TS is pretty generous, from what I read in the news. She hands out 10s of thousands like candy bits. Her song, Shake it Off is super catchy. She's everywhere I look and then some.
I just can't help wonder if it's stupidity or narcissism when it comes to stars' views on allowing single song sales. I've never viewed breaking up an album as ruining the experience and frankly, most of the time there's just that one song I want.
It depends on the album. During the height of the 'concept album' era, pop singles largely became the province of 12-year-old girls. "Real" record collectors bought albums. Most jazz albums and most of Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Springsteen, Beatles, Stones, post-Motown Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Pink Floyd, the better Beach Boys and tons of others work far better as albums than single tracks. (It was a little different for classic soul and R&B -- singles still dominated those genres for a long time).
As the record industry consolidated (we're now down to only three majors) and pop music became far more commercial, there was a lot of garbage issued. This led to consumers complaining that they didn't want albums and when iTunes and other online markets became available, the single once again dominated.
In 2014, in the U.S., only 117.6 million albums were downloaded. That's fewer than the 144.1 million CDs still sold, even though everyone claims the CD is dead (and it is if you consider that in 2000, 942.5 million CDs were sold). That compares with 1.2 billion single downloads.
From an industry perspective, singles made sense back in the 1950s and 60s because artists would go into the studio and record 2-3 songs in a single session and they'd be issued two weeks later. But as multitrack recording became the rule and artists (and their egos) became more powerful, we now have artists who spend a year recording an album and they frequently do so with multiple producers, engineers, studios, different sets of musicians, etc. So the single is unsustainable economically, especially at 99 cents to $1.29. As I've posted many times before, in the early 1960s, singles (albeit 2-sided singles) listed for $1 and generally sold for 64 to 66 cents. That's at least $5.04 in 2015 dollars. And now consumers don't even want to buy the singles - they want subscription services so they can essentially have "everything" at very little cost. Having said that, if you could get 75% of households to sign up for $10 a month, the gross dollars spent would be equivalent to what the industry made at its peak, but most of the dollars would be going to different players and artists would still wind up with smaller pieces, even considering how bad record labels treated them in the past. (Except for the very biggest artists, most never earned out their royalty advance.)
Not that I listen to any of her music, but I think Taylor Swift's concerns are not just about breaking up albums. I think it's primarily the very meager compensation artists get back from the streaming services. I attended a meeting on copyright in the music industry a few weeks ago and they displayed one graph which seemed to state that an artist would need something like 186,000 streaming plays per month to earn minimum wage (about $300 a week). And that's if they don't have to split that money with a label, which most would. Swift is also an exception to the current rule - she's still capable of selling incredible number of albums (maybe the only current artist to do so). As long as she's still able to do that, it would make no economic sense for her to make her music available on streaming services.
The total U.S. record industry, including downloads and streaming, is now at 34% of its former peak size in equal dollars. So when people say that either piracy or streaming doesn't negatively impact the industry or the artists, they have no idea what they're talking about. Of course there is also the factor that one could argue that the music the industry is putting out is far inferior to what it once did an has been for years. I'm still someone who would buy CDs and some LPs if I could find new music that I really liked. But it's extremely rare that I ever hear anything that I feel I have to own. It all seems so disposable. Back in the day, if I heard tracks from a great album, I'd run out the next day and buy that album.
she's still capable of selling incredible number of albums (maybe the only current artist to do so). As long as she's still able to do that, it would make no economic sense for her to make her music available on streaming services.
Her music is available from some streaming services. I know it's there on Google Play Music for instance. She just doesn't cooperate with those paying little to nothing in royalties.
Taylor Swift is really starting to think of herself as a savvy businessperson, and celebrity activist. She may be the former, but she looks ridiculous as the latter. The debate concerning streaming and breaking up albums was over more than 10 years ago. It was over as soon as iTunes became a huge success. As for her activism, if I have to hear her $250 million net worth ass complain about how women are discriminated against in the industry, I'll lose my mind.
Taylor Swift is really starting to think of herself as a savvy businessperson, and celebrity activist. She may be the former, but she looks ridiculous as the latter. The debate concerning streaming and breaking up albums was over more than 10 years ago. It was over as soon as iTunes became a huge success. As for her activism, if I have to hear her $250 million net worth ass complain about how women are discriminated against in the industry, I'll lose my mind.
Actually, she is quite an accomplished businessperson. She's able to consistently deliver hit music and she and her team are able to leverage her power within the music business in an impressively effective way. I'd not criticize her so easily.
Actually, she is quite an accomplished businessperson. She's able to consistently deliver hit music and she and her team are able to leverage her power within the music business in an impressively effective way. I'd not criticize her so easily.
I said "she may be the former" [businessperson]. My comments were more in regard to her recent comments on feminism and discrimination
Why is streaming so awful to artists? I understand rates are low, but once the contracts expire and steaming pays out like radio what's the big f'n deal? I know Taylor is probably a little young to remember radio and sure radio want perfect but you never had anyone so dumb as to complain that radio was ruining the music biz. I fail to see how streaming is different other than it just doesn't give labels as big a cut as they like. In which case swift is just another tool for the labels.
Despite showing up onscreen in an Apple Music demo at WWDC, Taylor Swift will not be making her latest album "1989" available through Apple's upcoming streaming service, a report said Thursday.
Swift in the past voiced opposition to certain music streaming services, saying such products strip away value by breaking apart albums. In an op-ed for <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>, Swift said music <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-taylor-swift-the-future-of-music-is-a-love-story-1404763219">should not</a> be free and predicted artists will someday set album pricing for themselves.
Regardless of what you think about TS and her music, her approach (at least for established artists) is brilliant. Making your most recent release only available for purchase (via iTunes or whatever) keeps the integrity of the new product and protects potential sales loss. Having your back catalog available for streaming at the cheaper royalty rate keeps all of your previous music out there for all to hear and maintains a continuing though smaller royalty cash flow for your body of work.
A new artist trying to break through may have to bite the bullet and let all new material be available for streaming. But as you become an established artist you can then dictate the terms to your favor down the line by adopting the TS model.
Except that unless you LOVE Taylor you're not going to hear about the new song or be able to hear said song if it wasn't for "free" services which aren't actually free. Radio companies pay royalties only spotify had crazy low rates to pay and those contarcts are quickly expiring. I wonder if TS's previews on her songs are shorter than other artists as I've seen some do on iTunes.
I respect Ms. Swift as a music cum celebrity business-person. And her music is riding the current pop wave. Whether she has staying power remains to be seen. Will her songs be as timeless as Paul McCartney? Few are. But I've never really liked her, and I don't know why. There is just something about her that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because I really believe her actual artistic talents are pretty limited, and resent the way she is grotesquely rewarded for them. Maybe it's really the system that angers me.
So this is turning out to be like Apple Pay. Banks right and left bailing out. Then after its inevitable success, they come back wanting to get on the bandwagon.
I respect Ms. Swift as a music cum celebrity business-person. And her music is riding the current pop wave. Whether she has staying power remains to be seen. Will her songs be as timeless as Paul McCartney? Few are. But I've never really liked her, and I don't know why. There is just something about her that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because I really believe her actual artistic talents are pretty limited, and resent the way she is grotesquely rewarded for them. Maybe it's really the system that angers me.
I respect her for her business success. I don't particularly care for her music. I'm not really in her core demographic.
I attended a meeting on copyright in the music industry a few weeks ago and they displayed one graph which seemed to state that an artist would need something like 186,000 streaming plays per month to earn minimum wage (about $300 a week). And that's if they don't have to split that money with a label, which most would.
How have revenues from concerts changed? A lot of the revenues lost in sales is evens out through extensive touring. And ticket prices have increased substantially. Would be interesting to see those numbers.
Why is streaming so awful to artists? I understand rates are low, but once the contracts expire and steaming pays out like radio what's the big f'n deal? I know Taylor is probably a little young to remember radio and sure radio want perfect but you never had anyone so dumb as to complain that radio was ruining the music biz. I fail to see how streaming is different other than it just doesn't give labels as big a cut as they like. In which case swift is just another tool for the labels.
Radio? in the U.S.? AM FM radio pays zero to artists and labels. Only the writers get paid via payments to BMI, ASCAP and SESAC. . Digital and satellite radio pays artists via Sound Exchange. But it's all pretty meager.
How have revenues from concerts changed? A lot of the revenues lost in sales is evens out through extensive touring. And ticket prices have increased substantially. Would be interesting to see those numbers.
They used to say the opposite: that you don't make money from touring but you do it to support the record.
Big acts who can fill stadiums can do quite well although touring costs can be in the multi-million $$. But most bands play 100 seat clubs and split $700 a show among the band, roadies, managers, etc. Even a lot of artists who were once quite big frequently now play 300 seat clubs where the band grosses $6000 a show before all costs. Throw in airfare, hotels, food, equipment rental and there's not much left.
Why is streaming so awful to artists? I understand rates are low, but once the contracts expire and steaming pays out like radio what's the big f'n deal? I know Taylor is probably a little young to remember radio and sure radio want perfect but you never had anyone so dumb as to complain that radio was ruining the music biz. I fail to see how streaming is different other than it just doesn't give labels as big a cut as they like.
Radio was never delivered in an on-demand way so you had to wait until the song you liked came up, hope the reception was good and that none of the radio presenters spoke over the music, then make sure to hook the cassette tape up and hit record and stop at the right time. Digital on-demand streaming differs in that you can select the track you want to hear at any time, you don't need to worry about quality nor someone speaking over the track. The way streaming is setup removes the incentive to buy the music with the exception of offline playback but that's not a huge incentive for always-connected mobile devices and tracks can be ripped in perfect quality.
Spotify paid out about $1b in royalties in 2014 and there were 7 billion hours of music streamed by 50 million users:
Say that a track is around 3 minutes long ( http://mashable.com/2014/11/23/pop-song-length/ ), that means royalties per song are 0.7 cents. Dividing the songs out, it works out at 2800 songs played back per person in 1 year. That's equivalent to $19.60 per person per year. Including Spotify's cut would take it nearer $28 per person per year.
0.7c per play means that for an artist to make $1m, they have to get 143m plays. Other figures suggest it's lower royalties than this because ads don't get 1c per view but they can make more from the premium subscribers.
Combine the low royalty rates with removing an incentive for paying and in fact offering the incentive of discovery and it drives people away from paying so artists have little choice but to stop supporting it or they will lose a lot of money because artists don't all stay popular for a long time.
Artists seem to be happy with $0.99 per track on iTunes but not 1c per listen. This might explain the pricing of Tidal and Apple Music. If people listen to a popular track around 20 times, streaming still falls short of iTunes but $10/month would bring it close to iTunes revenues.
The other route they can go is the prepay route and charge 5c per listen and when you hit 20 plays you own the track for offline playback. Relatives can gift a $50 topup card to kids and that would let them hear 1000 plays. Topups can be annoying if you run out but the prospect of owning the track is something not offered by streaming services.
Does this mean that it won't be available for purchases on iTunes either ? Is she releasing it on ... What we're those things CDs ? Lol yes I think any artist should have a right to there property but to charge stupid amounts when Maybe we want one song does not make sense to the consumer . Is she also going to stop radio stations from playing it ? I was surprised when they showed off music videos I haven't seen one of those since mtv died , I don't see why they still make them , Maynbr some people watch them but not me
It will still be available for purchase on Tunes, so your rant is pretty much moot. I don't have a problem with Taylor's stance on this issue.
Oh taylor, when will you "swift"-ly leave the music business?
I'm not a fan of pop music or country music, or any other type of music that Taylor Swift has put out so far. But I have to admit that she is a sincere talent as both a songwriter and entertainer. And she's got principles and morals to boot.
This person isn't going to be leaving the music business for a very long time, and she's going to break a lot of records before she does leave too.
Darn it's missing. If I was interested, I'd just grab a free copy and be done with it. So instead of getting something from me, she got nothing!!!. Her 1 person or so protest of streaming will do nothing but lose her money. Take it for what it is.
The album in question is still generating hit after hit and selling like hotcakes! You may not appreciate it, but tons of people worldwide do. Her album is like the iPhone of albums, and you prefer Android (it's an analogy, don't flip)!
If the music on that album were available for on demand streaming for 3 months, do you know how many record sales that would cost her? A hell of a lot is the answer. Now, how many of those listeners would go on to purchase the music anyway after the trial period ends? We don't know. And how many would ultimately stay with the Apple Music service afterwards? We don't know that either, nor do we know whether that is lucrative enough to even partially offset the earlier losses. But it seems to me pretty clear that three months worth of royalty-free streaming would result in a big loss to Swift, with an unknown amount of mitigation afterwards. She's making the right call with this particular album.
Comments
TS is pretty generous, from what I read in the news. She hands out 10s of thousands like candy bits. Her song, Shake it Off is super catchy. She's everywhere I look and then some.
I just can't help wonder if it's stupidity or narcissism when it comes to stars' views on allowing single song sales. I've never viewed breaking up an album as ruining the experience and frankly, most of the time there's just that one song I want.
It depends on the album. During the height of the 'concept album' era, pop singles largely became the province of 12-year-old girls. "Real" record collectors bought albums. Most jazz albums and most of Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Springsteen, Beatles, Stones, post-Motown Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Pink Floyd, the better Beach Boys and tons of others work far better as albums than single tracks. (It was a little different for classic soul and R&B -- singles still dominated those genres for a long time).
As the record industry consolidated (we're now down to only three majors) and pop music became far more commercial, there was a lot of garbage issued. This led to consumers complaining that they didn't want albums and when iTunes and other online markets became available, the single once again dominated.
In 2014, in the U.S., only 117.6 million albums were downloaded. That's fewer than the 144.1 million CDs still sold, even though everyone claims the CD is dead (and it is if you consider that in 2000, 942.5 million CDs were sold). That compares with 1.2 billion single downloads.
From an industry perspective, singles made sense back in the 1950s and 60s because artists would go into the studio and record 2-3 songs in a single session and they'd be issued two weeks later. But as multitrack recording became the rule and artists (and their egos) became more powerful, we now have artists who spend a year recording an album and they frequently do so with multiple producers, engineers, studios, different sets of musicians, etc. So the single is unsustainable economically, especially at 99 cents to $1.29. As I've posted many times before, in the early 1960s, singles (albeit 2-sided singles) listed for $1 and generally sold for 64 to 66 cents. That's at least $5.04 in 2015 dollars. And now consumers don't even want to buy the singles - they want subscription services so they can essentially have "everything" at very little cost. Having said that, if you could get 75% of households to sign up for $10 a month, the gross dollars spent would be equivalent to what the industry made at its peak, but most of the dollars would be going to different players and artists would still wind up with smaller pieces, even considering how bad record labels treated them in the past. (Except for the very biggest artists, most never earned out their royalty advance.)
Not that I listen to any of her music, but I think Taylor Swift's concerns are not just about breaking up albums. I think it's primarily the very meager compensation artists get back from the streaming services. I attended a meeting on copyright in the music industry a few weeks ago and they displayed one graph which seemed to state that an artist would need something like 186,000 streaming plays per month to earn minimum wage (about $300 a week). And that's if they don't have to split that money with a label, which most would. Swift is also an exception to the current rule - she's still capable of selling incredible number of albums (maybe the only current artist to do so). As long as she's still able to do that, it would make no economic sense for her to make her music available on streaming services.
The total U.S. record industry, including downloads and streaming, is now at 34% of its former peak size in equal dollars. So when people say that either piracy or streaming doesn't negatively impact the industry or the artists, they have no idea what they're talking about. Of course there is also the factor that one could argue that the music the industry is putting out is far inferior to what it once did an has been for years. I'm still someone who would buy CDs and some LPs if I could find new music that I really liked. But it's extremely rare that I ever hear anything that I feel I have to own. It all seems so disposable. Back in the day, if I heard tracks from a great album, I'd run out the next day and buy that album.
eigthzero said:
Checked it out of the library, ripped it to iTunes and now its uploaded by Match. Done.
How is that not stealing?
Yes, I feel great shame. I've deleted all such files. Thanks to all for providing me with a moral compass.
Taylor Swift is really starting to think of herself as a savvy businessperson, and celebrity activist. She may be the former, but she looks ridiculous as the latter. The debate concerning streaming and breaking up albums was over more than 10 years ago. It was over as soon as iTunes became a huge success. As for her activism, if I have to hear her $250 million net worth ass complain about how women are discriminated against in the industry, I'll lose my mind.
Actually, she is quite an accomplished businessperson. She's able to consistently deliver hit music and she and her team are able to leverage her power within the music business in an impressively effective way. I'd not criticize her so easily.
I said "she may be the former" [businessperson]. My comments were more in regard to her recent comments on feminism and discrimination
Regardless of what you think about TS and her music, her approach (at least for established artists) is brilliant. Making your most recent release only available for purchase (via iTunes or whatever) keeps the integrity of the new product and protects potential sales loss. Having your back catalog available for streaming at the cheaper royalty rate keeps all of your previous music out there for all to hear and maintains a continuing though smaller royalty cash flow for your body of work.
A new artist trying to break through may have to bite the bullet and let all new material be available for streaming. But as you become an established artist you can then dictate the terms to your favor down the line by adopting the TS model.
Very savvy.
I respect Ms. Swift as a music cum celebrity business-person. And her music is riding the current pop wave. Whether she has staying power remains to be seen. Will her songs be as timeless as Paul McCartney? Few are. But I've never really liked her, and I don't know why. There is just something about her that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because I really believe her actual artistic talents are pretty limited, and resent the way she is grotesquely rewarded for them. Maybe it's really the system that angers me.
I respect her for her business success. I don't particularly care for her music. I'm not really in her core demographic.
How have revenues from concerts changed? A lot of the revenues lost in sales is evens out through extensive touring. And ticket prices have increased substantially. Would be interesting to see those numbers.
Radio? in the U.S.? AM FM radio pays zero to artists and labels. Only the writers get paid via payments to BMI, ASCAP and SESAC. . Digital and satellite radio pays artists via Sound Exchange. But it's all pretty meager.
They used to say the opposite: that you don't make money from touring but you do it to support the record.
Big acts who can fill stadiums can do quite well although touring costs can be in the multi-million $$. But most bands play 100 seat clubs and split $700 a show among the band, roadies, managers, etc. Even a lot of artists who were once quite big frequently now play 300 seat clubs where the band grosses $6000 a show before all costs. Throw in airfare, hotels, food, equipment rental and there's not much left.
Radio was never delivered in an on-demand way so you had to wait until the song you liked came up, hope the reception was good and that none of the radio presenters spoke over the music, then make sure to hook the cassette tape up and hit record and stop at the right time. Digital on-demand streaming differs in that you can select the track you want to hear at any time, you don't need to worry about quality nor someone speaking over the track. The way streaming is setup removes the incentive to buy the music with the exception of offline playback but that's not a huge incentive for always-connected mobile devices and tracks can be ripped in perfect quality.
Spotify paid out about $1b in royalties in 2014 and there were 7 billion hours of music streamed by 50 million users:
http://www.businessinsider.com/spotify-year-in-review-2014-12
Say that a track is around 3 minutes long ( http://mashable.com/2014/11/23/pop-song-length/ ), that means royalties per song are 0.7 cents. Dividing the songs out, it works out at 2800 songs played back per person in 1 year. That's equivalent to $19.60 per person per year. Including Spotify's cut would take it nearer $28 per person per year.
0.7c per play means that for an artist to make $1m, they have to get 143m plays. Other figures suggest it's lower royalties than this because ads don't get 1c per view but they can make more from the premium subscribers.
Combine the low royalty rates with removing an incentive for paying and in fact offering the incentive of discovery and it drives people away from paying so artists have little choice but to stop supporting it or they will lose a lot of money because artists don't all stay popular for a long time.
Artists seem to be happy with $0.99 per track on iTunes but not 1c per listen. This might explain the pricing of Tidal and Apple Music. If people listen to a popular track around 20 times, streaming still falls short of iTunes but $10/month would bring it close to iTunes revenues.
The other route they can go is the prepay route and charge 5c per listen and when you hit 20 plays you own the track for offline playback. Relatives can gift a $50 topup card to kids and that would let them hear 1000 plays. Topups can be annoying if you run out but the prospect of owning the track is something not offered by streaming services.
Does this mean that it won't be available for purchases on iTunes either ? Is she releasing it on ... What we're those things CDs ? Lol yes I think any artist should have a right to there property but to charge stupid amounts when Maybe we want one song does not make sense to the consumer . Is she also going to stop radio stations from playing it ? I was surprised when they showed off music videos I haven't seen one of those since mtv died , I don't see why they still make them , Maynbr some people watch them but not me
It will still be available for purchase on Tunes, so your rant is pretty much moot. I don't have a problem with Taylor's stance on this issue.
Oh taylor, when will you "swift"-ly leave the music business?
I'm not a fan of pop music or country music, or any other type of music that Taylor Swift has put out so far. But I have to admit that she is a sincere talent as both a songwriter and entertainer. And she's got principles and morals to boot.
This person isn't going to be leaving the music business for a very long time, and she's going to break a lot of records before she does leave too.
Darn it's missing. If I was interested, I'd just grab a free copy and be done with it. So instead of getting something from me, she got nothing!!!. Her 1 person or so protest of streaming will do nothing but lose her money. Take it for what it is.
The album in question is still generating hit after hit and selling like hotcakes! You may not appreciate it, but tons of people worldwide do. Her album is like the iPhone of albums, and you prefer Android (it's an analogy, don't flip)!
If the music on that album were available for on demand streaming for 3 months, do you know how many record sales that would cost her? A hell of a lot is the answer. Now, how many of those listeners would go on to purchase the music anyway after the trial period ends? We don't know. And how many would ultimately stay with the Apple Music service afterwards? We don't know that either, nor do we know whether that is lucrative enough to even partially offset the earlier losses. But it seems to me pretty clear that three months worth of royalty-free streaming would result in a big loss to Swift, with an unknown amount of mitigation afterwards. She's making the right call with this particular album.