and stingy. If you're looking to be a billion dollar artist you're an asshole. The fact you could make a shit ton of music doing your passion is reward enough. Same with record exec leeches, how much do they want living off someone else's talent. People will pay for easy convenient ways to get music.

I agree with most of what you've written. I think if they bundled a certain number of downloads that you can keep, plus all you can eat streaming would work great for everyone. Say $50 per month and you get twenty five downloads plus unlimited streaming of songs you don't own. I'd pay for that.

As far as artists being assholes for wanting to be a billionaire, I'm not feelling that statement one bit. No one ever says that to tech guys or guys in finance. Yet, they expect artists to be happy with eking out a middle of the road kind of living. As with anyone else, if your talent and skills allow you to make billions, as long as you're not hurting others, I say go for it. Nothing wrong with wanting to get rich off of your craft. Being able to create something out of thin air that moves people and be able to do it time and time again is a blessing worth being well compensated for.

 

[The Dark King]

This is what the tech guys are saying. No one knows if this is true or not. No one has tried to do streaming any differently than how the Sillicon Valley crowd says it should be done.


I agree with most of what you've written. I think if they bundled a certain number of downloads that you can keep, plus all you can eat streaming would work great for everyone. Say $50 per month and you get twenty five downloads plus unlimited streaming of songs you don't own. I'd pay for that.

As far as artists being assholes for wanting to be a billionaire, I'm not feelling that statement one bit. No one ever says that to tech guys or guys in finance. Yet, they expect artists to be happy with eking out a middle of the road kind of living. As with anyone else, if your talent and skills allow you to make billions, as long as you're not hurting others, I say go for it. Nothing wrong with wanting to get rich off of your craft. Being able to create something out of thin air that moves people and be able to do it time and time again is a blessing worth being well compensated for.

Well I'm in finance and most people are assholes that go into the field because it's born out of pure selfishness. There's this bond trader I know dude is barely forty and has made millions like tens of millions and doesn't ever plan on stopping. You'd think with that kind of money you'd just enjoy your family and find something less destructive to do but the industry doesn't attract that personality. I feel the same about tech medicine media etc
Anything where the goal is accumulation at all costs is destructive and unsustainable, it's pure insanity.
I think Jay-Z is a great example of someone who traded art for business and since has provided progressively worst art, the same with a lot of artist who put so much emphasis on money. Don't get me wrong I want to be comfortable too but I don't need space ship money to be happy.

 

[goodlove]

C.r.e.a.m


Im with sam. I get what you (tdk) are saying though but If u can become a billionaire without hurting anyone...good for you...cant be mad at ya.

As far as jay z...its business....the art of hip hop is really about making
money.

Well I'm in finance and most people are assholes that go into the field because it's born out of pure selfishness. There's this bond trader I know dude is barely forty and has made millions like tens of millions and doesn't ever plan on stopping. You'd think with that kind of money you'd just enjoy your family and find something less destructive to do but the industry doesn't attract that personality. I feel the same about tech medicine media etc
Anything where the goal is accumulation at all costs is destructive and unsustainable, it's pure insanity.
I think Jay-Z is a great example of someone who traded art for business and since has provided progressively worst art, the same with a lot of artist who put so much emphasis on money. Don't get me wrong I want to be comfortable too but I don't need space ship money to be happy.

 

[The Dark King]

C.r.e.a.m


Im with sam. I get what you (tdk) are saying though but If u can become a billionaire without hurting anyone...good for you...cant be mad at ya.

As far as jay z...its business....the art of hip hop is really about making
money.

Which is sad but then again it's probably the biggest source of black wealth next to sports in this country which again is sad.

 

[goodlove]

Which is sad but then again it's probably the biggest source of black wealth next to sports in this country which again is sad.

Yeah.they took the hip out of hop..i see it all the time. Parents telling their kids to be an athlete or the like instead of telling them to be a scientist.

 

[samson1701]

Well I'm in finance and most people are assholes that go into the field because it's born out of pure selfishness. There's this bond trader I know dude is barely forty and has made millions like tens of millions and doesn't ever plan on stopping. You'd think with that kind of money you'd just enjoy your family and find something less destructive to do but the industry doesn't attract that personality. I feel the same about tech medicine media etc
Anything where the goal is accumulation at all costs is destructive and unsustainable, it's pure insanity.
I think Jay-Z is a great example of someone who traded art for business and since has provided progressively worst art, the same with a lot of artist who put so much emphasis on money. Don't get me wrong I want to be comfortable too but I don't need space ship money to be happy.

I see what your saying. And, for the most part, I agree. Art done for the sake of commerce tends to loose that special quality that made us like it in the first place. I just bristle at the idea that people who create music should be happy eating crumbs from the meal they created while the tech guys and the suits gorge themselves to the point of gluttony from that very same meal. Which, is not what you said at all. My bad.

I have a buddy who's deep in that whole scene from what I'm told. Haven't seen him in years, but we talk on the phone and tech every other month or so. He's all about the whole "give the music away and make money through .... whatever" kind of thinking. Which kills me because he used to be an artist so you'd think he'd understand. But ...

If someone's buissness model relies on me working for free while they get rich off of my work, call me old fashioned, but I just can't get with that. But, I'll give it a shot when I see the likes of Microsoft, Facebook and Apple forgoing the sales of their products, giving said products away and making money selling T-shirts.

 

[Bliss]

So much though-provoking info in here.

Sansom, what you said about record exes holding the power but afraid to shut down...Prince came to mind. And BMG music l think constantly cease and desist non authorized reproducers, especially on YT...

Silversmith, great article...one thing about Taylor is she is a brand. Her fans will buy whatever music she puts out. They adore her.

 

[Bliss]

Another thing came to mind....when l did my radio show years ago in Oz, we had to hand write every artist we played on a royalties sheet. They got coin change, but still, they GOT paid. Some artist deeply depend on their royalty checks....for some it's their only income.

 

[The Dark King]

I see what your saying. And, for the most part, I agree. Art done for the sake of commerce tends to loose that special quality that made us like it in the first place. I just bristle at the idea that people who create music should be happy eating crumbs from the meal they created while the tech guys and the suits gorge themselves to the point of gluttony from that very same meal. Which, is not what you said at all. My bad.

I have a buddy who's deep in that whole scene from what I'm told. Haven't seen him in years, but we talk on the phone and tech every other month or so. He's all about the whole "give the music away and make money through .... whatever" kind of thinking. Which kills me because he used to be an artist so you'd think he'd understand. But ...

If someone's buissness model relies on me working for free while they get rich off of my work, call me old fashioned, but I just can't get with that. But, I'll give it a shot when I see the likes of Microsoft, Facebook and Apple forgoing the sales of their products, giving said products away and making money selling T-shirts.

Very good point. That's why I love the idea of tipping

 

[Peach State Scholar]

I see what your saying. And, for the most part, I agree. Art done for the sake of commerce tends to loose that special quality that made us like it in the first place. I just bristle at the idea that people who create music should be happy eating crumbs from the meal they created while the tech guys and the suits gorge themselves to the point of gluttony from that very same meal. Which, is not what you said at all. My bad.

I have a buddy who's deep in that whole scene from what I'm told. Haven't seen him in years, but we talk on the phone and tech every other month or so. He's all about the whole "give the music away and make money through .... whatever" kind of thinking. Which kills me because he used to be an artist so you'd think he'd understand. But ...

If someone's buissness model relies on me working for free while they get rich off of my work, call me old fashioned, but I just can't get with that. But, I'll give it a shot when I see the likes of Microsoft, Facebook and Apple forgoing the sales of their products, giving said products away and making money selling T-shirts.

I've never understood that especially this in this day and age. Why would people start paying for something that they've already gotten for free? Giving stuff away now in order to make money later doesn't make a whole lot of economic sense to me.

 

[The Dark King]

I've never understood that especially this in this day and age. Why would people start paying for something that they've already gotten for free? Giving stuff away now in order to make money later doesn't make a whole lot of economic sense to me.

Which is why tipping is a great idea to me. If you heard a song you loved just like you did when someone plays on the street wouldn't you throw them a quarter if you could?