Wow a whole bunch of ignorance in this thread. First off it is well known that the streaming services are screwing over the artist. Apple is one of those services.
Second; being a CEO means having the ability to demand things that people may not want to do. While Trump may be more forward, his behavior is a trait all CEOs have to an extent. Dont confuse a public image with a CEO's ability to be a real bastard at work.
Finally it is the CEO's responsibility to work in the best interest of his company! This means milking your suppliers for all they are worth. Remember Cook is known for supply chain management and in the case the musicians are the suppliers.
No one is being screwed over. Artists and their labels don’t HAVE to grant a license to stream their music. They do it to remain “visible” and competitive. With so much competition for attention, if your music disappears from sales or streaming it will quickly be forgotten.
It’s not that simple.
Streaming has all but killed music sales. So that revenue is disappearing.
But streaming royalty models don’t even nearly make up for the loss. So in the interest of "visibility", you as an artist are forced to support a model that is killing your business.
That’s the situation, and it’s a shitty one with no simple solution except for dramatically increased subscription prices.
Axl is saying Tim Cook is the president of the music industry.
with Apples clout, it’s kinda true.
Bunch of ingrates after Jobs saved the industry from pirate meltdown.
They saved the industry by installing a business model (“People want to own their music [….] Never say never, but customers don’t seem to be interested in it,” Jobs told Reuters in an interview after Apple reported blow-out quarterly results [in 2007]. “The subscription model has failed so far.”) that they are now helping destroy.
Wow a whole bunch of ignorance in this thread. First off it is well known that the streaming services are screwing over the artist. Apple is one of those services.
Second; being a CEO means having the ability to demand things that people may not want to do. While Trump may be more forward, his behavior is a trait all CEOs have to an extent. Dont confuse a public image with a CEO's ability to be a real bastard at work.
Finally it is the CEO's responsibility to work in the best interest of his company! This means milking your suppliers for all they are worth. Remember Cook is known for supply chain management and in the case the musicians are the suppliers.
No one is being screwed over. Artists and their labels don’t HAVE to grant a license to stream their music. They do it to remain “visible” and competitive. With so much competition for attention, if your music disappears from sales or streaming it will quickly be forgotten.
It’s not that simple.
Streaming has all but killed music sales. So that revenue is disappearing.
But streaming royalty models don’t even nearly make up for the loss. So in the interest of "visibility", you as an artist are forced to support a model that is killing your business.
That’s the situation, and it’s a shitty one with no simple solution except for dramatically increased subscription prices.
Then the Artist should push for a Buy button within streaming services. If the service doesn't have sales it should send them to the bands preferred site.
Me I'm old but I still like to buy albums of artists I like. Either vinyl box sets or just iTunes even if it is for the feel good factor of knowing some of that money goes direct to the artist. Well at least as much as has ever gone to them under the old model.
Wow a whole bunch of ignorance in this thread. First off it is well known that the streaming services are screwing over the artist. Apple is one of those services.
Second; being a CEO means having the ability to demand things that people may not want to do. While Trump may be more forward, his behavior is a trait all CEOs have to an extent. Dont confuse a public image with a CEO's ability to be a real bastard at work.
Finally it is the CEO's responsibility to work in the best interest of his company! This means milking your suppliers for all they are worth. Remember Cook is known for supply chain management and in the case the musicians are the suppliers.
No one is being screwed over. Artists and their labels don’t HAVE to grant a license to stream their music. They do it to remain “visible” and competitive. With so much competition for attention, if your music disappears from sales or streaming it will quickly be forgotten.
It’s not that simple.
Streaming has all but killed music sales. So that revenue is disappearing.
But streaming royalty models don’t even nearly make up for the loss. So in the interest of "visibility", you as an artist are forced to support a model that is killing your business.
That’s the situation, and it’s a shitty one with no simple solution except for dramatically increased subscription prices.
The growth of music streaming services is responsible for U.S. (recorded) music industry revenues starting to increase again after a decade of decline and another half decade of being flat. Retail revenues were up 17% YoY for the first half of 2017 after having been up 11% YoY for 2016. Wholesale revenues were up 9% YoY for 2016. The proliferation of streaming service is cause for general optimism among music rights-holders; it's been a while since they've had such cause.
Of course, there are always going to be winners and losers. And, of course, artists - e.g., recording artists and songwriters - don't always benefit financially to the degree they might because of agreements they've made with, e.g., music labels or publishers. But that was true before the proliferation of streaming service and would continue to be true without it.
Revenues from streaming are, for rights-holders in the aggregate, more than making up for the decline in revenues from sales. Again, that isn't going to be true for every artist and many artists won't see a lot of the royalty revenue that is generated by their work because, e.g., labels have contractual rights to that revenue. But the pie for rights-holders is starting to grow again, thanks in large part to the streaming model. It's a win for consumers and rights-holders. Consumers get better value (in terms of how much music they can consume at a given cost), and right-holders collect more revenue because more music gets consumed - or, at least, more gets paid for.
To Forgoneconclusion: you remember vaguely but correctly — there was a ruling last year regarding royalties for streaming on songs prior to 1974. IIRC, Apple was already paying this, while Spotify wasn’t — one of the reasons for their recent larger losses.
Speaking of Spotify, they are in court again on a different matter — charges that they simply haven’t paid many of the artists, full stop. The suit seeks just over $1 billion in unpaid royalties. I do not know if the case will be successful, but if it is that will be another blow to a company that, for all it’s well-deserved popularity, can’t seem to find a business model that results in profits.
Assuming Rose was attempting to express dissatisfaction with his royalty cheque for streaming music more generally, I fully agree with him that streaming rates suck compared to either radio airplay royalties or (best) CD buying. But someone should take him aside and inform him that a) Apple didn’t invent streaming — Spotify is seven years older than Apple Music; b) Apple Music pays more than any other streaming service; and c) Spotify and AM are both popular because that’s how consumers appear to want to purchase music, not because Apple (or anyone) imposed this on them. I understand both the allure of streaming and its disadvantages, but the big feature (for record companies) of streaming is that it eliminates piracy. If streaming hadn’t grown popular, music piracy would be the huge industry it was just a couple of years ago — only bigger.
Mr. Rose may want to ponder that point, or at least more accurately identify his target and clarify his actual complaint.
Rights-holders don't get as much per-stream as they would per-purchase. But that is made up for by there being more streams than there would be purchases.
And to clarify something: When it comes to terrestrial radio play, in the U.S. recording rights-holders aren't entitled to royalties. Terrestrial radio broadcasters only have to pay royalties for songwriters' rights.
Wow a whole bunch of ignorance in this thread. First off it is well known that the streaming services are screwing over the artist. Apple is one of those services.
Second; being a CEO means having the ability to demand things that people may not want to do. While Trump may be more forward, his behavior is a trait all CEOs have to an extent. Dont confuse a public image with a CEO's ability to be a real bastard at work.
Finally it is the CEO's responsibility to work in the best interest of his company! This means milking your suppliers for all they are worth. Remember Cook is known for supply chain management and in the case the musicians are the suppliers.
No one is being screwed over. Artists and their labels don’t HAVE to grant a license to stream their music. They do it to remain “visible” and competitive. With so much competition for attention, if your music disappears from sales or streaming it will quickly be forgotten.
It’s not that simple.
Streaming has all but killed music sales. So that revenue is disappearing.
But streaming royalty models don’t even nearly make up for the loss. So in the interest of "visibility", you as an artist are forced to support a model that is killing your business.
That’s the situation, and it’s a shitty one with no simple solution except for dramatically increased subscription prices.
The growth of music streaming services is responsible for U.S. (recorded) music industry revenues starting to increase again after a decade of decline and another half decade of being flat. Retail revenues were up 17% YoY for the first half of 2017 after having been up 11% YoY for 2016. Wholesale revenues were up 9% YoY for 2016. The proliferation of streaming service is cause for general optimism among music rights-holders; it's been a while since they've had such cause.
Of course, there are always going to be winners and losers. And, of course, artists - e.g., recording artists and songwriters - don't always benefit financially to the degree they might because of agreements they've made with, e.g., music labels or publishers. But that was true before the proliferation of streaming service and would continue to be true without it.
Revenues from streaming are, for rights-holders in the aggregate, more than making up for the decline in revenues from sales. Again, that isn't going to be true for every artist and many artists won't see a lot of the royalty revenue that is generated by their work because, e.g., labels have contractual rights to that revenue. But the pie for rights-holders is starting to grow again, thanks in large part to the streaming model. It's a win for consumers and rights-holders. Consumers get better value (in terms of how much music they can consume at a given cost), and right-holders collect more revenue because more music gets consumed - or, at least, more gets paid for.
Wasn't that decline mostly self inflicted? I understood that revenue per track has been steady or growing the whole period and it was lack of product/tracks/investment that caused the decline.
ooops... no little out of date 90's 2000's decline in track numbers per year picked up again since then. Haven't been able to find if that growth is originals or covers.
Comments
Streaming has all but killed music sales. So that revenue is disappearing.
But streaming royalty models don’t even nearly make up for the loss. So in the interest of "visibility", you as an artist are forced to support a model that is killing your business.
That’s the situation, and it’s a shitty one with no simple solution except for dramatically increased subscription prices.
Me I'm old but I still like to buy albums of artists I like. Either vinyl box sets or just iTunes even if it is for the feel good factor of knowing some of that money goes direct to the artist. Well at least as much as has ever gone to them under the old model.
Still that doesn't help Axl.
Of course, there are always going to be winners and losers. And, of course, artists - e.g., recording artists and songwriters - don't always benefit financially to the degree they might because of agreements they've made with, e.g., music labels or publishers. But that was true before the proliferation of streaming service and would continue to be true without it.
Revenues from streaming are, for rights-holders in the aggregate, more than making up for the decline in revenues from sales. Again, that isn't going to be true for every artist and many artists won't see a lot of the royalty revenue that is generated by their work because, e.g., labels have contractual rights to that revenue. But the pie for rights-holders is starting to grow again, thanks in large part to the streaming model. It's a win for consumers and rights-holders. Consumers get better value (in terms of how much music they can consume at a given cost), and right-holders collect more revenue because more music gets consumed - or, at least, more gets paid for.
And to clarify something: When it comes to terrestrial radio play, in the U.S. recording rights-holders aren't entitled to royalties. Terrestrial radio broadcasters only have to pay royalties for songwriters' rights.
I understood that revenue per track has been steady or growing the whole period and it was lack of product/tracks/investment that caused the decline.
ooops... no little out of date 90's 2000's decline in track numbers per year picked up again since then. Haven't been able to find if that growth is originals or covers.