The argument of "we won't sell enough albums" was also used back in the day when there were debates on single-song purchases.
:sigh: Nothing I said should have lead to your comment. I never said their views, maths, or anything else was correct, only that this was expected. The fact that it has happened before actually backs up my points.
Also, the argument about a listener being able to pick and choose what songs to play and how often to play it doesn't hurt the artist. It helps them. That's how they make their money.
That's how they make money from per song streams, but how many songs need to be streamed before they make more than from a single album purchase? How long does a song need to be played before it's considered a streamed song? Are their partial stream payments based on length played or percentages? All these things and more need to be considered by the content holders and anyone that makes superficial blankets statements like "more options is better for them" simply isn't thinking it through.
Plus, what does it really hurt Prince or Garth Brooks if they wait a few weeks or months to see how things are working out? A potential loss of profit is a possibility but I guarantee you that the gain is small enough that it would likely behoove them to "measure twice, cut once" before signing a long contract.
Maybe there ought to be a pay scale based on units sold. So if you are a very successful artist (often played) you get paid very little for each play and if you are a little known (rarely played) you get much more. The goal would be for the highly successful very rich artists to subsidize the up and coming artist. I am all for success and rightfully earned riches but also for a little wealth distribution. The important thing is that for the fledgeling artist it is about survival and streaming seems to play into the hands of the very successful only. Just a thought.
Eh, I think it would be a bad choice to do that. The reason is that the big artists bring the attention and the subscribers. There is a reason Apple gives so much to the celebrities and the big names in the industry - it's because they have a following. Those same names would have much more reason to not join if they didn't get their dues.
The thing is that most of those huge artists started at the very bottom too. And some artists like being indie and not huge. Sometimes a band or artist isn't highly regarded, and therefore they remain unknown to many.. I really don't think that is deserving of a larger cut than someone who everyone loves and is largely liked by the masses.
Plus, what does it really hurt Prince or Garth Brooks if they wait a few weeks or months to see how things are working out? A potential loss of profit is a possibility but I guarantee you that the gain is small enough that it would likely behoove them to "measure twice, cut once" before signing a long contract.
I didn't refer to your post to say these artists weren't doing what is best for them, in their minds. They can do what they want. More power to them.
What I was referring to was the fact that times have changed. The way music is created and distributed has changed. This is no longer the time of saving up and waiting to buy something you want. We have access to everything we want and can enjoy it when we want, in however large amounts we want. This is what caused artists to decide to sell songs on a single-song basis. Nobody will buy an album for one or two songs anymore (well, not everyone at least). Might as well make some money since it's just as easy for someone to illegally download one or two songs and you never see anything as an artist.
My response was addressing the "album" that you speak of. The album doesn't exist in the same way it once did.
That was years ago. Fast forward to today and you've got a massive population that is willing to rent instead of buy. Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify.. they all capitalize on that. This is good for an artist. This means that instead of making a dollar off me for their one-hit-wonder, they'll make money off me also feeling free to discover their other songs, at no risk to me. It means the population will largely be doing the same. That's a much larger income. And, yes, the payout is smaller per play. But it's per play!
Years from now, I'll still have a subscription. I would rather pay for the convenience and access than a physical object or real download. If I cancelled, what would I have? Yes, that could be bad for me in a way, but the artist will have a way of making money well into the future. Not only that, but streaming opens new doors for indie artists to distribute their music. I could make a song in my basement, copyright it, get with Apple on a streaming deal and have people playing it right away. There are a couple steps that I'm sure would need to be followed but the fact is streaming is a way to ensure artists stay relevant and up-to-date with the consumption trends of the industry.
Case in point - before streaming took such huge marketshare points, music downloads were on the decline already. We all know that's not because people didn't want music.. It's because their method of consumption was changing. Torrents have never been stopped and now everyone can tell you what a torrent is because everyone has either done it or knows someone who has done it. People want freedom of consumption and artists want more control and want to continue getting money. Enter streaming.
AC/DC mastered for iTunes' albums are of far better quality than what Spotify has.
During the Spotify premium subscription I was given, I noticed that all they had was reminiscent of those cheap LP's you could buy in the seventies, the one's with the fine print stating "songs not performed by the original artist".
Eh, I think it would be a bad choice to do that. The reason is that the big artists bring the attention and the subscribers. There is a reason Apple gives so much to the celebrities and the big names in the industry - it's because they have a following. Those same names would have much more reason to not join if they didn't get their dues.
The thing is that most of those huge artists started at the very bottom too. And some artists like being indie and not huge. Sometimes a band or artist isn't highly regarded, and therefore they remain unknown to many.. I really don't think that is deserving of a larger cut than someone who everyone loves and is largely liked by the masses.
True, and I would never suggest that Apple enforced such a policy. It was more of a philosophical thought. The implementation of any such tax, or wealth redistribution, or whatever you'd call it would have to be with a general consensus among artist, big and small. The idea would not be to penalize the successful ones or to rob them of their hard earned cash, but rather to foster a sense of 'community' for lack of a better word, and a spirit of 'giving back'. Any artist will know first hand what it is like to live hand to mouth and I wonder if there was an institutionalized form of what I am suggesting successful artist wouldn't be happy to participate.
As a socialist and I don't mind paying more taxes when I earn more and don't mind if someone that earns less than me pays less or no tax at all. It hurts as it does for everyone but from a philosophical viewpoint I am OK with it. It is not as if I will ever be poor or suffer as a result. I'd like to think that within the art world there is a stronger sense of community and social responsibility than in the world at large. I may be wrong because there is a strong correlation between the arts and sports and neither type of celebrity is necessarily famous for their compassion or charity, as far as I know.
To ihatescreennames: Garth's contract with Wal-Mart has ended. He started his own digital site with ghosttunes.com. His music is not available for streaming anywhere because he still desires to sell full albums rather than individual singles. Apple currently gives no option for any artist to sell only full albums, which needs to change because an artist's music should be offered at their own discretion.
I didn't refer to your post to say these artists weren't doing what is best for them, in their minds. They can do what they want. More power to them.
What I was referring to was the fact that times have changed. The way music is created and distributed has changed. This is no longer the time of saving up and waiting to buy something you want. We have access to everything we want and can enjoy it when we want, in however large amounts we want. This is what caused artists to decide to sell songs on a single-song basis. Nobody will buy an album for one or two songs anymore (well, not everyone at least). Might as well make some money since it's just as easy for someone to illegally download one or two songs and you never see anything as an artist.
My response was addressing the "album" that you speak of. The album doesn't exist in the same way it once did.
That was years ago. Fast forward to today and you've got a massive population that is willing to rent instead of buy. Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify.. they all capitalize on that. This is good for an artist. This means that instead of making a dollar off me for their one-hit-wonder, they'll make money off me also feeling free to discover their other songs, at no risk to me. It means the population will largely be doing the same. That's a much larger income. And, yes, the payout is smaller per play. But it's per play!
Years from now, I'll still have a subscription. I would rather pay for the convenience and access than a physical object or real download. If I cancelled, what would I have? Yes, that could be bad for me in a way, but the artist will have a way of making money well into the future. Not only that, but streaming opens new doors for indie artists to distribute their music. I could make a song in my basement, copyright it, get with Apple on a streaming deal and have people playing it right away. There are a couple steps that I'm sure would need to be followed but the fact is streaming is a way to ensure artists stay relevant and up-to-date with the consumption trends of the industry.
Case in point - before streaming took such huge marketshare points, music downloads were on the decline already. We all know that's not because people didn't want music.. It's because their method of consumption was changing. Torrents have never been stopped and now everyone can tell you what a torrent is because everyone has either done it or knows someone who has done it. People want freedom of consumption and artists want more control and want to continue getting money. Enter streaming.
I agree with what you say. What I personally like about the streaming model, as in Apple Music, is seeing the breadth of music available. It offers so many ways to listen to so much music I never knew existed. I also really like Beats 1. It differs from most North American music radio in that it offers an deeper and more knowledgable insight into genres of music and individual artists by people who are passionate about what they play. I look forward to the introduction of Beats 2, 3, and so on.
I haven't seen any projections though I am sure they exist, of what the potential earnings to artists of all degrees of popularity will look in a world where paid streaming is the dominant music delivery platform, and how that will compare to the 'own your music' model.
I suspect streaming will hurt small artists far more than the more famous ones.
But this is the way of the world. Subscription services have decimated the income of stock photographers as well. Its a simple reality with digital and the internet supply/demand dictates that there is more music available than any human can consume, in that case the price falls and that is basic economics. The question is just which organisations will profit from the inevitable changes that are happening.
There is a silver lining however, the public is being weaned off of high quality files onto MP3's because most of the time they are listening in a way that doesn't need quality.
So for artists who can reach the part of their audience that WILL pay, there is the chance to sell high quality formats like CD and Vinyl to that audience. And that small audience is not price sensitive. Its the same across the creative sphere. Most people want free, but for a more select group payment is not an issue and they will pay more than in the past.
and @connect enables artists big and small to connect directly with fans.
final silver lining. If Apple does dominate streaming with their service, music may become just a part of the bigger platform and at that point artists will have a much bigger potential market as innovation will find more and more ways to get people to listen to their material and to build relationships with fans.
Here in South Korea, I haven't been able to listen to Beats 1 at all. So It is very frustrating that Apples flagship radio station doesn't work, but the others do.
Also, Apple Music feels buggy as hell, as it creates huge slowdown on my ipad 2 and hangs while loading the radio page, and some albums.
It seems Apple has done a great job, I like what I see, but it isn't perfect yet...and still needs time to cook. If it is not fixed within 3 months, I don't see myself using it.
I have already realized I don't know anything about music, artists or anything, so the appeal to me is limited.
How is this model worse than having their music played on terrestrial radio, which is a similar all-you-can-eat plan and doesn't cost the listener any money?
How the frack is it similar& Think a bit. One is on demand, the other you listen to what someone proposes. They're not similar AT ALL.
How the frack is it similar& Think a bit. One is on demand, the other you listen to what someone proposes. They're not similar AT ALL.
Good grief! Can't believe the things being said.
Thank you for your kind and enlightening response.
My thoughts differ.
If I want to listen to Taylor Swift I can tune to my local pop radio station and hear her, likely in a short while, followed by other pop music. Or, I can go to Apple Music, enter her name and listen to her immediately followed by other pop music. These two models sound similar.
The local station pays licensing fees to play music, so does Apple Music. ASCAP (and others) have complex methods to determine how much to pay each artist every time their song is played. Streaming services, like Apple Music, have their own methods to do the same. These two methods sound similar.
You're right, the two aren't exactly the same. That is why I used the word similar. However, you still haven't explained why streaming is worse that terrestrial radio for the artist.
It seems in both circumstances the artist will be paid each time their song is played. Yes, there are pros and cons on both sides, for artists and for listeners, but I still don't see what is so horrible for artists.
My guess is it can't be that bad with all these labels and artists coming to deals they agree with.
Maybe there ought to be a pay scale based on units sold. So if you are a very successful artist (often played) you get paid very little for each play and if you are a little known (rarely played) you get much more. The goal would be for the highly successful very rich artists to subsidize the up and coming artist. I am all for success and rightfully earned riches but also for a little wealth distribution. The important thing is that for the fledgeling artist it is about survival and streaming seems to play into the hands of the very successful only. Just a thought.
Actually this kind of inverse capitalism would not work because most of the people who subscribe do it for the major artists (and they know it).
Actually this kind of inverse capitalism would not work because most of the people who subscribe do it for the major artists (and they know it).
I wouldn't call it inverse capitalism. It would be more like means based arts income tax where the money specifically goes towards nurturing the arts. I'm not even suggesting such a thing should be exclusive to streaming.
Comments
:sigh: Nothing I said should have lead to your comment. I never said their views, maths, or anything else was correct, only that this was expected. The fact that it has happened before actually backs up my points.
That's how they make money from per song streams, but how many songs need to be streamed before they make more than from a single album purchase? How long does a song need to be played before it's considered a streamed song? Are their partial stream payments based on length played or percentages? All these things and more need to be considered by the content holders and anyone that makes superficial blankets statements like "more options is better for them" simply isn't thinking it through.
Plus, what does it really hurt Prince or Garth Brooks if they wait a few weeks or months to see how things are working out? A potential loss of profit is a possibility but I guarantee you that the gain is small enough that it would likely behoove them to "measure twice, cut once" before signing a long contract.
Maybe there ought to be a pay scale based on units sold. So if you are a very successful artist (often played) you get paid very little for each play and if you are a little known (rarely played) you get much more. The goal would be for the highly successful very rich artists to subsidize the up and coming artist. I am all for success and rightfully earned riches but also for a little wealth distribution. The important thing is that for the fledgeling artist it is about survival and streaming seems to play into the hands of the very successful only. Just a thought.
Eh, I think it would be a bad choice to do that. The reason is that the big artists bring the attention and the subscribers. There is a reason Apple gives so much to the celebrities and the big names in the industry - it's because they have a following. Those same names would have much more reason to not join if they didn't get their dues.
The thing is that most of those huge artists started at the very bottom too. And some artists like being indie and not huge. Sometimes a band or artist isn't highly regarded, and therefore they remain unknown to many.. I really don't think that is deserving of a larger cut than someone who everyone loves and is largely liked by the masses.
Plus, what does it really hurt Prince or Garth Brooks if they wait a few weeks or months to see how things are working out? A potential loss of profit is a possibility but I guarantee you that the gain is small enough that it would likely behoove them to "measure twice, cut once" before signing a long contract.
I didn't refer to your post to say these artists weren't doing what is best for them, in their minds. They can do what they want. More power to them.
What I was referring to was the fact that times have changed. The way music is created and distributed has changed. This is no longer the time of saving up and waiting to buy something you want. We have access to everything we want and can enjoy it when we want, in however large amounts we want. This is what caused artists to decide to sell songs on a single-song basis. Nobody will buy an album for one or two songs anymore (well, not everyone at least). Might as well make some money since it's just as easy for someone to illegally download one or two songs and you never see anything as an artist.
My response was addressing the "album" that you speak of. The album doesn't exist in the same way it once did.
That was years ago. Fast forward to today and you've got a massive population that is willing to rent instead of buy. Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify.. they all capitalize on that. This is good for an artist. This means that instead of making a dollar off me for their one-hit-wonder, they'll make money off me also feeling free to discover their other songs, at no risk to me. It means the population will largely be doing the same. That's a much larger income. And, yes, the payout is smaller per play. But it's per play!
Years from now, I'll still have a subscription. I would rather pay for the convenience and access than a physical object or real download. If I cancelled, what would I have? Yes, that could be bad for me in a way, but the artist will have a way of making money well into the future. Not only that, but streaming opens new doors for indie artists to distribute their music. I could make a song in my basement, copyright it, get with Apple on a streaming deal and have people playing it right away. There are a couple steps that I'm sure would need to be followed but the fact is streaming is a way to ensure artists stay relevant and up-to-date with the consumption trends of the industry.
Case in point - before streaming took such huge marketshare points, music downloads were on the decline already. We all know that's not because people didn't want music.. It's because their method of consumption was changing. Torrents have never been stopped and now everyone can tell you what a torrent is because everyone has either done it or knows someone who has done it. People want freedom of consumption and artists want more control and want to continue getting money. Enter streaming.
AC/DC mastered for iTunes' albums are of far better quality than what Spotify has.
During the Spotify premium subscription I was given, I noticed that all they had was reminiscent of those cheap LP's you could buy in the seventies, the one's with the fine print stating "songs not performed by the original artist".
True, and I would never suggest that Apple enforced such a policy. It was more of a philosophical thought. The implementation of any such tax, or wealth redistribution, or whatever you'd call it would have to be with a general consensus among artist, big and small. The idea would not be to penalize the successful ones or to rob them of their hard earned cash, but rather to foster a sense of 'community' for lack of a better word, and a spirit of 'giving back'. Any artist will know first hand what it is like to live hand to mouth and I wonder if there was an institutionalized form of what I am suggesting successful artist wouldn't be happy to participate.
As a socialist and I don't mind paying more taxes when I earn more and don't mind if someone that earns less than me pays less or no tax at all. It hurts as it does for everyone but from a philosophical viewpoint I am OK with it. It is not as if I will ever be poor or suffer as a result. I'd like to think that within the art world there is a stronger sense of community and social responsibility than in the world at large. I may be wrong because there is a strong correlation between the arts and sports and neither type of celebrity is necessarily famous for their compassion or charity, as far as I know.
I agree with what you say. What I personally like about the streaming model, as in Apple Music, is seeing the breadth of music available. It offers so many ways to listen to so much music I never knew existed. I also really like Beats 1. It differs from most North American music radio in that it offers an deeper and more knowledgable insight into genres of music and individual artists by people who are passionate about what they play. I look forward to the introduction of Beats 2, 3, and so on.
I haven't seen any projections though I am sure they exist, of what the potential earnings to artists of all degrees of popularity will look in a world where paid streaming is the dominant music delivery platform, and how that will compare to the 'own your music' model.
But this is the way of the world. Subscription services have decimated the income of stock photographers as well. Its a simple reality with digital and the internet supply/demand dictates that there is more music available than any human can consume, in that case the price falls and that is basic economics. The question is just which organisations will profit from the inevitable changes that are happening.
There is a silver lining however, the public is being weaned off of high quality files onto MP3's because most of the time they are listening in a way that doesn't need quality.
So for artists who can reach the part of their audience that WILL pay, there is the chance to sell high quality formats like CD and Vinyl to that audience. And that small audience is not price sensitive. Its the same across the creative sphere. Most people want free, but for a more select group payment is not an issue and they will pay more than in the past.
and @connect enables artists big and small to connect directly with fans.
final silver lining. If Apple does dominate streaming with their service, music may become just a part of the bigger platform and at that point artists will have a much bigger potential market as innovation will find more and more ways to get people to listen to their material and to build relationships with fans.
Here in South Korea, I haven't been able to listen to Beats 1 at all. So It is very frustrating that Apples flagship radio station doesn't work, but the others do.
Also, Apple Music feels buggy as hell, as it creates huge slowdown on my ipad 2 and hangs while loading the radio page, and some albums.
It seems Apple has done a great job, I like what I see, but it isn't perfect yet...and still needs time to cook. If it is not fixed within 3 months, I don't see myself using it.
I have already realized I don't know anything about music, artists or anything, so the appeal to me is limited.
How is this model worse than having their music played on terrestrial radio, which is a similar all-you-can-eat plan and doesn't cost the listener any money?
How the frack is it similar& Think a bit. One is on demand, the other you listen to what someone proposes. They're not similar AT ALL.
Good grief! Can't believe the things being said.
Thank you for your kind and enlightening response.
My thoughts differ.
If I want to listen to Taylor Swift I can tune to my local pop radio station and hear her, likely in a short while, followed by other pop music. Or, I can go to Apple Music, enter her name and listen to her immediately followed by other pop music. These two models sound similar.
The local station pays licensing fees to play music, so does Apple Music. ASCAP (and others) have complex methods to determine how much to pay each artist every time their song is played. Streaming services, like Apple Music, have their own methods to do the same. These two methods sound similar.
You're right, the two aren't exactly the same. That is why I used the word similar. However, you still haven't explained why streaming is worse that terrestrial radio for the artist.
It seems in both circumstances the artist will be paid each time their song is played. Yes, there are pros and cons on both sides, for artists and for listeners, but I still don't see what is so horrible for artists.
My guess is it can't be that bad with all these labels and artists coming to deals they agree with.
Maybe there ought to be a pay scale based on units sold. So if you are a very successful artist (often played) you get paid very little for each play and if you are a little known (rarely played) you get much more. The goal would be for the highly successful very rich artists to subsidize the up and coming artist. I am all for success and rightfully earned riches but also for a little wealth distribution. The important thing is that for the fledgeling artist it is about survival and streaming seems to play into the hands of the very successful only. Just a thought.
Actually this kind of inverse capitalism would not work because most of the people who subscribe do it for the major artists (and they know it).