Right.. Gator... Your sticking it to the "man" by going to free streaming... Not f**** artists... No... Not you... Do you know any actual artists or you just google about them?
I wonder what on hell your on this since there's not one single news item you don't have a contrarian view on. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Trying to "educate" us hey. Would do a better job of it if ever single response didn't have an obvious contrary bias as a default.
Yeah, I mean, can't we all just say the same thing in here?
Apple Music will find its way. I'm glad Apple bought Beats. Their audio products are becoming more sophisticated and improving gradually. Cut to several years down the line and Apple will have a superb speaker/earphone/headphone lineup with a great modern brand and a simply great streaming service and it will be because of the Beats acquisition and perhaps more importantly Apple will be after inking a TV Show subscription deal with Hollywood which will give them the contractual leverage to make a subsidised full blown television thanks more than likely to Jimmy's deal making prowess.
Music streaming, television hardware and great audio products from Apple thanks to this acquisition. And people will still call this a bad deal long long after Apple's recouped the money and more.
Ireland, you've lost me here ... Are you telling me that Apple had to acquire beats to improve the beats audio products?
Ireland, you've lost me here ... Are you telling me that Apple had to acquire beats to improve the beats audio products?
You're talking about a company that adds weights to headphones to make them feel like they have serious hardware on board... being bought by a company where the CEO will send a design team back to the drawing board to eliminate a button unless it's absolutely necessary.
Beats was bought by Monster f-ing Cable. It absolutely requires a takeover by a company with some direction and design ethics to improve a sh*t-pile product that is worth little more than its brand.
I suppose Iovine is against FM radio, too. Deal with it, billionaire.
REaly, that's your god damn argument!! Are you cuing your set list directly to the radio's DJ so he can play them, if not... And I'm prety sure that's the case... You've created the dumbest reply ever. Deal with that bud.
Why does anyone need to pay attention to whether or not pricing models are hurting artists? This is capitalism, right? If the market screws you, you just have to take it and find some way to make it on your own, just like any ordinary worker that no one cares about. What the market will bear is inviolable. All hail the market. He is great.
Although you are being sarcastic, this is exactly what happens. There is an oversupply of artists and music and limited demand, which is why only a fraction of people competing for the same consumer dollars will ever make a living in the music business. Same applies to actors and the movie biz. These are very, very competitive markets and entertainment is a non-essential purchase.
One question: how do youth ok this self publishing works in the end? I have some experience in the book market, and there, of course you can self publish as well, and eliminate the greedy publishers, but then you're stuck in an ocean of others, and you don't get any marketing. Marketing is the main reason why a authorizing up with a publisher IMO. The iBook store for example doesn't even show your book (not even under NEW books) unless they choose to add it to this category. Otherwise you're o my found when someone.searches the exact title. So how would this be any different with Apple Music?
Well music is a little different.
Once you write a song you copyright it then instead of "shopping it" world wide you offer it to apple the same way an app developer sells their app on the App Store. The artist will still register with ASCAP/BMI because they'll want royalties if used elsewhere (movie sound tracks, played on the radio, in clubs, etc) plus the person who wrote it will want their royalty. The song writing is your real estate for the future like owning and renting houses as income for life.
The trick is to NOT sell the rights of the song to anyone. It's the 'real estate" in this equation. That's how the Beatles got screwed. As a young artist you're so eager to get signed you'll literally "give away the farm" and most do.
So let me clarify one thing. An earlier post ask me "well you're a label aren't you afraid of being put out of business?" Good point... If we were "that" kind of label but we're not. We're a dance remix label. In other words The artist ( like Madonna, depeche mode, etc) records their songs then they come to us to have us do the dance remix which you then hear in the clubs or even here on iTunes music. As a remixer/producer ( when we add additional production technically were producers at that point) we been involved for the past 30 years in helping the artist not get screwed by the record labels We consider ourselves middle-management When we see a new artist or even an artist that's been around being taken advantage of by the The label we step in and make sure they get their fair share
Here's an example. One time we were hired to remix the entire album from a group that I'll leave nameless. when they showed up with the multi track tapes all the tracks were out of sync for all 14 tracks. the producer was from information Society. He took his money to produce the album - bought new computer software and was learning how to use the software while they were recording the groups album! When we put the tracks up and found they were all out of sync I immediately called the record label and said what the **** the kick and the snare are about as close as California and Ohio because the producer didn't use auto correct on all the tracks as they were being laid down. Every song was going to have to be re-recorded from scratch at the expense of the artist because the label would be billing them for this recording I had to explain this to the artist because they thought the label would be covering everything I had to explain to them how you spend money and then they take it out of your loyalties. most bands never see a penny on the royalties for their first album ever. Example: Frankie goes to Hollywood they did 27 remixes of the song RELAX. By the time the album came out and paid for l, the band each got a $1.27 royalty payment. We were living in London at the time and that was the headline on the newspaper. it shocked the world. Why so little? Because of the "point" system. Trevor Horn charged them for the studio (his studio!) to record the album. He then billed the the studio time for HIM to remix the song 27 times even though he was the record label that signed them This is because as the artist they only got three points whereas Trevor Horn wrote the song for three points, produced the song for three points, was the record label for 25 points etc. They sold millions of copies worldwide and ended up with a $1.27 royalty payment
After 30 years of fighting for the artist to make sure they get the money due to them and we're not even their lawyer I see this as a good thing with the artist being able to just record music and sell it on iTunes through Apple just like an app developer would sell a app. Then those songs that stand out Apple will produce (pay for) a video to be made. If you don't believe me look at recent hiring posting "looking for individuals who are familiar with video production, directing, etc". It's already happening.
Hopefully that clears things up for everybody. GRIN
Yes, musicians should always retain all rights to their own work and they should always maintain control over their own recordings. If that means forgoing studio time and instead recording everything on an iPad or your own Mac, do it. In case of any disputes with labels or managers they should be able to amicably separate with no money owed in either direction and seek new representation or be able to license any of their songs unencumbered by previous arrangements.
I always admired Reuben Blades because he became both a lawyer and a musician and was able to completely control his own career. Giving away your power to others is always a bad move.
Iovine is right. Freemium music doesn't pay the artists nearly what they are entitled to. Apple could offer free music in the morning, it doesn't need the money, but they avoid freemium to ensure the artists get paid. It's a rather straight forward argument. You prefer freemium because you couldn't care if the artists get paid.
The Artists are still getting paid no matter what. If the content is free, they're still making their money from the Commercials people are forced to hear. This is No different then what has been happening on FM Radio for YEARS and YEARS!!!! Long before the Internet.
Apple said they'd be paying 71.5% after the intro period compared to the typical 70% from some other providers. Rather than the artist who you apparently assume is getting that entire royalty it's paid to the rights holder who is generally a recording label. There's no assurance the performing artist is getting any more percentage-wise from Apple than they were from some others tho in cases like Swift's they probably do. She and a few like her are special cases.
During the intro period Apple was reported to be paying $0.002 per stream according to indie-artists receiving those payouts.
Taylor Swift has her own Label as do a number of other top artists. That allows them to keep a much larger percentage of the money!!!
As a record company I'm surprised to see you so happy about being put out of business after 30 years. Apple has more resources to throw at this than any company on earth. Or perhaps you have plans in place to remain relevant and/or you don't don't think Apple is going to impact your record company and others like you in the near future? Curious your feelings about it as a businessman.
Actually we are a dance music remix label. The artist comes to us with their song. We then decide whether we want to remix it. When were done they have 48 hours to "use or loose". If they use it they pay us $25,000 for the remix. If they don't use it then we (Razormaid) puts it out on our "DJ only" service and pay them nothing.
The reason we pay them nothing? We are like an audio version of an ad taken out in Billboard magazine. But rather than pay $15,000 on an ad they may or may not be seen, if just one DJ plays our custom mix they have an average of 1,500 people a night hearing it. We have a worldwide membership of over 2,000 subscribers. Do the math. Lol. The people dancing ask what this is? And they go buy the song except they can't get our version. It's for DJs only.
However we also do final mixing of complete albums and I do commercial mixing of songs I would never put on Razormaid!
But switching to the "non label sell the song yourself on iTunes" model rather than get paid by the label (artist) we would make arrangements if we wanted to go public and offer our mix in addition to the artist offering their lp. We'll always have our membership label but this making it available on iTunes would be more revenu and we could do the remix for either nothing or a drastically reduced fee if the artist lets us sell it on iTunes. Trust me it's MUCH easier working with the artist than the blood suckers, oops I mean the record labels. (Sorry)
You miss the point. Artist on labels agree to a contract and are paid a percentage of profit or revenue. When you have have a service come in and take 40% of that in come and pay 10% of what you were already making that is a huge hit. It's like a temp agency going to your boss and offering to do part of your job for less so they cut you salary almost in half and they push to give them even more of you work.
Ok well YOU could not be further from the truth. Clearly you are not in the business. As an artist you're not guaranteed squat. You are "assigned" points and that's it. As the revenue starts pouring in the label starts detailing how much they spend on promotion, on manufacturing the CD, how much the artist spent recording, then pay to remix for the clubs, oh you wanted that on triple swirl vinyl? No problem.
And on and on and on
The artist gets paid an "advance". Typically it's $25,000. The group gets all excited but then I tell them "you know that's all you'll ever see on this first album. They will nickel and dime you till there's nothing left and you'll not see a penny unless they do a "second run". (They print up x amount of copies world wide. It is sells out they print again). Only on a second run will the artist hope to make anything because on the second run there's none of the cost as there was in the first. They've already promoted, designed, produced, etc.
But trust me dude it's not even close to how you described it. If it were that would be great but it's just not done that way.
The ONLY way an artist wins is if they collect maxim points. In other words if they wrote the song (3 points), if they sang the song (3 points), if they produce the album themselves (3 Points), if they mix it themselves and master it (2 points) if they set up their on label (like Madonna, prince, etc) then pay a label to distribute (they pay out 20 points) then and only then do they make money without touring
Ok since we ARE an actual record company and have been in the business for the part 30+ years let me help all of you see where this is going with Apple Music
Apples' goal here is to ditch the middle man (the record labels) who take a MAJOR majority of the albums profit.
Here's some figures for ya'll. It's all based on the "point" system
The artist gets 3 - 7 points (Michael Jackson demanded 17)
If you write the song you get 3 points
If you produced it you get 3 points
If you create a record label and license it for distribution you get 25 points
Etc.
So the big plan here is for artists to start signing with Apple and ditch the labels. Why? Because everything available is either listen to on iTunes or Apple Mudic already. Apple takes their $0.30 per song but that's waaaaaaay better than the label taking 75 points (there's a 100 points total. Think of it as 3 points = $0.03 on a dollar.
This is the reason groups tour. They get 100% of the door, Of that they pay the promoter, the crew, set designer, etc but they end up making about $0.80 per dollar and no label involvement.
In this new world order Apple will pay the artist to make a video of specific songs found ONLY on <sound the trumpets> Apple Music. In fact they're already doing that now with Beyoncé and a host of others. Apple pays for the entire production costs. With that being the one thing normally "fronted" by the label there's no need for a label. They already get excellent promotion on iTunes and Apple Music so as the artists slowly dump their labels taking their $.70 on a dollar they will be VERY happy campers! The tricky part is for the artists to jump off the "label" bandwagon and be label-less
This is where this is going. I predict in the next 4 years the end of the artist/label enabling and artists going out on their own.
The good news about this is anyone - literally my neighbor - can record a song and sell it "self published" on Apple's iTunes. These will be the people leading this label exodus as their profits per song sold soar are nearly all handed over as the signed artists continues to get less and less
What are the other services that take the record labels cut from 25 to 75?
Funny how in your world, Jobs is magically not involved, not responsible, for the mess of Itunes, ...thinking Jobs wasn't heavily involved in the mess is ludicrous.
Itunes basically has a early 2000s UI esthetic while everything else has moved on.
I was pointing out the irony between Jony and Jimmy's talks. Nowhere did I say Steve Jobs was not involved in the iTunes mess.
I would say iTunes was better in early 2000's. You could open up multiple windows so different iTunes functions or song lists could be viewed at the same time. Forcing everything into one window, with many times more options now, has made it worse than any 2000 GUI.
It is actually hard to find a good comparison app for iTunes as it is so bad.
I was pointing out the irony between Jony and Jimmy's talks. Nowhere did I say Steve Jobs was not involved in the iTunes mess.
I would say iTunes was better in early 2000's. You could open up multiple windows so different iTunes functions or song lists could be viewed at the same time. Forcing everything into one window, with many times more options now, has made it worse than any 2000 GUI.
It is actually hard to find a good comparison for iTunes as it is so bad.
The Artists are still getting paid no matter what. If the content is free, they're still making their money from the Commercials people are forced to hear. This is No different then what has been happening on FM Radio for YEARS and YEARS!!!! Long before the Internet.
No! That's not true. The ONLY person guaranteed payment is the song writer because ASCAP/BMI collects a royalty everytime a song is paid. But here's the problem with that.
Although radio is fiercely monitored (they literally have to submit everything played and account for 100% of their on-air time) by submitting their playlists to ASCAP/BMI that agency then collects the fee.
A 3 1/2 minute song is $0.05 cents. At 3:31 through 4:00 it's another $0.05. Dance mixes like ours that exceed 6:00 is another $0.10 cents. That's paid to the label.
Enter Spotify. There's no submission of how many times a song is played. In fact even in Apple Music if the song being played stops before 15 seconds Apple doesn't have to report or pay. The person listening didn't complete playing and therefore no fee is generated.
What are the other services that take the record labels cut from 25 to 75?
Ah that's the mystery question. Lol. Well there's the producers fee, the recording studio fee, the mastering fee, the album remix fee, the record cover design fee, the printing of that design (cd jacket) fee, the shipping the printed goods to the CD manufacturing fee, the CD manufacturing fee, tge CD distribution to stores fee, the promotion fee (which usually includes a small packette of Coke to get the radio station to play it - I'm not sure the going rate on the Coke sorry), then magazine ad fee, artist promotion fee (sending them to various venues to promote live) and basically once all the money comes in they'll provide a fee until there's no royalty paid out, period. Hope you enjoyed that signing bonus it's all you'll ever see at lead from the first LP
From my understanding the artist makes close to nothing on the actual sales of the songs and radio play and the artist makes a majority of their money by touring. So, if that's true, this guys not gonna make me feel guilty about streaming Pandora for free.
From my understanding the artist makes close to nothing on the actual sales of the songs and radio play and the artist makes a majority of their money by touring. So, if that's true, this guys not gonna make me feel guilty about streaming Pandora for free.
It used to be they toured in support of an album, now it's tour to support the family since no one wants to pay to listen to music anymore. That's why concert tickets are so expensive now.
Comments
Right.. Gator... Your sticking it to the "man" by going to free streaming... Not f**** artists... No... Not you... Do you know any actual artists or you just google about them?
I wonder what on hell your on this since there's not one single news item you don't have a contrarian view on. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Trying to "educate" us hey. Would do a better job of it if ever single response didn't have an obvious contrary bias as a default.
Yeah, I mean, can't we all just say the same thing in here?
Apple Music will find its way. I'm glad Apple bought Beats. Their audio products are becoming more sophisticated and improving gradually. Cut to several years down the line and Apple will have a superb speaker/earphone/headphone lineup with a great modern brand and a simply great streaming service and it will be because of the Beats acquisition and perhaps more importantly Apple will be after inking a TV Show subscription deal with Hollywood which will give them the contractual leverage to make a subsidised full blown television thanks more than likely to Jimmy's deal making prowess.
Music streaming, television hardware and great audio products from Apple thanks to this acquisition. And people will still call this a bad deal long long after Apple's recouped the money and more.
Ireland, you've lost me here ... Are you telling me that Apple had to acquire beats to improve the beats audio products?
Ireland, you've lost me here ... Are you telling me that Apple had to acquire beats to improve the beats audio products?
You're talking about a company that adds weights to headphones to make them feel like they have serious hardware on board... being bought by a company where the CEO will send a design team back to the drawing board to eliminate a button unless it's absolutely necessary.
Beats was bought by Monster f-ing Cable. It absolutely requires a takeover by a company with some direction and design ethics to improve a sh*t-pile product that is worth little more than its brand.
I suppose Iovine is against FM radio, too. Deal with it, billionaire.
REaly, that's your god damn argument!! Are you cuing your set list directly to the radio's DJ so he can play them, if not... And I'm prety sure that's the case... You've created the dumbest reply ever. Deal with that bud.
Although you are being sarcastic, this is exactly what happens. There is an oversupply of artists and music and limited demand, which is why only a fraction of people competing for the same consumer dollars will ever make a living in the music business. Same applies to actors and the movie biz. These are very, very competitive markets and entertainment is a non-essential purchase.
Well music is a little different.
Once you write a song you copyright it then instead of "shopping it" world wide you offer it to apple the same way an app developer sells their app on the App Store. The artist will still register with ASCAP/BMI because they'll want royalties if used elsewhere (movie sound tracks, played on the radio, in clubs, etc) plus the person who wrote it will want their royalty. The song writing is your real estate for the future like owning and renting houses as income for life.
The trick is to NOT sell the rights of the song to anyone. It's the 'real estate" in this equation. That's how the Beatles got screwed. As a young artist you're so eager to get signed you'll literally "give away the farm" and most do.
So let me clarify one thing. An earlier post ask me "well you're a label aren't you afraid of being put out of business?" Good point... If we were "that" kind of label but we're not. We're a dance remix label. In other words The artist ( like Madonna, depeche mode, etc) records their songs then they come to us to have us do the dance remix which you then hear in the clubs or even here on iTunes music. As a remixer/producer ( when we add additional production technically were producers at that point) we been involved for the past 30 years in helping the artist not get screwed by the record labels We consider ourselves middle-management When we see a new artist or even an artist that's been around being taken advantage of by the The label we step in and make sure they get their fair share
Here's an example. One time we were hired to remix the entire album from a group that I'll leave nameless. when they showed up with the multi track tapes all the tracks were out of sync for all 14 tracks. the producer was from information Society. He took his money to produce the album - bought new computer software and was learning how to use the software while they were recording the groups album! When we put the tracks up and found they were all out of sync I immediately called the record label and said what the **** the kick and the snare are about as close as California and Ohio because the producer didn't use auto correct on all the tracks as they were being laid down. Every song was going to have to be re-recorded from scratch at the expense of the artist because the label would be billing them for this recording I had to explain this to the artist because they thought the label would be covering everything I had to explain to them how you spend money and then they take it out of your loyalties. most bands never see a penny on the royalties for their first album ever. Example: Frankie goes to Hollywood they did 27 remixes of the song RELAX. By the time the album came out and paid for l, the band each got a $1.27 royalty payment. We were living in London at the time and that was the headline on the newspaper. it shocked the world. Why so little? Because of the "point" system. Trevor Horn charged them for the studio (his studio!) to record the album. He then billed the the studio time for HIM to remix the song 27 times even though he was the record label that signed them This is because as the artist they only got three points whereas Trevor Horn wrote the song for three points, produced the song for three points, was the record label for 25 points etc. They sold millions of copies worldwide and ended up with a $1.27 royalty payment
After 30 years of fighting for the artist to make sure they get the money due to them and we're not even their lawyer I see this as a good thing with the artist being able to just record music and sell it on iTunes through Apple just like an app developer would sell a app. Then those songs that stand out Apple will produce (pay for) a video to be made. If you don't believe me look at recent hiring posting "looking for individuals who are familiar with video production, directing, etc". It's already happening.
Hopefully that clears things up for everybody. GRIN
I always admired Reuben Blades because he became both a lawyer and a musician and was able to completely control his own career. Giving away your power to others is always a bad move.
Iovine is right. Freemium music doesn't pay the artists nearly what they are entitled to. Apple could offer free music in the morning, it doesn't need the money, but they avoid freemium to ensure the artists get paid. It's a rather straight forward argument. You prefer freemium because you couldn't care if the artists get paid.
The Artists are still getting paid no matter what. If the content is free, they're still making their money from the Commercials people are forced to hear. This is No different then what has been happening on FM Radio for YEARS and YEARS!!!! Long before the Internet.
Apple said they'd be paying 71.5% after the intro period compared to the typical 70% from some other providers. Rather than the artist who you apparently assume is getting that entire royalty it's paid to the rights holder who is generally a recording label. There's no assurance the performing artist is getting any more percentage-wise from Apple than they were from some others tho in cases like Swift's they probably do. She and a few like her are special cases.
During the intro period Apple was reported to be paying $0.002 per stream according to indie-artists receiving those payouts.
Taylor Swift has her own Label as do a number of other top artists. That allows them to keep a much larger percentage of the money!!!
Actually we are a dance music remix label. The artist comes to us with their song. We then decide whether we want to remix it. When were done they have 48 hours to "use or loose". If they use it they pay us $25,000 for the remix. If they don't use it then we (Razormaid) puts it out on our "DJ only" service and pay them nothing.
The reason we pay them nothing? We are like an audio version of an ad taken out in Billboard magazine. But rather than pay $15,000 on an ad they may or may not be seen, if just one DJ plays our custom mix they have an average of 1,500 people a night hearing it. We have a worldwide membership of over 2,000 subscribers. Do the math. Lol. The people dancing ask what this is? And they go buy the song except they can't get our version. It's for DJs only.
However we also do final mixing of complete albums and I do commercial mixing of songs I would never put on Razormaid!
But switching to the "non label sell the song yourself on iTunes" model rather than get paid by the label (artist) we would make arrangements if we wanted to go public and offer our mix in addition to the artist offering their lp. We'll always have our membership label but this making it available on iTunes would be more revenu and we could do the remix for either nothing or a drastically reduced fee if the artist lets us sell it on iTunes. Trust me it's MUCH easier working with the artist than the blood suckers, oops I mean the record labels. (Sorry)
During the intro period Apple was reported to be paying $0.002 per stream according to indie-artists receiving those payouts.
These are the numbers I'm getting from Apple Music around the world per play:
UK: $0.00235025
Mexico: $0.00108085
Japan: $0.00300264
India: $0.00022262
New Zealand: $0.00142013
Sweden: $0.00173766
Canada: $0.00137563
Strangely enough, US plays haven't been reported yet...
Itunes Match US is : $0.00241881
And other players paying (some of whom I haven't heard of):
From Spotify: $0.00045500
Medianet: $0.02001082
Deezer: $0.00481875
Slacker Radio: $0.00127400
RDiO: $0.00073433
Rhapsody: $0.00910000
Samsung Music Hub: $0.01997849
Muve Music: $0.00890983
Omnifone: $0.02543343
Groove: $0.04105470
I like how they break it down into 8 decimal places.
When I sell a track on iTunes I get: $0.63700000
So, the take away is buy music from iTunes if you are buying my music.
Ok well YOU could not be further from the truth. Clearly you are not in the business. As an artist you're not guaranteed squat. You are "assigned" points and that's it. As the revenue starts pouring in the label starts detailing how much they spend on promotion, on manufacturing the CD, how much the artist spent recording, then pay to remix for the clubs, oh you wanted that on triple swirl vinyl? No problem.
And on and on and on
The artist gets paid an "advance". Typically it's $25,000. The group gets all excited but then I tell them "you know that's all you'll ever see on this first album. They will nickel and dime you till there's nothing left and you'll not see a penny unless they do a "second run". (They print up x amount of copies world wide. It is sells out they print again). Only on a second run will the artist hope to make anything because on the second run there's none of the cost as there was in the first. They've already promoted, designed, produced, etc.
But trust me dude it's not even close to how you described it. If it were that would be great but it's just not done that way.
The ONLY way an artist wins is if they collect maxim points. In other words if they wrote the song (3 points), if they sang the song (3 points), if they produce the album themselves (3 Points), if they mix it themselves and master it (2 points) if they set up their on label (like Madonna, prince, etc) then pay a label to distribute (they pay out 20 points) then and only then do they make money without touring
What are the other services that take the record labels cut from 25 to 75?
Funny how in your world, Jobs is magically not involved, not responsible, for the mess of Itunes, ...thinking Jobs wasn't heavily involved in the mess is ludicrous.
Itunes basically has a early 2000s UI esthetic while everything else has moved on.
I was pointing out the irony between Jony and Jimmy's talks. Nowhere did I say Steve Jobs was not involved in the iTunes mess.
I would say iTunes was better in early 2000's. You could open up multiple windows so different iTunes functions or song lists could be viewed at the same time. Forcing everything into one window, with many times more options now, has made it worse than any 2000 GUI.
It is actually hard to find a good comparison app for iTunes as it is so bad.
I was pointing out the irony between Jony and Jimmy's talks. Nowhere did I say Steve Jobs was not involved in the iTunes mess.
I would say iTunes was better in early 2000's. You could open up multiple windows so different iTunes functions or song lists could be viewed at the same time. Forcing everything into one window, with many times more options now, has made it worse than any 2000 GUI.
It is actually hard to find a good comparison for iTunes as it is so bad.
No! That's not true. The ONLY person guaranteed payment is the song writer because ASCAP/BMI collects a royalty everytime a song is paid. But here's the problem with that.
Although radio is fiercely monitored (they literally have to submit everything played and account for 100% of their on-air time) by submitting their playlists to ASCAP/BMI that agency then collects the fee.
A 3 1/2 minute song is $0.05 cents. At 3:31 through 4:00 it's another $0.05. Dance mixes like ours that exceed 6:00 is another $0.10 cents. That's paid to the label.
Enter Spotify. There's no submission of how many times a song is played. In fact even in Apple Music if the song being played stops before 15 seconds Apple doesn't have to report or pay. The person listening didn't complete playing and therefore no fee is generated.
Ah that's the mystery question. Lol. Well there's the producers fee, the recording studio fee, the mastering fee, the album remix fee, the record cover design fee, the printing of that design (cd jacket) fee, the shipping the printed goods to the CD manufacturing fee, the CD manufacturing fee, tge CD distribution to stores fee, the promotion fee (which usually includes a small packette of Coke to get the radio station to play it - I'm not sure the going rate on the Coke sorry), then magazine ad fee, artist promotion fee (sending them to various venues to promote live) and basically once all the money comes in they'll provide a fee until there's no royalty paid out, period. Hope you enjoyed that signing bonus it's all you'll ever see at lead from the first LP
From my understanding the artist makes close to nothing on the actual sales of the songs and radio play and the artist makes a majority of their money by touring. So, if that's true, this guys not gonna make me feel guilty about streaming Pandora for free.
It used to be they toured in support of an album, now it's tour to support the family since no one wants to pay to listen to music anymore. That's why concert tickets are so expensive now.