Big artists who can play arenas and stadiums, yes. But most bands, even recording bands, play clubs. So there's maybe 150 seats in most clubs, say 120 people show up and admission is $20 for $2400 total. Sometimes the band gets the gate and the club keeps the bar/food, but more frequently, the band gets 70% of the gate. So now the band has to split $1680 among them including all the transportation, food and equipment rental costs. That's not a living.
As someone else posted, bands used to tour to support the album sales. But now there's meager sales, so they have to tour to live.
Labels and artists should be paid for almost any music consumption. This business of "this should be free because they make money from that" doesn't really make any sense. Why should the senior executives of music streaming services or downloading services get rich off of the backs of artists?
Unfortunately, consumers have been trained to expect music for free or near free. And most don't have the patience to listen to an album. The combination of those two things are killing the industry. Artists will always create, but it's a shame that the vast majority of recorded musicians (aside from the Taylor Swift's and Rihanna's of the world) won't be able to make a living.
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!
I kinda think Giggle knows this is happening but doesn't care. It hurts Apple more than it hurts them anyways.
YouTube is hardly ever mentioned here which(no offense) makes me think you're all old. Almost every teen who used to drive music sales up since the 50's are now just searching for music on YouTube. The sad part is they'll click an unofficial version half the time.
It's fast, it's easy, there's LOS(lyrics on screen), the database is bigger than both Spotify AND ?Music and it's FREEEE!!!!!!!
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!
I kinda think Giggle knows this is happening but doesn't care. It hurts Apple more than it hurts them anyways.
YouTube is hardly ever mentioned here which(no offense) makes me think you're all old. Almost every teen who used to drive music sales up since the 50's are now just searching for music on YouTube. The sad part is they'll click an unofficial version half the time.
It's fast, it's easy, there's LOS(lyrics on screen), the database is bigger than both Spotify AND ?Music and it's FREEEE!!!!!!!
This. To our kids and their friends YouTube is the only source for music. They are not interested in neither streaming, nor purchasing. Just like FB/Whatsapp is their number one means of communication with email, texting etc coming in at blackberry market share numbers.
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!
I kinda think Giggle knows this is happening but doesn't care. It hurts Apple more than it hurts them anyways.
YouTube is hardly ever mentioned here which(no offense) makes me think you're all old. Almost every teen who used to drive music sales up since the 50's are now just searching for music on YouTube. The sad part is they'll click an unofficial version half the time.
It's fast, it's easy, there's LOS(lyrics on screen), the database is bigger than both Spotify AND ?Music and it's FREEEE!!!!!!!
Yeah I have said it before and I will say it again. YouTube is pretty awesome. If not completely skirting the law.
I think I remember mentioning to you here that Dre's exclusive new album was already available on YouTube before it was released officially.
And if you run some kind of ad blocker you don't even see the ads and nobody gets paid.
They have a system in place called Content ID that tries to scan for copyrighted material and send a notice to the copyright owner if they would rather take it down or mute it or make ad revenue from it.
So a lot of the time if you see a full album or song uploaded by some random person, whatever fraction of the ad revenue Google is willing to part with, is actually getting fed to the copyright holder and not the random person.
Without a doubt a lot of the time that fraction of ad revenue is getting getting fed to the random person as there are lots of ways people try to fool the system.
All of that being said at least in the US you need to exceed $100 in ad revenue before Google sends you a check. So what all of this imperfect system says to me is that there is a decent chance that the violating content will:
A) Get pulled before the uploader makes any ad money.
Get identified by Content ID and pay the copyright holder the ad money instead.
C) Get pulled before the uploader or copyright holder make any ad money, but not before thousands of people have had a chance to view or download the content and of course see some ads as well.
D) The content never gets identified as infringing and Google and the random uploader make ad money and the copyright owner makes nothing.
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!!
If it's making ad revenue it's because the rights holder (ie, artist, label) agreed to it as a means of monetizing the content. Google pays a percentage of whatever is earned via ads to the owner of the content if that's what they want. Google will also block/remove the content if the owner of it wishes it be handled that way instead.
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!
I kinda think Giggle knows this is happening but doesn't care. It hurts Apple more than it hurts them anyways.
YouTube is hardly ever mentioned here which(no offense) makes me think you're all old. Almost every teen who used to drive music sales up since the 50's are now just searching for music on YouTube. The sad part is they'll click an unofficial version half the time.
It's fast, it's easy, there's LOS(lyrics on screen), the database is bigger than both Spotify AND ?Music and it's FREEEE!!!!!!!
At first I didn't understand how YouTube kept up all those videos of hit songs with a turntable spinning as the image or still images of the band. I also thought it was extremely arrogant of people to put up such videos of content that they obviously don't own.
But then, I uploaded my own videos of family members in a dance performance. Even though the video was highly edited and segmented, YouTube still recognized the really obscure background music from the live performance and indicated it was a copyright violation even though I had marked the video "private". They must have built a database of musical fingerprints of millions of tracks. So they put advertising on it.
This has happened to me several other times when I've used some relatively obscure instrumentals behind some video. I also produce websites for some musicians, two of whom are on TV shows. One sent a video of a performance for me to include and about 10 seconds after it was posted and even though I had permission to use it, I got a "violation of terms" message from YouTube where they assign you points that you can't get rid of even though the video comes down. If you get so many points, they freeze your account or something. (One of these days I'll have to build a video server and then I won't bother with YouTube at all). I don't know how they evaluated that this was copyrighted material so quickly.
So I have to believe that YouTube has made some kind of deal with the labels and other copyright owners for them to take a piece of the advertising revenue. I don't know whether it's a good or bad deal, but they're getting something. I don't know if the payments are via Sound Exchange or whether it's an outside deal.
But having said that, since one has to search for each video, it's not really a replacement for listening to the radio, streaming or even a bunch of downloaded songs. But there are people who spend half their lives on YouTube and certainly there's tons of links to YouTube videos on Facebook and other sites. When it's something like an old live performance, I think that probably helps most bands (or doesn't do any harm), but when it's just a copy of a track, I think it probably does hurt the band's revenue.
Bob Lefsetz was pretty brutal on Jimmy. I agree that Jimmy isn't the right fit for Apple. He must have done one hell of a snow job on Eddy Cue and Eddy is respected enough inside Apple that no one else challenged him.
However, I am not, necessarily, calling for anyone to be fired. Only Apple knows whether Jimmy's internal contributions were positive enough. Perhaps Jimmy (and Eddy Cue) could stay if they focus on what they do best (behind the scenes deals, american music curation). I'd defer to Apple's judgement on that.
However, now that Jimmy had its chance to contribute, it seems obvious:
1) Officers experts in design and software engineering (Ive and Federighi) should direct the overhaul of Apple Music interface, and
2) Jimmy and Cue should NOT do keynotes. That is no offense to them because not every officer at Apple does keynotes. For example: Ahrendts has done none. Similarly, other great officers (Ive, Mansfield, and Riccio) prefer to make edited videos instead.
Apple produces the best results by letting each officer do what they do best. The same should apply to Jimmy and Cue.
In Iovine's defence, iTunes was a mess way before he joined Apple. Having said that, Iovine and Eddy are clearly not visionary designers*. They are shrewd business men that should focus on the business to business side of Apple Music instead.
(*) Iovine should not dictate the Design and User Interface requirements of the music app. His idea of "having everything in one place" is fraud and jeopardizes the User Experience. Let the Design team figure out how to create a seamless user experience that does not alienate the music lover.
Comments
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!
I kinda think Giggle knows this is happening but doesn't care. It hurts Apple more than it hurts them anyways.
YouTube is hardly ever mentioned here which(no offense) makes me think you're all old. Almost every teen who used to drive music sales up since the 50's are now just searching for music on YouTube. The sad part is they'll click an unofficial version half the time.
It's fast, it's easy, there's LOS(lyrics on screen), the database is bigger than both Spotify AND ?Music and it's FREEEE!!!!!!!
This. To our kids and their friends YouTube is the only source for music. They are not interested in neither streaming, nor purchasing. Just like FB/Whatsapp is their number one means of communication with email, texting etc coming in at blackberry market share numbers.
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!
I kinda think Giggle knows this is happening but doesn't care. It hurts Apple more than it hurts them anyways.
YouTube is hardly ever mentioned here which(no offense) makes me think you're all old. Almost every teen who used to drive music sales up since the 50's are now just searching for music on YouTube. The sad part is they'll click an unofficial version half the time.
It's fast, it's easy, there's LOS(lyrics on screen), the database is bigger than both Spotify AND ?Music and it's FREEEE!!!!!!!
Yeah I have said it before and I will say it again. YouTube is pretty awesome. If not completely skirting the law.
I think I remember mentioning to you here that Dre's exclusive new album was already available on YouTube before it was released officially.
And if you run some kind of ad blocker you don't even see the ads and nobody gets paid.
They have a system in place called Content ID that tries to scan for copyrighted material and send a notice to the copyright owner if they would rather take it down or mute it or make ad revenue from it.
So a lot of the time if you see a full album or song uploaded by some random person, whatever fraction of the ad revenue Google is willing to part with, is actually getting fed to the copyright holder and not the random person.
Without a doubt a lot of the time that fraction of ad revenue is getting getting fed to the random person as there are lots of ways people try to fool the system.
All of that being said at least in the US you need to exceed $100 in ad revenue before Google sends you a check. So what all of this imperfect system says to me is that there is a decent chance that the violating content will:
A) Get pulled before the uploader makes any ad money.
C) Get pulled before the uploader or copyright holder make any ad money, but not before thousands of people have had a chance to view or download the content and of course see some ads as well.
D) The content never gets identified as infringing and Google and the random uploader make ad money and the copyright owner makes nothing.
It's option C and D that are a real problem.
Look into Content ID to get a better understanding. Another resource that explains how artists can profit from YouTube is here:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/032615/how-youtube-ad-revenue-works.asp
EDIT: Pip'd by Techlover! :smokey:
Thanks.
Wanna know who's killing music more than napster or a CD burner ever could?
YouTube.
Yesterday I saw an entire album uploaded(typical) by some random person on YouTube.
What shocked me was the channel was actually making ad revenue!
I kinda think Giggle knows this is happening but doesn't care. It hurts Apple more than it hurts them anyways.
YouTube is hardly ever mentioned here which(no offense) makes me think you're all old. Almost every teen who used to drive music sales up since the 50's are now just searching for music on YouTube. The sad part is they'll click an unofficial version half the time.
It's fast, it's easy, there's LOS(lyrics on screen), the database is bigger than both Spotify AND ?Music and it's FREEEE!!!!!!!
At first I didn't understand how YouTube kept up all those videos of hit songs with a turntable spinning as the image or still images of the band. I also thought it was extremely arrogant of people to put up such videos of content that they obviously don't own.
But then, I uploaded my own videos of family members in a dance performance. Even though the video was highly edited and segmented, YouTube still recognized the really obscure background music from the live performance and indicated it was a copyright violation even though I had marked the video "private". They must have built a database of musical fingerprints of millions of tracks. So they put advertising on it.
This has happened to me several other times when I've used some relatively obscure instrumentals behind some video. I also produce websites for some musicians, two of whom are on TV shows. One sent a video of a performance for me to include and about 10 seconds after it was posted and even though I had permission to use it, I got a "violation of terms" message from YouTube where they assign you points that you can't get rid of even though the video comes down. If you get so many points, they freeze your account or something. (One of these days I'll have to build a video server and then I won't bother with YouTube at all). I don't know how they evaluated that this was copyrighted material so quickly.
So I have to believe that YouTube has made some kind of deal with the labels and other copyright owners for them to take a piece of the advertising revenue. I don't know whether it's a good or bad deal, but they're getting something. I don't know if the payments are via Sound Exchange or whether it's an outside deal.
But having said that, since one has to search for each video, it's not really a replacement for listening to the radio, streaming or even a bunch of downloaded songs. But there are people who spend half their lives on YouTube and certainly there's tons of links to YouTube videos on Facebook and other sites. When it's something like an old live performance, I think that probably helps most bands (or doesn't do any harm), but when it's just a copy of a track, I think it probably does hurt the band's revenue.
Bob Lefsetz was pretty brutal on Jimmy. I agree that Jimmy isn't the right fit for Apple. He must have done one hell of a snow job on Eddy Cue and Eddy is respected enough inside Apple that no one else challenged him.
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2015/10/01/jimmy-iovine-2/
That seems plausible.
However, I am not, necessarily, calling for anyone to be fired. Only Apple knows whether Jimmy's internal contributions were positive enough. Perhaps Jimmy (and Eddy Cue) could stay if they focus on what they do best (behind the scenes deals, american music curation). I'd defer to Apple's judgement on that.
However, now that Jimmy had its chance to contribute, it seems obvious:
1) Officers experts in design and software engineering (Ive and Federighi) should direct the overhaul of Apple Music interface, and
2) Jimmy and Cue should NOT do keynotes. That is no offense to them because not every officer at Apple does keynotes. For example: Ahrendts has done none. Similarly, other great officers (Ive, Mansfield, and Riccio) prefer to make edited videos instead.
Apple produces the best results by letting each officer do what they do best. The same should apply to Jimmy and Cue.
In Iovine's defence, iTunes was a mess way before he joined Apple. Having said that, Iovine and Eddy are clearly not visionary designers*. They are shrewd business men that should focus on the business to business side of Apple Music instead.
(*) Iovine should not dictate the Design and User Interface requirements of the music app. His idea of "having everything in one place" is fraud and jeopardizes the User Experience. Let the Design team figure out how to create a seamless user experience that does not alienate the music lover.