It’s probably quite hard to buy cd devices now.
I'd hate to think what that JVC system sounds like for the money it reminds me of the crappy music centres from way back
My Marantz 50SE from '91 still sounds good
I boycott Spotify by ripping music from YouTube using a mp3 converter.
Or just listen to advert free Internet radio.
Ok, mid-CV when you can’t tour they’re not going to be making fortunes, but then these aren’t normal times.
Interestingly I spend more money on a "virtual gig" recently than I've spent on CD's, mps3, or streaming services in the last 10 years. I do listen to some spotify but funded via adverts - I treat it like radio without an irritating DJ and where the music is tailored to my taste rather than some special selection. I suspect someone working the recommendations algorithm well for the sort of stuff I listen to has more chance of getting to my ears (and the 0.01p payment) via Spotify than via mainstream radio. That does have the potential I'll take note and listen to more of their stuff (perhaps getting them 1p) or even go to a gig...
A former colleague was in a very part-time band which was probably making more £ from their "own label" stuff than anyone burning their own CDs etc in the 90s - they attributed it to having got on a couple of big playlists, mostly by luck (so I appreciate there are 100s of bands who never manage this), but interestingly unlike the DIY CDs option this continued to have a recurring income without them doing anything - as a "back catalogue" which is not something most budding bands can even dream of, but perhaps the right streaming service will forster and eventually cut the Simon Cowells out the equation!
Interesting thread - I use Spotify but shall be buying more merch.
I’d hate to think what that JVC system sounds like for the money it reminds me of the crappy music centres from way back
My Marantz 50SE from ’91 still sounds good
Yes you’re right, they probably are awful. I was just pointing out that it’s not difficult to find them. Although we have an older version of the Denon on that link for the bedroom and it’s ideal for that.
Take your pick from some better ones https://www.richersounds.com/hi-fi/separates/cd-players.html
I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here) view this wrongly.
They look at downloads/listens, and then convert that into how many physical sales that would have been via CD/Vinyl - and compare how much they get.
How people listen to music has changed completely. I probably spend more on music via my family Spotify subscription than I ever have. But that money is split into tiny amounts and spread over a huge selection of artists, rather than 10 quid (showing my age) going to the Super Furry Animals because I bought their album this month. I wonder if one looked at the money paid across the whole industry how it would compare.
I'm not saying that artists shouldn't get more money per play - but that there are so many more considerations to how artists get paid now that have to be considered.
It seems to me that the way the consumption model works now is hugely biased towards (what would have previously been) singles. There are certainly "album" artists, but everyone else, when selling a physical album, would have effectively bundled their 8 or 9 album tracks with the single. The model being that those other tracks are collectively worth the difference between the single(s) and the album. I guess we are now finding out if that's true.
I just repel against the enforced subscription model across as many aspects of my consumption as I can. IMO it's a cancerous business model because it is so lucrative and powerful for the corporation. I still enjoy finding good albums and buying download files and owning the music. I think I would care less about the music if I streamed it. It would somehow be more background and throwaway.
Great news about cd sound system's. Thank's for looking.
Price per 1000 streams is roughly what? £2-£4?
I bought 5 Linkin Park albums over 20years for <£50.
The band have had zero further revenue from me. Had I not bought these CDs, I might well continue to listen to them on Spotify for the next 50years. Each time something new is released, their back catalogue gets a significant bump. Linkin Park might be a bad example here 🙁
The way I see it is I still buy CD’s and still would go to gig’s and almost all of my listening is via a convenience stream service (Apple music in my case) so 20 years ago I bought a cd by band x at the time they got their small royalty. If I listen to the CD they get paid bot all, if I stream it they get paid -a smidgen of a pittance- again. I will continue to buy physical media and merch from the likes of Bandcamp or from artists direct where possible and continue to stream guilt free.
I’m middle aged though and these young un’s probably only stream so they can feel guilty not me.
How can a musician be confident that a streaming service accurately accounts for every play? Trust a company named after an acne treatment?
It's interesting to read that some people appreciate algorithmic recommendations, this doesn't work for me, last thing I want to hear is a generic or watered down version of what I listen to. Amazon link to recommendations on all their pages, I don't believe I've ever discovered anything new that way, and I'll usually check something out if I don't recognise it just in case.
Playing music has never been a financially astute way to spend your time, even when you're turning a profit the cost/risk increases as you progress. If you haven't read it I'd recommend Steve Albini's little essay on how record advances work (spoiler, it's a loan but everybody would act like it's free money) which is twenty years old now.
My lot has a new record coming out in a fortnight. Streaming a "gig" to promote it, lined up on all the streaming services / bandcamp. It's been a real conundrum figuring out how many cds/vinyls to print as these sell best at shows.
So the artist makes less from you than they do from a streaming service! I am listening to artists I would never just buy a CD on spec from so they are getting revenue from me (albeit a very small amount) they would not otherwise do so.
The bands I like I always buy their new CDs when they come out.
I am genuinely mystified as to why people like the streaming services. I had a few months on Spotify and Apple Music and after a few weeks I just didn’t use them at all. I have no idea why to be honest, I just reached for a CD instead.
It’s interesting to read that some people appreciate algorithmic recommendations, this doesn’t work for me, last thing I want to hear is a generic or watered down version of what I listen to. Amazon link to recommendations on all their pages, I don’t believe I’ve ever discovered anything new that way, and I’ll usually check something out if I don’t recognise it just in case.
Me too - I’ve tried the recommendations after searching and listening to some stuff I really like and end up mystified as to why I have been pointed in the direction they suggested.
I still buy CDs, got a massive collection now, can't beat it. If I didn't have so much CD momentum now I'd probably switch to vinyl.
Think just streaming and not buying physical copies/regularly attending gigs is doing a disservice to music.
I recently read this interesting piece about how the Spotify algorhythm may favour certain songs and inadvertently create streaming "hits".
(Contains Pavement and Galaxie 500 content).
https://www.stereogum.com/2105993/pavement-harness-your-hopes-spotify/columns/sounding-board/
It’s not about how musics consumed though. It’s about how it is valued. Spotify and YouTube have created a market in which they set a very low price. This price doesn’t reflect the true value. They are effective monopolies - YouTube especially for younger people like my daughter. YouTube could easily afford to pay artists more (yes, easily) and Spotify are still working to “monotise” their monopoly (yep I realise the contradictions inherent in that statement but that also speaks to the ridiculousness of tech unicorns).
Few bits of information to add some perspective for the masses.
Spotify are generous someone has said above, astonishing ignorance, Spotify was built on giving away music for free, they continue to resist paying artist & label a fairer / larger share, its record labels weight that drives that royalty up.
You don't need record labels to release music, technically no, but Spotify has 40,000 new uploads a day, its not as simple as upload & stream...
Record company record turnover? Based on two things, People streaming Catalogue which generate new income for said artists & a select few mega artists such a Ed Sheeran. Not unpopular music.
Passive & Lean back listening. Lots of people still consider 1 million streams to be worth 1 million sales. it's simply not the case. you can have 1 million streams & below 1% collection / save rate.
Outdated record deals, they still exist, that itself is a separate issue & artist specific.
TimC’s first post pretty much sums it up with what to do if you want to put more money in artists pockets, I’ll add:
Streaming services are not a replacement for physical media, it’s the alternative to piracy. Spend on music has never been higher if you ignore the couple of years at the start of CDs when there was a lot of format switching purchases happening. And the proportion of consumer spend going directly to artists has never been higher. Look on the wrist of every rapper you’ve never heard of and the money is out there. If you want more money to go to your favourite artist then simply listen to them more!
Record labels have always taken their cut. Partly for the investment that they make into artists and partly for the services they carry out. As artists are more capable of reaching their fans directly and the cost of production goes down artists need labels less and contracts are starting to shift towards creators. In comparison to artists from the 80’s who are complaining about paying for services they received 40 years ago, ask Lil Nas X whether he’s happy with his deal...
Some details
= Apple pays 2x Spotify because the average Apple subscriber listens to half as many songs as the average Spotify listener. (Facts from 24 months ago)
= each service pools all the subscriber income per market and subscriber type, takes their cut, and then divides the pool to the content owners by activity. If you listen to a song once the content owner gets 1 X money/total streams. If your neighbour listens to Drake 1000 times then Drakes label gets 1000 x money/total streams.
= artists who don’t get money are not getting listened to. It’s that simple. You may love ‘xyz artist’ but if you don’t listen to them they don’t get paid. Listen to them more than the kids are listening to pop!
= stream rates roughly equate to a CD album being played between 20-50 times. If you don’t listen that much then the artist gets less money.
If you read between the lines of the above you’ll note the pool division process can be a money multiplier. If you pay your £10 subscription and listen to an artist more than the average listener then more than £10 can go to your artist.
The money goes to the content owners of the music that people listen to!
That stereo gum article on the algorithm is really good and quotes people who know more than anyone about this topic.
Ironically it would be possible (and occasionally is in some obscure small markets) for a stream to be as much as a penny. All the audience has to do is listen to very little music and the stream rate goes up.
(@timc fully agree about labels putting pressure on services to pay out a higher cut. The new ‘offer’ to reduce your % in return for algo plays is a pretty disgusting push by the new gatekeeper to abuse their position. On the other hand, if you believe in your content you’d take the deal to get a bigger slice of the smaller pie.)
I used to be in a band and run a small record label, bands would sell a maximum of 500 records but usually it'd be about 300 were my area. I never put stuff up for streaming as at the time it was a new market and I didn't think it was worth while. People would grumble about paying a fiver for a 7" that cost me £4 to produce but be happy paying a tenner for a CD that cost me £2 to produce.
As mentioned above, the knee jerk reaction to streaming is very skewed.
I can't remember where I read it but apparently Blur got 20p per Parklife CD sold, that's less than 2p per track. I've listened to that album many many times so each listen is worth a fraction of a pence, just like each listen on a streaming platform is worth a fraction of a pence.
No one seems to be concerned that ITV aren't paying Bruce Willis enough for millions of people watching Die had this Christmas but if Taylor Swift is only getting 7p per million streams then the internet melts.
People keep mentioning artists but the vast majority of musicians are hobbyists, should people be paid for their hobby? Shouldn't art be free for the masses to enjoy and only cost if you want to own it outright?
Streaming services are not a replacement for physical media, it’s the alternative to piracy.
Very true, but it's also a replacement for radio.
Really? Is that not just audio snobbery? Can you really notice the difference and, even if you can, is it such a big deal that you cannot bring yourself to listen in that format?
I'll listen to mp3s on headphones when out and about, but I have a hifi setup for listening to vinyl and cds, and yes the quality drop is noticeable when played through a half decent system. May be it is audio snobbery but I like my music so want to listen to it at the highest possible quality.
Warp records for example sell 24bit WAV files so it can be done when the record label and artist care about these things.
Some mp3s that I've bought have been crap quality, places like amazon don't make it easy to see what bit rate they've been ripped at, this may have changed as I've stopped looking at amazon for music downloads.
I suspect I'm in a minority of music consumers now but I still see buying from artists as the best way forward. Radio still introduces me to new music as well as my kids. 6year old recently told me she was savage, quick Google later I realise we've been bad parents but that I now like Megan Thee Stallion :-).
Also, I wonder whether the "suck it up, the market has changed" crowd might have been enthusiastic users of Napster and Limewire etc. back in the day?
each service pools all the subscriber income per market and subscriber type, takes their cut, and then divides the pool to the content owners by activity
Interesting! It didn't occur to me that this is how they'd have to operate.
I am genuinely mystified as to why people like the streaming services.
Well, as I sit here working I can press a button and get endless music most of which I quite like, from bands some of whom I've never heard of, with no adverts. What's not to like?
And if I want to listen to an album, I can ask for that by name. On Amazon Music, I can build the equivalent of a 'CD library' and this can be made available offline if needed. If I come across a band or song elsewhere, I can search for it and add it. All at no extra cost.
It's also more available than CDs - I can go into the kitchen and get the same music that I have everywhere else without having to go and get a CD. I don't need to resort to the radio with its adverts, over-played tracks or endless waffle (BBC6M I'm thinking of you here).
On top of that, if some kind of music comes up in conversation with my kids I can play it to them even if I've never owned the CD, as part of cultural education. Which can be useful. We have much better access to so much more music now, and I'm listening to and enjoying far far more than I ever have. So yeah it's a win, for me.
I can’t remember where I read it but apparently Blur got 20p per Parklife CD sold, that’s less than 2p per track. I’ve listened to that album many many times so each listen is worth a fraction of a pence, just like each listen on a streaming platform is worth a fraction of a pence.
This would be my question if I cared more, yeah you get £12 for a few million streams of one song, how much would you have received for selling the same amount of CD singles when they used to sell for £4 a pop in Woolworths? I suspect everyone was taking a piece of that £4.
I always thought the payday for artists was getting music into adverts, TV or films and getting royalties that way
EDIT: Just read the article, seems like a lot of whataboutery IMO, issues that used to exist still exist now
Yes the problem with paying a set minimum to artists is that if the song gets streamed loads the streaming company doesn't get any more income. So they might end up being obliged to pay out more money than they actually have. A pretty risky business model to adopt!
Streaming isn't going away and artists are going to have to adapt. It is crazy that a monthly family subscription is £15 which about the same price as a single CD was at their peak price.
The reality for all steaming services TV /Movies and Music is that they are not competing against CDs and DVDs they are competing against IPTV, Bit streaming and dodgy Russian movie streaming sites. The choice is that the artist get what people are prepared to stump up for convenience versus going and getting it for free of the internet and them getting nothing I suspect that music piracy is significantly lower now than it used to be but how many people have IPTV to watch football as the cost of subscribing sky sports / BT sports etc is still prohibitive.
Personally I buy vinyl now off my favourite artist website if I can, I've crowd funded a few LP's as well and during lockdown I've paid to watch a few streamed gigs to try a support them best I can.
The issue i now have is finding high quality downloads to buy. Everything looks to be available as mp3 but not FLAC or WAV.
7digital sell some FLAC (some also in 24/96)
As much as you'd like to, you can't turn the technology clock back - I work in the print trade. 25 years ago you'd charge hundreds of pounds for a full-colour leaflet, now companies are practically giving them away!
The music industry isn't unique to being ripped apart by technology.
But on the other hand that same technology now enables artists to record, produce and have full control of their own music from their back-bedroom.
There's a great calculator and comparison tool here:
https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians
It's interesting to see how much you'd get over the various platforms and has a calculator to monetise it. I'm a 51yo Amazon music user here. Like most folk of my age I've been through cassettes, vinyl, CDs, minidiscs, iPods, etc. I used to listen to a lot of music in the car but we haven't got a car with a CD player in now and haven't for years. Spent plenty of money on music over the years and now (when I can) I go to gigs and buy t shirts and stream. Including Peat & Diesels fab new "cancelled due to the Rhona" t shirt to commemorate not being able to see them last week in Newcastle.
I guess like some I always think now that they might not get (their small proportion of) the tenner I'd spend on a CD but at least if I keep listening they'll get something from the repeated plays. The world's changing, there won't be new Pink Floyds or Rolling Stones but that's not necessarily a terrible thing.
Stainypants
Full Member
Streaming isn’t going away and artists are going to have to adapt. It is crazy that a monthly family subscription is £15
Why is that crazy? The sum cost of Netflix, Prime and Disney+ is less than that and I get access to thousands and thousands of TV shows and films which almost certainly cost more to make than the music did to make and the residuals paid to actors et al are quite high.
No one seems to be concerned that ITV aren’t paying Bruce Willis enough for millions of people watching Die had this Christmas but if Taylor Swift is only getting 7p per million streams then the internet melts.
Depending on Willis' original contract & the royalties agreed, how much TV have paid for the rights, he might well be getting more money than the £12 mentioned earlier in this thread.
Well, as I sit here working I can press a button and get endless music most of which I quite like, from bands some of whom I’ve never heard of, with no adverts. What’s not to like?
That’s the complete opposite to my experience. Listen to a few things I like, put in my preferences but it just churned out crap which was either not similar at all to what I was listening to OR just the popular hits in that particular genre. And I stuck with it for a few weeks.
And if I want to listen to an album, I can ask for that by name.
I had a load of CDs stolen when I was burgled at Uni. I thought either Spotify or Apple Music would have them so I wouldn’t have to repurchase a lot of them. Utterly useless, IIRC 75% of what I looked for wasn’t there.
I would love for it to have worked for me but it just didn’t. No idea why.
@molgrips all of the services work the same. One of them was thinking about making the pools per listener. So you put your tenner in, I put my tenner in. And each of our contributions gets divided up amongst the rights holders that we respectively listen to. It’s actually much more complicated than the market/subscriber types pools but puts subscriber money directly to the artists that we each listen to. If you only listen to one artist they get all of your £7. I thought that it would help convince “real music fans” to switch to that platform but the idea didn’t get carried out.
It’s funny how “real music fans” listen so much less than the average listener and therefore the artists they listen to get comparatively so much less of the pie. The artists that “not real music fans” listen to get much more of the pie.
If “real music fans” just listened more their artists wouldn’t have so much to complain about...
What I’m saying above is that the real issue with streaming isn’t that artists don’t get paid (spoiler: they do) but that the incentives for click bait populism risk screwing with how content is put together.
Luckily it’s never been so easy to get your art out to your audience (free) without gatekeepers that there is a balancing force enabling more uncommercial art than ever before - just don’t complain if the audience doesn’t listen.
i do a bit of both
i buy on bandcamp for me for anyone small.
the big artists i figure are probably ok for streaming.
I dont get to as many gigs as i`d like to which limits buying merch etc. i like the bandcamp platform as it means i can do my (very little) bit
I just repel against the enforced subscription model across as many aspects of my consumption as I can.
It’s not enforced in most cases though. Nearly every music and movie streaming service can be picked up and dropped whenever you please.
I make a living selling physical media across CD, DVD, Blu-ray, Books and Video Games. Can’t recall the last time I purchased a physical product outside of Switch games. Times are changing, you either change with them or get left behind. I do think there will always be a market for physical media though. Some folk just like to own something tangible.
Why feel guilt though? Do you feel the same when watching Netflix or downloading a game over Steam? What singles out musicians and not game developers, actors etc?
No one seems to be concerned that ITV aren’t paying Bruce Willis enough for millions of people watching Die had this Christmas
No, because Hollywood actors get paid very well upfront - and those with the clout to secure TV residuals also get a nice additional revenue stream as a little bonus.
Musicians work on a revenue-share model instead, based on sales and streaming. As mentioned repeatedly, live work and T-shirts are their additional revenue streams.
**** that: I’m meant to feel sorry for people that can’t set up a Shopify store and sell dropshipped:
TShirts
Hoodies
Beanies
Any other merch at massive markup
So many bands I follow have no direct fan contact, merch store, don’t manage their own social media, no making of videos or background into albums outside Genius.
They cry about Spotify - I wouldn’t even know half of them if it wasn’t for Spotify and certainly wouldn’t have known or taken a risk on their CD prior, nor would they have got mainstream airplay on radio.
I am into hi-end hifi and would pay a premium for well mastered 24 bit audio. Industry happy to sell £££ speakers and DACs but not put out proper audio. Tidal are adding proprietary MQA which will only make things worse, what’s worse is is only a tiny proportion of their recordings are mastered this way. It’s like a beta but they are charging full price.
So many opportunities to make money / engage and own fan their fan base outside of Spotify. Many that 16yr old kids are doing as side hustle on their weekend yet a whole industry somehow can’t solve.
Think about it for a second. Rat boy and 50/01 are doing a better job and probably making more money than most indie bands using the same tools they should be using...
Fascinating, speccyguy. I do wonder though about music fans - I mean some people have probably been listening to the same Pink Floyd vinyl for decades and not handing over a penny.
I thought either Spotify or Apple Music would have them so I wouldn’t have to repurchase a lot of them. Utterly useless, IIRC 75% of what I looked for wasn’t there.
I've got an Amazon Music unlimited sub, so give me a few titles and I'll have a look. I'm genuinely interested.
The attitude of a few people on here is little more than condoning legal music piracy.
Basically you’re saying that someone who commits days, hours, months to produce a work for you to enjoy shouldn’t expect to be paid for that work just so that you can indulge yourself and get it effectively for free! What a bunch of miserable freeloaders.
Would you accept being paid a few pence per hour, and be told by the company that if you want more money, you have to work more hours? That’s almost exactly what the boss of Spotify has told artists.
I refuse, on principle, to support or use any streaming service except radio, which still pays artists a decent royalty rate, I buy CD’s from shops, at gigs, or direct from artists, and, when I can, gig tickets, because music is hugely important to me, and has been for almost literally my entire life - my very earliest memory is a song on the radio, which was released three years after my birth. ‘Freight Train’, by Nancy Whisky, in fact, and I see the treatment of artists by the likes of the smug piece of shit who runs Spotify as utterly abhorrent.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dzje3/daniel-ek-spotify-artists-pay-interview
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/music-streaming-ucps-spotify
I have streamed music lately from YouTube often from the artist's page. Does this mean they agree with it? I just like watching the video's. Sometimes I own the music or it,s old and rare.
The attitude of a few people on here is little more than condoning legal music piracy.
Basically you’re saying that someone who commits days, hours, months to produce a work for you to enjoy shouldn’t expect to be paid for that work just so that you can indulge yourself and get it effectively for free! What a bunch of miserable freeloaders.
Nobody is forcing musicians to use Spotify or use any other streaming platform. I don’t get your argument at all. Let’s take the violinist mentioned earlier. If she had released a CD what percentage of the sales would she have received and how would this one off payment compare to pays per stream? How many platforms is she streaming on? What’s she doing to promote herself etc?
There are a lot of musicians out there which means there’s a lot of competition for the listeners ear. Sounds harsh, but just like every other industry, it means not everyone is going to make a great living.
“Some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape,” Ek prophesied. “You can’t record music once every three to four years and think that's going to be enough. The artists today that are making it realise that it’s about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans.”
Should we not expect creatives to earn a decent living by putting the hours in?
It appears to work in other business sectors. Some definitely need to be a bit more T shaped.
