"The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a music industry trade group dating back to 1933, released its annual overview of the state of the business today—and the news is surprisingly good. In 2012, worldwide revenue growth from digital music outpaced the ongoing collapse of CDs, LPs, and other physical media, meaning that overall sales grew for the first time since 1998.
Revenue from digital music last year totaled $5.6 billion, while physical music brought in $9.4 billion.
According to the report, digital music has benefited most from the advent of subscription services, such as Sweden-based Spotify, that allow users to stream an unlimited number of songs for a fixed fee. Subscriptions to such services grew 44% in 2012 from the previous year. But musicians continue to complain that they see just fractions of a cent each time their songs are played."
__________________
Rig: Mac Pro, Pro Tools HD Native, Lynx Aurora 16, JBL 6328s, JBL LSR4312SP, Coleman, A-Designs Hammer, Alan Smart C2, Purple MC77, BAE 1073s, BAE 10DCs, Kush Clariphonic, UA Solo 610, Waves, Lexicon, etc.
Not surprising. Those services have proven to be less of a hassle for people than dealing with torrents. Path of least resistance. As a result, they're becoming big business... all while slowly shedding the pretense of being something other than a play what you want when you want music library.
There is no possible model for such a thing where they could pay any more than a fraction of a penny per play. Exactly how much makes sense all around hasn't fully been sorted, but there are certainly a lot of people looking at the model backwards. People often play the same song many times in a single day... day after day. Not comparable to a purchase download in any way. If I owed Tower of Power $1 every time I played one of their songs from a cd I purchased, I'd be into them for 6 figures.
Fact is, it's the way the music business is headed, so it would make more sense to work with the tide and figure out how to make it work... and yes, that includes discussion of an equitable payment structure.
__________________ .
PRODUCTION GOAL: Blend ridiculously diverse musical influences into a viable pop signature sound that works for top 40 radio, clubs, earbuds, computer speakers, car stereos, submarine galleys, Australian walkabouts, Turkish prisons, skydiving simulators, volcanic craters, anechoic chambers, Martian discotheques, and all other known and unknown playback scenarios in perpetuity throughout the universe. - AINT NOBODY
If Spotify-type services are the future, could that in any way lead to better music? A disposable everyday pop-track would make a small fortune now and then stop making money, but true and honest, or timeless, music would make a big profit in the long run and never stop?
I personally feel people are getting too excited by this news. A 0.3% raise in an industry that has dropped 50-60% is nothing to get excited about.
Also not a fan of Spotify. Their artist cuts is a joke. Also the back room deal they did with the majors is insulting to the artists on those labels. Stock options? Really? After FB this company won't go public and because of this doesn't even care about turning a profit. They just collect investors these days and don't care about much else. But what would you expect from the person that started Napster.
Sometimes I feel the rejoice over Spotify is like when you are in a rebound relationship after a very abusive relationship. The music industry (and mostly it's fans) have latched onto Spotify as the "savior" of the music industry. I feel the only reason people feel this way is because the music industry is fighting it's way out of a very abusive relationship (piracy) and latching on to the one thing that is slightly (emphasis on slightly) less abusive.
We are a loooooonnnnnnggggggg way out of the woods. According to the article below, the company Mark Monitor still monitors 20-30 million infringements a day!!
Also sense this is such a low rise. I would be curious how much this could be contributed to France's new "piracy laws," and have very little to do with streaming directly.
I worked full-time as a musician in the 80s. There were plenty of jobs, I could pick and choose. Wages were decent, sometimes even phenomenal, but never bad.
Today, there are too many musicians who compete for less work that is mostly poorly paid. Album sales are pretty much non-existent... I can't remember the last time I bought a CD - can you? A nationally successful jazz/pop musician friend of mine tells me he now gives away his CDs as promotional items...
Things are not going to get better, any time soon.
Fact is, it's the way the music business is headed, so it would make more sense to work with the tide and figure out how to make it work... and yes, that includes discussion of an equitable payment structure.
Yeah, good luck with that one
What with all the pirates going legit/mainstream and extracting their pound of flesh from the process (e.g. Spotify), unless there's some serious legislation to protect musicians/performers, I don't see the situation improving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tui
Today, there are too many musicians who compete for less work that is mostly poorly paid. Album sales are pretty much non-existent... I can't remember the last time I bought a CD - can you? A nationally successful jazz/pop musician friend of mine tells me he now gives away his CDs as promotional items...
I bought a CD last week at an Album release party, and sold 17 at a show my band did 2 weeks ago...
What with all the pirates going legit/mainstream and extracting their pound of flesh from the process (e.g. Spotify), unless there's some serious legislation to protect musicians/performers, I don't see the situation improving.
Those poor starving musicians! Perhaps they should have considered medical school!
Fact is, it's the way the music business is headed, so it would make more sense to work with the tide and figure out how to make it work... and yes, that includes discussion of an equitable payment structure.
Yeah keep your mouth shut and get in line works great. Going with the tide got the industry into this situation. The best thing would be for musicians to start demanding their fair share. I know a pipe dream, but in my opinion a better idea then "going with the tide."
Doubt the majors in the states would of ever made the deal they did with Spotify, if they weren't beaten down so bad by piracy.
Spotify is the equivalent of circling vultures, waiting to pick the dead body clean.
Well maybe they wouldn't have to consider medical school, if simple minded people and tech companies hadn't robbed the industry blind.
Don't even get me started with the tech companies and their superior understanding of the business market! Poor Johnny can no longer make a living off of playing his guitar,expressing himself, and living the rockstar lifestyle like we could in the good ol' 80's....now he has to learn skills that actually benefit society. What a shame.
Don't even get me started with the tech companies and their superior understanding of the business market! Poor Johnny can no longer make a living off of playing his guitar,expressing himself, and living the rockstar lifestyle like we could in the good ol' 80's....now he has to learn skills that actually benefit society. What a shame.
Hmm when you say superior knowledge of the business market you mean exploiting artists and not wanting to pay for content they desperately need? Guess you could say the mob has superior business knowledge also? I thought to have superior business knowledge you would actually have to make a profit?
There's very little "business" involved.
Also music has helped my life way more then FB, Twitter, etc. But hey I am not really one of those look at me types.
Don't even get me started with the tech companies and their superior understanding of the business market! Poor Johnny can no longer make a living off of playing his guitar,expressing himself, and living the rockstar lifestyle like we could in the good ol' 80's....now he has to learn skills that actually benefit society. What a shame.
Other than the "rockstar lifestyle" part, I actually do find this sad. I have no problem with artists getting paid a living wage for their art, as it actually does benefit society. Kinda like the old William Carlos Williams line:
"It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die miserably every day for lack of what is found there."
Hmm when you say superior knowledge of the business market you mean exploiting artists and not wanting to pay for content they desperately need? Guess you could say the mob has superior business knowledge also? I thought to have superior business knowledge you would actually have to make a profit?
There's very little "business" involved.
Also music has helped my life way more then FB, Twitter, etc. But hey I am not really one of those look at me types.
The artists are the smallest investors in their own music; it cost no money to write a song. To manage a well designed music distribution service that provides a large volume of music to millions of people requires an enormous investment. Musicians make what they deserve.
The artists are the smallest investors in their own music; it cost no money to write a song. To manage a well designed music distribution service that provides a large volume of music to millions of people requires an enormous investment. Musicians make what they deserve.
Hmmm...so practicing (for those that have/will do it), and spending countless hours learning an art form = cost nothing?
How about the cost of equipment utilized and maintained?
How about investing your life to achieve those few moments of lightning in a bottle?
I believe you have a VERY shallow understanding of business and economics...
Money represents a store of wealth created from labor and commerce.
Just because capital was not, per se, invested to write a song (although often it is), labor always is invested.
And you may, or may not, value paying workers what they are worth, but a songwriter/performer who creates a popular song that is utilized and appreciated by millions should be, IMHO, properly compensated.
That's the way it used to be, and people that chose that path were allowed to share in society as a whole, who benefited from having escape from their humdrum lives of non-artistic expression, et al.
And yes, labels received a substantial portion of the pie based on their investments too...
Nothing justifies when vulture capitalist exploit suckers, and criminals steal/defraud those who create product, and arguing about value of the product should be directly correlated to the volume of use, not perceived subjective and arbitrary criteria based upon nothing more than opinions of what is right and wrong.
The artists are the smallest investors in their own music; it cost no money to write a song. To manage a well designed music distribution service that provides a large volume of music to millions of people requires an enormous investment. Musicians make what they deserve.
You know there were a fair amount of indie labels making decent money in the 90s right? With no distro deal. Also find the generalizations in this statement hilarious. The industry is wide, as in a lot of different sectors.
Also for the record, before 360 deals became the norm, artists had to pay for touring. Not just "writing a song."
The "well designed music distribution service" you describe are you actually referring to Spotify? Why don't you come out and actually state your point instead of beating around the bush? Spotify's chance to go public got spoiled by FB, now they are nothing but a drone of a company for silly investors to throw money at.
If that is "smart business" I got some great property to sell you!!
The artists are the smallest investors in their own music; it cost no money to write a song. To manage a well designed music distribution service that provides a large volume of music to millions of people requires an enormous investment. Musicians make what they deserve.
wow. So songs just magically appear in spotify, no time, effort or money goes into writing/creating a song? Just like any other job, you shouldn't expect a return on the time you put into creating your product? All this time I thought you had to pay for studio time, recording, mixing, mastering etc. Turns out... It's all Free!
wow. So songs just magically appear in spotify, no time, effort or money goes into writing/creating a song? Just like any other job, you shouldn't expect a return on the time you put into creating your product? All this time I thought you had to pay for studio time, recording, mixing, mastering etc. Turns out... It's all Free!
I don't think this person has ever been involved in creating professional music in his entire life.
I say, "look at Gotye". A relatively unknown singer/songwriter who was able to conquer the world with relatively little backing.
Not that it's very relevant to the subject. Your realize Gotye was in a "successful" band before. Also was fairly well known in Australia before the recent album. Also he was signed to a label that had been around. Everyone has relatively "little backing" these days due to the drop in the industry. But calling him unknown is a little far fetched, but was a great marketing tool.
wow. So songs just magically appear in spotify, no time, effort or money goes into writing/creating a song? Just like any other job, you shouldn't expect a return on the time you put into creating your product? All this time I thought you had to pay for studio time, recording, mixing, mastering etc. Turns out... It's all Free!
That requires a larger investment and the investor gets a larger return. If a record label picks up the tracking, mixing, mastering, and marketing tab, they get a larger piece of the profit. Running a service, like itunes for example, requires a huge investment, but they also receive a large reward.
To an investor (a smart one), the asset is the most important part of the machine, and in order to keep it well oiled, you must keep your asset happy, in this case, the asset being the artist. Without the artist, there is no money. It's that simple.
That requires a larger investment and the investor gets a larger return. If a record label picks up the tracking, mixing, mastering, and marketing tab, they get a larger piece of the profit. Running a service, like itunes for example, requires a huge investment, but they also receive a large reward.
Again depends. There use to not be one model. Also now you are mentioning "legit" distributors, which I have not seen anyone having a trouble with in this thread. These "legit" companies are getting robbed just as much as the artist. So what was your point again if you have one?
please everyone, don't give this man the time of day. he is very dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLDENGLISH
The artists are the smallest investors in their own music; it cost no money to write a song. To manage a well designed music distribution service that provides a large volume of music to millions of people requires an enormous investment. Musicians make what they deserve.
Closed 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
