Forum menu
To the OP. A band like Periphery probably only have a career and an audience because of the internet. I think they also write and collaborate remotely so then complaining about streaming seems a bit hypocritical.
The way I see it things are easier for bands with subscription, it opens them up to an instant global audience and the cost of entry is comparatively low. From my perspective this has allowed me to investigate artists and they get paid rather than looking them up on YouTube, although they may well get paid for ads on their channel anyway. Ironically that is the exact issue that makes it harder for bands to get a break, it's not just your local music scene any more, you're competing with every other band on the planet for a listener.
The other issue is that nowadays the good bands and artists are being swamped by a deluge throwaway pop designed to get a ton of listens quickly and then vanish just as quick. The music industry's business model has changed from one that invests in artists for the long term to one that is just about short-term profit maximisation. But who drove this change? Is it the listeners quest for new music that has reduced their loyalty to a band or artist or has the industry's lack of commitment to its artists meant that they're forgotten after the first album?
Who of the current top 10 artists are still going to be here in 5 years ..... Drake? Rudimental? Dua Lipa? Portugal The Man? Marshmello? Post Malone? Settle? Kendrick Lamar? Justin Timberlake (ok, he's been around for a while), or Liam Payne?
And yet here I am listening to an album that's 21 years old from a band that's still releasing albums (Foo Fighters), I wonder if either of my sons will be able to say that at my age?
As consumers we didn’t set the price or business model for it.
Well we kind of did. Music publishing has been forever behind the curve in terms of being ready to serve new models of distribution
If you look back through history the first way you could listen to music at home was to sit at the piano and sing it. So to hear a new song you had to buy the sheet music and thats how music was sold. You could say 'well why pay to buy a song, why not just make one up' but its harder than you think - even people who are famous for writing songs write surprisingly few properly good ones in a lifetime. So a good song is a goose that lays golden eggs.
The publishing industry was extremely resistant to recording and radio - because if someone heard a new song once they didn't need to buy the book, they could sing it and play if from memory. And the point of a good song is you remember it.
Right up into the 80s there were restrictions on the amount of recorded music a music radio station could play each hour (the 'Needle time agreement') which is why Radio 1 had to fill air time with jingles, phone pranks, whack whack oops and inappropriate touching.
The problem with digital music sales is the capacity to listen to digital music- iPods etc- existed long before the the sale channels for digital music were created. The industry was trying to protect its investment in physical media instead. But in a few years players went from being able to store an album's worth of material to being able to store more music than any private individual would have legitimately have bought.
If someone has bought a machine that can play a month of music with out repeats then the owner feels they deserve to be able to fill that capacity. So the whole file sharing thing took off, but in doing so consumers set both the price and the business model:
All music ever, instantly available, for free.
So for the industry as a whole thats the standard expectation of the customer: I want it all and I don't want to pay anything for it, and I don't want you to get in my way.
Streaming / subscription services then have to offer massive catalogues and charge next to nothing for them as the value has already been established as zero. You can't manage the release or distribution of your product because the customer believes they already have a right to it, and deserve it, and if you don't give it to them right now they'll just take it anyway.
I wonder if either of my sons will be able to say that at my age?
Imagine the choice they'll have! Mind blowing.
Streaming / subscription services then have to offer massive catalogues and charge next to nothing for them as the value has already been established as zero. You can’t manage the release or distribution of your product because the customer believes they already have a right to it, and deserve it, and if you don’t give it to them right now they’ll just take it anyway.
Another fascinating aspect of it all... younger people who can never appreciate the value of [i]that[/i] monthly purchase from HMV that we used to have. Most probably don't even see a human being making the music at the beginning of the process! Want music track, want it now. Thanks!
I hope CountZero etc has read and can now appreciate it's not so black and white. Some fascinating views on here. Love it 🙂
Let's be honest, Spotify is basically legalised freeloading and its users are not likely to agree with you OP, because it suits them very nicely.
Let’s be honest, Spotify is basically legalised freeloading and its users are not likely to agree with you OP, because it suits them very nicely.
Do you mean just spotify or all music streaming services?
Spotify is basically legalised freeloading
In the same way as listening to the radio is legalised freeloading?
Another fascinating aspect of it all… younger people who can never appreciate the value of <em class="bbcode-em">that monthly purchase from HMV that we used to have.
And sitting looking at it for an hour on the bus home before you got to even hear any of it.
Its funny how heavily linked some music can be to your memory of the first play of it. I don't think future generations will have the same experience of harking back fondly to their first clicks.
Another fascinating aspect of it all… younger people who can never appreciate the value of <em class="bbcode-em">that monthly purchase from HMV that we used to have. Most probably don’t even see a human being making the music at the beginning of the process! Want music track, want it now. Thanks!
IME music just isn't as important to kids these days, it's just a small part of a much bigger entertainment market. I don't think any of my daughters friends have a bedroom covered in band posters.
For a lot of us growing up in the 70s and 80s music was front and centre of our lives as there was very little else available to us to express who we were.
Do you mean just spotify or all music streaming services?
I don't know about any others so I cannot judge them.
In the same way as listening to the radio is legalised freeloading?
Don't be facetious, you know that artists are paid more fairly for radio play.
but anyway
Music-making won't 'die'. But new music and new musicians maybe won't have the best expression that they could have. Its true you can record and release more cheaply than ever. But its only certain tools that a cheap. Having a good song and a nice way of singing it is one thing but begin afforded the time and expertise of talented people in making recordings is something else.
There was an interesting interview with Mick Jagger in which he was saying that there used to be no money in popular music - artists were exploited terribly, promotors and managers would pocket all the ticket money (*unless they were in my Dad's venue) and make bands feel lucky if they got their bus fair home out of the takings.
Then suddenly musician could be rich
And now they can't
His point was they he was very lucky that his career sat exactly in that middle bit. And now things are back to how they were. Music existed and musicians made it before there was real profit of them in doing so and they'll carry on on doubt.
* very briefly my dad was at the Royal College of Art, around the same time as David Hockney and co, when it was all really very cool - and as 'Social Sec' for the RCA booked up and coming bands such as Bonzo Dog to play there. His policy was to approach each band at the end of the night with all the door money in his hand. Count out the venue's cut in front of them, then hand them the rest with instruction to give it to their manager so that he could take his cut. Just so they could see how much they were being humped by their management.
There's positives and negatives tbh. I reckon if a band has a clue about how to promote themselves and understands the targets they need to hit and understand that they need to diversify their income streams . Then they'll do alright for themselves.
If they make and album hit 1mil streams and think they are owed a living for life. Well they need to rethink
Barriers to entry virtually nil.
If folk want to be be professional musicians then go touring and earn the money from a bit of graft.
Music streaming is a great promotional platform.
There was an interesting interview with Mick Jagger in which he was saying that there used to be no money in popular music – artists were exploited terribly, promotors and managers would pocket all the ticket money (*unless they were in my Dad’s venue) and make bands feel lucky if they got their bus fair home out of the takings.
Yes, there has always been music but for centuries nearly all musicians were just 'journeymen' who did it more for the love than big rewards. The early 70's to the birth of Napster were the exception, we're now returning to the norm when only a very few get well paid.
I can't help thinking it's partly the music industry's own fault. If they'd embraced streaming early and set a realistic price they might have been able to stop file sharing completly destroying revenues. Once file sharing had set the price as zero it's been hard to edge it back up but people are paying again - not much, but they're either paying a subscription or there are ad revenues (file sharing has pretty much disappeared again).
Spotify is £10 a month - I was spending more on that when I was still at school in 1980's prices. i was spending more than that when i was a penniless student and through most of my 20's and 30's I was spending more than that a week.
The other issue is that nowadays the good bands and artists are being swamped by a deluge throwaway pop designed to get a ton of listens quickly and then vanish just as quick.
When you say 'nowadays' do you mean 'for the last 50+ years'?
When you say ‘nowadays’ do you mean ‘for the last 50+ years’?
Not sure it's quite that long, certainly since the start of the Pop Idol / X-Factor age.
I tend to find a lot of stuff I think is great at first, sometimes rush and buy it
How quaint!
I am Mr Average. I like music but not massively so. Since using (subscription) Spotify, I listen to far more music, and spend more on music, than I have done a any point in my life. I'm listening to artists that I would simply not have heard otherwise, and even attended a few gigs of bands that I 'discovered' through Spotify.
I am pretty good on my Pop master but when those old top of the pops are on I don't know half the bands. Pop has always been throw away.
Regarding streaming, we are all more than happy to buy secondhand CDs in which the artist gets no money at all.
There's only 3 current bands that I follow. I will buy their music direct from them.
we are all more than happy to buy secondhand CDs
We are?
Music streaming is a great promotional platform.
Maybe so, but it shouldn't be at the expense of actually buying the products and supporting the artists.
I am pretty good on my Pop master but when those old top of the pops are on I don’t know half the bands.
Yes, it's interesting how much you forget isn't it. I would have been familiar with all of the music currently being repeated on TotP (1985) but there are bands whose names I'd never have guessed who sang big hits. Debarge? Never heard of them. Despite the fact that I can sing 'Rhythm of the night'!
Don’t be facetious, you know that artists are paid more fairly for radio play.
Sorry dad (he used to say "facetious") - don't you see that the limited number of artists actually making money from radio play is tiny compared to those who can make it from people listening through streaming services? So which is better?
Most musicians have been pretty much doing it for love not money since music began. We had a golden period from the 60s until probably the 90s when musicians were making decent money but now the blip is over.
A few will make a shed load most won't.
Of course there will always be musicians who are happy to make music just for the love and passion of it: However, we are running the risk of replacing one form of media that once offered payback with one that doesn't.
No, musicians don't have a right to make a living out of their chosen "hobby" but, as with any profession, they have a right to get a fair rate when they choose to sell their product.
There is always the view that streaming is good marketing for musicians, which is fine as long as people then go out and buy the music in a way that will benefit the artist. As it is, we see people using the likes of Spotify as their sole source of music; meaning they don't then go out and buy the product. Yes, they may go to a gig or two but, as we see in the OP, touring is also becoming increasingly difficult, without strong financial resources.
"But, I've listened to more music since I joined [insert streaming service name]": Ah yes, the old "it benefits me, and therefore it must be good" argument. Its a very insular and selfish argument. Many people on here, and elsewhere, bemoan the loss of high street shops in favour of online services and supermarkets: Streaming services are having exactly the same effect on the music industry.
Is it melodramatic to say streaming services will be the death of music? Yes, it is, but it's certainly not good for it, IMO.
Sorry dad (he used to say “facetious”)
So you've got form then?
don’t you see that the limited number of artists actually making money from radio play is tiny compared to those who can make it from people listening through streaming services? So which is better?
Streaming would be better if it paid more fairly. Comparing a small number of artists getting a reasonable income from one channel to a large number of artists mostly getting FA from another isn't really helpful.
Neither is the statement: "Let’s be honest, Spotify is basically legalised freeloading".
(said currently listening to an album purchased from Bandcamp btw)
If Spotify is so terrible why do bands have their music on there?
Double edged sword init.They get paid FA,but get a the chance of bigger exposure. This may then generate more revenue in other areas. Is it not true that a lot of bands/artists make more from merchandise sales at gigs ,or direct from their websites?
Amazing no one has thought of anything but bands. What about classical music requiring a full orchestra? There are many more people to come together - as their job not a hobby - and halls to hire etc to produce a recording then they get virtually nothing per play. Apart from some concerts there will be a crash in the amount of new recordings.
I have amazon streaming but if I like a piece of classical then I try to find it and buy it on CD or high bitrate audio. Without support we will all end up with either old recordings or dreaded Beiberpap.
Without support we will all end up with either old recordings - does that matter with classical?
or dreaded Beiberpap. (as already discussed), we're a hell of a long way from that.
Yes it does. There are different artists/orchestras bringing out different things in different pieces. And, believe it or not, people are still writing music of that genre *now*. Or is this a “I don’t like it, it doesn’t matter, who cares?” response
it would also mean that the only instruments young uns would study would eventually be limited due to the fact there would be fewer places to go, no point in learning as it would lead nowhere. “Sorry kid no point in thinking about a career in instrument x as you will never get paid as the Beiberites now own the entire music industry”.
So, then why should classical be any different from other music - it's either a hobby/done for the love of it, or to get paid you're really lucky/exceptional/connected ?
Because it would have to be a hobby for >100 different types of musicians all who live within a certain area and could meet and pay for a rehearsal hall and pay for everything else, like transpiring quite large instruments.
Unless you think they would all fit into your garage of an evening? And practice a 50 minute piece without a conductor in an hour or so?
And I don’t agree with that to be a musician of any type you have to have it as a hobby. Some do which is fine. Some need to pay for their food and accommodation.
I take it that you would quite happily do your job as an unpaid hobby?
Oh, so you do think classical music should be different. I don't really understand how it fits into this conversation tbh. How have orchestras made their money from plays/sales in the past? Surely there are too many orchestras for them all to be making money from airplay? And/or CD sales?
My job isn't in the arts. It's salaried, really not a comparison.
A band like Periphery probably only have a career and an audience because of the internet
That ^
In t'olden days, we had loads of bands, but also loads of people buying music. Now we seem to have more bands than we know what to do with and no real physical way of buying music that hasn't somehow become niche (CD sales are nosediving, while although vinyl is going up, it's a mere drip in the ocean)
Spotify and the like are never going to be able to reimburse the artists in any meaningful way based on their model, tenner a month buys you one or two CD's, Spotify gives you endless access.
Unless people suddenly ditch digital and go mad for physical formats again, then only the top 50 artists will make the money because it's in Spotifys interest to have them on their roster
No I don’t think it should be different. That’s your position.
Previously musicians of all types made money by selling recordings. You may have heard of them, at one time they were called “records”, “cassette tapes”,”CDs” and even MP3 and AACs. They made a lot more money from that as opposed to streaming.
If a musician was deemed “good enough” they would get a recording contract or position within a ban (or orchestra). They would get an advance but also much more of the money per sale than on streaming. Infortinatrly the more people in a band the fewer micropennies per stream they would get. Hence a huge band would get nothing.
Very few bands with up to a hundred members are are making any profit whatsoever from streaming. Their profits if any come from sales, which is my point. Even small bands who have to practice make diddly squat on streaming. And to get really good they have to practice a lot which means rich parents .
I don’t care whether your job is in the arts or not. Why should you be any different?
Also don't understand why you're being defensive/aggressive about genuine questions. Discuss it with yourself if you're going to be a pillock.
I’m listening to and buying more music than I ever have, probably because of streaming. I subscribe to the premium deezer service with higher bit rates and find I am discovering and listening to bands I never would have before streaming. When I find something I like I will go and buy either the vinyl album or cd or sometimes both! I’m a lover of music, in all of it’s formats and as long as there are enough people like me I don’t think music will ever die!