Login / Register
 
Why Streaming Doesn't Work for Professional Bands
Subscribe
rack gear
Thread Starter
#1
15th December 2011
Old 15th December 2011
  #1
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
Why Streaming Doesn't Work for Professional Bands

#2
15th December 2011
Old 15th December 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 3,547

initialsBB is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
this isn't that "record labels don't know how to adapt and evolve"
and who owns spotify again?
rack gear
Thread Starter
#3
15th December 2011
Old 15th December 2011
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
and who owns spotify again?
in part, the four major labels are equity partners... the whole thing stinks.
#4
15th December 2011
Old 15th December 2011
  #4
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 3,547

initialsBB is offline
exactly, so it kind of is about the labels not evolving, no?

or rather, they've managed to adapt to a streaming business model but have done it in a way that screws the artists. which I personally think is kind of short-sighted.
#5
15th December 2011
Old 15th December 2011
  #5
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: State of Insomnia, sleepless USA
Posts: 2,513

AwwDeOhh is offline
Spotify isn't the only streaming option out there...
#6
21st December 2011
Old 21st December 2011
  #6
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 85

nessup is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
in part, the four major labels are equity partners... the whole thing stinks.
Source?
#7
21st December 2011
Old 21st December 2011
  #7
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 719

sventvkg is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nessup View Post
Source?
It's well known. Use Google.
#8
21st December 2011
Old 21st December 2011
  #8
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 85

nessup is offline
#9
21st December 2011
Old 21st December 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 3,547

initialsBB is offline
"When it launched in October 2008, Spotify publicized music rights deals with Sony BMG Music, Universal Music, Warner Music, EMI and Merlin.

Behind the scenes, these five music companies were at that time made shareholders in Spotify. Combined, the record companies paid just €8,800 for an 18 percent share of Spotify's stock, according to financial filings obtained by Computer Sweden from the Trade Register of Luxembourg, where Spotify is registered."


Streaming Music Site, Spotify, Has Major Music Label Ownership | PCWorld


http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musi...labels-spotify
#10
22nd December 2011
Old 22nd December 2011
  #10
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 85

nessup is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
"When it launched in October 2008, Spotify publicized music rights deals with Sony BMG Music, Universal Music, Warner Music, EMI and Merlin.

Behind the scenes, these five music companies were at that time made shareholders in Spotify. Combined, the record companies paid just €8,800 for an 18 percent share of Spotify's stock, according to financial filings obtained by Computer Sweden from the Trade Register of Luxembourg, where Spotify is registered."


Streaming Music Site, Spotify, Has Major Music Label Ownership | PCWorld


Behind the music: The real reason why the major labels love Spotify | Music | guardian.co.uk
Precisely -- 18% combined. That's 4.5% for each company. Hardly significant to qualify as "ownership," as being an equity partner would.
#11
22nd December 2011
Old 22nd December 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 3,547

initialsBB is offline
uh.. what's your definition of "ownership" and "equity partner"? Because those percentages might be somewhat small (I mistakenly thought they were around 18% for each of the 4 majors) but they still amount to ownership and equity by any definition of the term.
#12
24th December 2011
Old 24th December 2011
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 2,039

RyanC is offline
I know from the pub comp I'm working with what the black keys are making from syncs right now. 500k a drop plus kush royalties. Those 2 are easily in the top 1% of income in America.

Half of the band Devotcka are my long time friends, they didn't retire from syncs because they had a "indy" publisher. I can respect what those 2 multi-millionaires are saying but let's be real, those cats could afford bently's and houses in Malibu without selling a single record.
rack gear
Thread Starter
#13
24th December 2011
Old 24th December 2011
  #13
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
I know from the pub comp I'm working with what the black keys are making from syncs right now. 500k a drop plus kush royalties. Those 2 are easily in the top 1% of income in America.

Half of the band Devotcka are my long time friends, they didn't retire from syncs because they had a "indy" publisher. I can respect what those 2 multi-millionaires are saying but let's be real, those cats could afford bently's and houses in Malibu without selling a single record.
but they wouldn't have had the opportunity to get those syncs without first having the ability to sell records... if you can show me the people here getting $500k syncs I'd like to see it:
http://www.soundclick.com
#14
25th December 2011
Old 25th December 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 719

sventvkg is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
but they wouldn't have had the opportunity to get those syncs without first having the ability to sell records... if you can show me the people here getting $500k syncs I'd like to see it:
SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.
We all know 98% of the shit up there sucks BADLY. It's the same ratio as it always was right? Just more noise out there. Trust me, people aren't listening to it because it sucks. Quality is still quality, right?

I don't pretend to know how but I still HAVE to believe this will all get sorted out and quality musicians will be able to make a living once again. Don't see people going back to paying what they did for music in the past. For better or worse, music is just to ubiquitous now and the price has been driven down. I can't see real quality music ceasing. Again, we've hashed over this again and again. I'm taking the optimist view for down the road.
#15
25th December 2011
Old 25th December 2011
  #15
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 911

GearOnTheGo is offline
There's little hope of establishing legitimate business models when illegally free is the norm and companies like Grooveshark can operate by stealing content and monetizing it against advertising.

Things change when enough people demand change. It won't happen on its own.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
guittarzzan / So much gear, so little time!
38
pkautzsch / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
1
GRiFF / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
3

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.