[Closed] Subscription music = death of music?

I listen to a much greater variety of music that I would never have bought or even looked fondue tomsubscription services, those artists would never have received a penny from me so it's not black and white, the payment system is probably the problem not the tech

Free versions of Spotify etc

YouTube shouldn’t be overlooked

Digital Music meaning copies are relatively high quality unlike what you got with cassettes

the payment system is probably the problem not the tech

I agree, to a point, but would people bother using them if they had to pay the equivalent of the full album rate?

YouTube shouldn’t be overlooked

True, but it's much harder to take the music with you with You Tube. I use YT myself, but only to check out stuff before I buy the album.

the payment system is probably the problem not the tech

Probably, the amount paid per play is insulting, a million plays will barely equal a month’s pay at minimum wage, less than a thousand pounds. Apple Music has one of the highest royalty rates in streaming services, but it’s still nothing like actual music royalties from album/CD sales.

Have a read through this, it gives a lot more background;

https://medium.com/cuepoint/the-devaluation-of-music-it-s-worse-than-you-think-f4cf5f26a888

I'm a massive fan of subscription services. I use Apples iTunes and TBH, I think I'd die before I got through 1/4 of the stuff they have available.

I listen to a very wide variety of music, Apple have pretty much everything I listen too..

And I also subscribe to Soundcloud, this service offers a Mass of DJ's and it's primarily THE place I visit for some funky house choons.. and a couple of my mates release stuff on there or post podcasts of releases ..

So, the death of music?

Nope, I don't think so at all.

Didn't home taping kill the music industry back in the 80s

I agree, to a point, but would people bother using them if they had to pay the equivalent of the full album rate?

It's not the same thing though is it? If it cost me a pound for every track on a Spotify radio stream I'd turn it off.

The cost of owning a track should be different to a play (the more you play the more it pays) do Apple music pay on tracks you own or just the ones you stream you don't have in your library? Stream/rental will be the market for the next few years so artists need to work out how to make it pay.

Didn’t home taping kill the music industry back in the 80s

Nope, quite the opposite, in my experience.

There are so many factors as to why musicians mostly have to do it for the love of it these days, streaming services play a minor part, the main thing is the massive proliferation of music available these days. Going back to the whole history of music, plus all the masses available from various outlets, the internet in particular -the money spent is spread so thinly, unless you have a record company behind you, promoting you to radio stations, or are already an established name, you can’t expect to make a living from it.

Fortunately, there will always be people wanting to make new music, so it won’t die, not for a while yet.

so artists need to work out how to make it pay

I don't see why they should have to.

If it cost me a pound for every track on a Spotify radio stream I’d turn it off.

Exactly my point.

So, the death of music?

Nope, I don’t think so at all.

If the artists aren’t getting paid for the work they do, how many are going to carry on?

Do you work for less than minimum wage? Didn’t think so.

And home taping didn’t come close to the vast amount of music people like you are consuming for basically nothing, because the greater majority of people were still buying vinyl and CD’s while borrowing stuff to tape that they were unlikely to buy anyway, which is what I used to do, and if I really like a taped album, I’d go and buy it anyway.

The payment amounts artist receive is tantamount to slave wages. Even for large, established artists the only way to make money is from touring.

I know of sucessful musicians that that are in the fortunate position to have their day job within the music industry. They write and produce music for TV and film, along with writing and production work for even bigger artists. Their side projects, effectively their hobby, is what they are generally know for outside of the industry types.

I read an an article about a producer artist based in Nashville that opened up about the streaming revenue he received from the streaming sites and traditional radio. Radio out paid streaming by a factor of 100, but even so with close to 5 million streams the payment he received was barely $5000. That was the total annual royalties for a successful album and singles from all sources, radio, streaming, etc.

I still prefer to buy music, normally directly from the artist, but then I've got very obscure and niche tastes.

I don’t see why they should have to.

Because it is their living they need to protect, like others form a union, get collective bargaining just telling people it's cheap isn't going to work, a mass removal of music from streaming would change the model and force the issue.

Or do you suggest we all write in and demand to pay more?

As mikewsmith says though - its not black and white - there are loads of bands that get listened to on things like Spotify that wouldn’t get a look in anywhere else. I’ve started to use Spotify more to check out stuff I’ve read about, so those artists are getting the exposure (and a few pence maybe) that they wouldn’t have done otherwise. I still buy all formats and use bandcamp a lot, but I also download stuff for free, listen on Youtube.... its a varied and fascinating subject!

IMO, platforms such as Bandcamp should be the way forward: A platform that has a roaming capability but also allows the artist to set their own price and the site takes a much smaller cut that the likes of ITunes and Spotify.

Bandcamp takes only 15% of music sales and 10% of merch sales.

Or do you suggest we all write in and demand to pay more?

Actually, yes, if you value music.

Let's see how that works out for you....

http://www.brudenellsocialclub.co.uk/

Looking at the list of upcoming gigs I can’t see the end of music any time soon

From the article in the OP,

We're going all the way out to Eastern Europe to break even on the show while the gas that it cost us to get there means that we're actually paying for that show. That's subsidized by our shows in Western Europe where we get paid better guarantees. I don't know if it's worth it anymore

Was it ever any different for 99% of bands?  And talking about product cycles, netting and grossing... Bloke should be an accountant not a guitar player. Most of my favourite bands have never made money and were never likely to. Didn't stop them putting out the best music ever. I'm glad the bubble's burst; maybe we'll see fewer Biebers and Swifts in the future.

I'm not so sure about this. The argument would be simpler if we were all not paying a thing a la kodi add-ons because clearly then they wouldn't be getting a thing. And I'm flat out militant about that. Equally do we see anyone moaning about Netflix being too cheap?

As consumers we didn't set the price or business model for it. That's between them.

maybe we’ll see fewer Biebers and Swifts in the future.

Quite the opposite: That's potentially all we'll be seeing.

Bandcamp takes only 15% of music sales and 10% of merch sales.

And a lot of artists give stuff away free on bandcamp. Because (not always, but a lot of the time) they have made something for the love of it and just want it to get heard.

That’s potentially all we’ll be seeing.

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is? The actual amount of different styles and artists out there now is phenomenal - the range is getting wider, not narrower!

Just check out the new release lists on a Monday from a site like junodownload - I tell you, its mind blowing how much music is being released, and how much you’ll never get to hear. There’s just too much!

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is

Its no more ridiculous than your assertion that paying artists a pittance for their music will see less of the most popular mainstream artists: It's artists like that who are best positioned to make the most from streaming services.

Where do I say that?

I don't get paid for my hobby, plenty of bands I go to see are in it for the crack rather than making a living you know.

@ DezB

You didn't, bob_summers did.

So the less black and white part (part 2)

Barrier to entry has gone down, you can get a following without wining the lotto of getting picked up by a dj, or label, artists can build a following across a much wider base than before. Flip side is a nice big record deal is probably not coming to you if youn were the lucky one.

Last time we had one of these I think the stats had plays being a huge order of magnitude greater than CD purchases at their peak so the money going into the system was getting close to similar, expecting sale prices for a stream is a non starter, it's not the same thing

Or maybe it's not?

Listening to Radio1 (I know. Its not cool to admit that on STW) it's surprising how much of the music is from UK rap artists, so maybe streaming has democratised music somewhat. Its no longer the case that just being a band with three other white blokes* is good enough to earn a living.

At the other end of the scale, far from killing off the album you end up with Ed Sheeran filling the top ten in the charts because people stream the whole album rather than buying one single.

I don't see why music should be any different to any other art/hobby. Plenty of painters, runners, cyclists etc don't get to give up the day job the moment they rise above mediocre. Is there any reason why being a successful musician from sales should be any easier than a runner getting to the Olympics?

*because that is what the music industry looks like.

Everyone knows video killed the radio star.

maybe we’ll see fewer Biebers and Swifts in the future.

Quite the opposite: That’s potentially all we’ll be seeing.

*shudders*

It always reads like bands are being cheated out of money. The expectation that they should all be earning millions and rolling in a jet like Led Zeppelin. Times have changed. Funny thing is back in the day it seems like they were all in it for the money then a bit of artistic integrity kicked in. The availability of music now will never stifle creativity, it just won't pay .

I find it takes effort to find music I like. I tend to find a lot of stuff I think is great at first, sometimes rush and buy it then listen to it once and that's it. You have to unearth I think. I haven't used Spotify, maybe that's the problem. I currently use the Tune Association Thread and Discogs as a way of finding music I haven't heard before. Have found some stuff I really like, but it can be a bit hit and miss basing your music consumption on a word in a title of a track that someone else posted.

Music labels like dead certs, they sell a lot ofntunes, play a lot and sell out stadiums along with nice tv plays and film soundtracks $$$$$$$

Niche bands are just that low return, big risk and hard work. The industry part of the music industry is the bit to remember

There are a dozen or so bands just in my local town of 150 000 people. Lots of supply, not so much demand. I follow one quite closely - I work on their guitars. They recently toured in Canada, their objective being to have fun, a few moments of living a high and seeing a bit of the world. Everything they do costs them money, their kit, making a CD, financing tours. It's their passion in life and they work to pay for it. That is the life of all but ahnadful of bands.

It's the same in many other fields. Most competitors in a rally or MTB race are paying for it out of their hard-earned cash and those sponsors if their are any only pay a fraction of the costs. Some might break even, a few really good competitors will make a living and the odd one or two might make it rich.

The idea that music is somehow special is odd. As for the copyright rules they're seriously unfair and what IMO are really killing music. If a pharma company spends a fortune on developing a new drug they get a few years to make money before it falls into the public domain. A musician get his life plus 70 years or something like that. So just because Jimmy Reed recorded a drunken noodle first nobody else can play the same drunken noodle without paying for another - well you work it out years. Al the good riffs have gone, stolen by generations dead or dying from the world of music.

For me the issue is where does the revenue from subscription services go (and is the overall music industry revenue in decline). I think subscription/streaming is a great model but if it's just making Amazon/Apple/Spotify etc. richer (and their shareholders) vs compensating artists well something needs to change.

Fundamentally no musician has a right to earn a living from music but if enough people like what they produce and a re willing to pay for it then ofc they should get a decent return from it. It seems like in the current model though only the few top artists get a good returns (with tens of millions of streams) and everyone else gets shafted. Not sure how it will change though as there will always be enough people trying to make money from music (or creating it for the love of it) that there will be sufficient supply for the streaming services under their current model.

These lot seem to be doing ok.
<h4>The World’s Highest-Paid Musicians 2016 in full</h4>

1. Taylor Swift ($170 million)
2. One Direction ($110 million)
3. Adele ($80.5 million)
4. Madonna ($76.5 million)
5. Rihanna ($75 million)
6. Garth Brooks ($70 million)
7. AC/DC ($67.5 million)
8. Rolling Stones ($66.5 million)
9. Calvin Harris ($63 million)
10. Diddy ($62 million)

Niche bands will never make millions from album sales purely because they are niche. I don't think streaming services have changed much, if anything they open up niche bands to a wider audience.

I don’t see why music should be any different to any other art/hobby. Plenty of painters, runners, cyclists etc don’t get to give up the day job the moment they rise above mediocre. Is there any reason why being a successful musician from sales should be any easier than a runner getting to the Olympics?

This is true - music is, and always has been pretty much like these other activities - only a select few can rise to the top, everyone else has to do it for the love of doing it. I suppose the big difference with music is it's not the (measurable) best that actually succeed, but other factors, like luck play a huge part (see list above!!).

copyright rules they’re seriously unfair and what IMO are really killing music

Isn't this the same as the "home taping" thing though? It's not [i]killing[/i] music. It's making it more difficult for some artists to make money, but no way is it killing it.

Book I'm reading at the moment, "Retromania" suggests that the most likely thing to kill music is people's desire for the past - reformed bands, re-releases, tribute bands, retro-sounding new acts (War on Drugs *spit*), all that shit - if punters are more interested in looking back than forward, will here be a point in making new sounds, new music, being original. But then there will always be new creators who want to fight against that, so I don't see an sign of music dying just yet.

Book I’m reading at the moment, “Retromania” suggests that the most likely thing to kill music is people’s desire for the past – reformed bands, re-releases, tribute bands, retro-sounding new acts (War on Drugs *spit*), all that shit – if punters are more interested in looking back than forward, will here be a point in making new sounds, new music, being original. But then there will always be new creators who want to fight against that, so I don’t see an sign of music dying just yet.

"Retromania" has always been there - when I was growing up my dad didn't listen to Iron Maiden, Scorpions, Saxon etc - he listened to the songs of his youth - Elvis, Cliff, Roger Whittaker, Beatles etc.

The old system was so expensive to record and release music on physical media that it was a big financial commitment - you'd need the backing of a label, and they'd also sink money into marketing so they'd have a hope of getting a return on it. The artist would get paid an advance but all the early money is the label's until that commitment is paid off.

It funnelled a select few into the system and gave a reasonable chance of success - critic reviews, record shop placement, radio play, touring. Still by no means guaranteed and plenty still failed to make a lifelong career of it.

The massive reduction in cost to record, produce and distribute music is great in some ways - it democratises music, it gives us way more choice, it lets niche bands find a global audience, small labels can flourish. But except for a few at the top, that spreads out the money to be made - there's only so many venues to play at and people in those towns to buy tickets. More can make a modest living, but fewer millionaire rock stars.

His band is a metal band which is very niche, and i've also not heard of and I listen to metal now and again via apple music. Listening to them now on said apple music (ironic?) they sound like many other bands, IMO not only are they in a niche market, they are not unique, they sound very similiar to other bands I hear when I listen to the metal playlist.

Not sure if subscriptions will mean less Biebers or Swifts as I dont think I am wrong in saying they both built followings and then became mainstream?

*edit - I have now listened to the 5 top songs ranked by Apple Music from his band and they are not my cup of tea, off to find some speed metal, I prefer a higher tempo and less whining...

In a word - no

There will always be musicians who want to produce music, and as others have pointed out, that doesn't immediately infer a right to earn a wage from it. It isn't necessarily talent that propels someone to stardom, so in that respect that list of top 10 earners is sort of irrelevant. What is broken (IMO) is the influence of labels and distributers who do decide what/who they promote, but that's probs worth a thread all by itself.

Loads of new music available now  much more than even 10years ago, and it's easy to find, and there a counter argument that streaming services have played a part in that wider access to huge amounts of niche. That Taylor Swift isn't paid what she wants is irrelevant to the fact that John Smith's self funded garage album is on there..

 but other factors, like luck play a huge part (see list above!!).

I would say nepotism, huge generational wealth, and connections pay a bigger part.

eg: Taylor Swifts parents were rich and well connected and pretty much bankrolled Swift to success via their existing connections.

Exactly - many other factors! Including some undefinable!

Also, it's worth remembering a stream =/= a lost album/single sale.

It's very possible a large part of that £5000 wouldn't convert into an album sale. Maybe that breaks even, maybe they're loosing out. I'd theorise those who would buy the album, would do so anyway alongside streaming, so maybe double revenue streams there.

It would be an interesting study.