Streaming!

You're right in saying not every musician should be able to make a living off their music, but the opposite argument is true, it should be possible for at least some. Without resorting to mass commerialism. Otherwise that sounds the death knell for anything other than "music by numbers". 

 

Two things. First, it would be overoptimistic for every artist to make a living off their music, so besides the whole business model it may be wise to manage expectations of the aspiring muscians as well. That has always been the case, and the internet makes people believe that such basic principles no longer apply.

Second, it is possible to do things properly - once again I refer to Dave Brons, http://www.davebrons.com.

I suppose the problem I have with Spotify is that streaming services devalue music. They present - to the general public - the idea that music is (nearly) free. Let's be even handed. They also offer exposure. It's certainly a different world than it was even ten years ago, and there are a lot of things to be grateful about. 

However, my beef is that you will get a lot of people who merely graze without ever buying a CD or download. And this then spreads beyond streaming sites and into the wider music world.

I know a lot of people come on here and say "I always support artists, if I hear something I like, I'll buy the CD". My experience, judging on three years of examining Bandcamp stats, is quite the opposite. I work in IT sales and marketing and I'm aware of click through rates: what generally happens is that most people will tell you "Oh yes, I buy CD's" - they perhaps buy one or two CD's a year - or a handful. Most people merely use Spotify as a radio station. Actually, most people use sites like Bandcamp as a radio station as well. 

So my problem with Spotify, Pandora et al is not just the execrable rates of pay given to artists - as you say, they don't have to sign up and it's actually bad thinking to do so if you're writing prog rock or "minority interest music" - it's also the fact that music is totally devalued, now. That, I think, is worth whinging about. 

This site, believe it or not, generated nine complete play throughs of an EP I released yesterday. Bandcamp itself produced 150 complete plays. Given the choice of just streaming music through as an almost free radio station or paying for music, people .... just play music, in general, hardly ever bothering to buy it. 

I think one salvation for Spotify would be if it internally promoted some artists, giving a select few a bursary for, say, a year, allowing them to produce music full time - which Spotify would then fully or partially own. However, you have to then consider that Spotify would only choose artists who could be commercially presented for a large financial return. So much for prog rock, there. ;-)

You may ask, why doesn't Spotify put partial tracks up to give some bands a chance that the listeners may go elsewhere to hear the rest of the track or back catalogue ? Well, simply because Spotify et al are not about music. They're about producing money for Spotify. Short termism. 

I think, to be honest, that what will happen is that Spotify will turn into a junkyard of bad artists playing for the numbers, grazed over by people who just consume music. The good musicians and people who produce minority specialist music will keep on going, but more than likely via private sites. The worry is that the Spotification of music means that the fans of niche music also begin to suffer from the concept that their music is free and can be just grazed. 

That's my 10 cents, backed up by years of watching buying patterns in music. It doesn't look at all rosy, to be honest. The fact that the general public seem to believe, somehow, that artists are getting "at least some money" off streaming sites, is very worrying. Nope. Not the case. 

 

It was directed at the position you presented, not your person, indeed. I know you don't use Spotify, so you do exactly what I tried to get across: if you don't like it, don't use it. Outside music, I work as a consultant and often take on contractor work on IT projects as well. Like with Spotify in the music business, there are channels that I refuse to use to get such projects - simply because the parties providing the channel take too much of my hourly fee for what they do. Similar, if not the same - all I'm trying to say is that music is business, and musicians should behave like that - either by being business men, or by getting the help of business men to take care of it for them. That will work way better than putting your music on Spotify and then start complaining it doesn't pay. That's the whining I referred to, which is not yours, but that of a lot of artists who are on Spotify. They just don't get the marketing aspect. Being on Spotify doesn't pay off if you are in a niche market, and certainly not if you don't have your marketing in order, because then nobody will know you are on there. If you use a streaming service, be aware that it is part of the complete package: CD or digital, plus a web site, plus an active social media account, plus classical advertisement, plus air play, plus interviews, plus as an option, streaming. And gigging, if possible and applicable. It's hard work, putting your music out on the net and let it sell itself doesn't work. I'm pretty sure you understand that, Dave, you've been around long enough.

 

As for me and Spotify: I haven't used it in over 7 months now. I had a premium account for a year, but I prefer high quality downloads (like provided on bandcamp) over streaming, CDs over that, and vinyl over that. I need the physical product and the liner notes to feel complete. I spent way more on those things in 2015 than what I expect Spotify paid to the average prog act in the same period. In fact, if  I get a digital download as input for a review, and I like the music,  I often buy the CD or vinyl after posting the review.

If it comes to streaming and prog, once every few weeks I check what is on progstreaming.com, and if I like what I hear, I'll buy it.

 

Yes, let's be blunt, but also fair and honest. Being only politically correct doesn't lead to much progress, does it?

Angelo, good job it wasn't personally directed at me as *I don't use Spotify*. 

I don't like the business model

It suits some other people, they're welcome to use it

I am not whining, it's called debate. 

Yes, a lot of people on a streaming site wouldn't buy the music anyway, so it seems to reinforce my point of view. 

I think you probably personally like it because you get access to a lot of music for $0 and stuff the artist. If we're still being blunt. ;-)

This is a very recent report on the British music at the moment for further reading... http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/06/us-music-industry-streaming-doubles-adele-physical-sales 

A lot of that income stream is streamlined towards the top, I think it's heading that way now. On the point of Adele carrying torch for physical, I don't think she is. I think her record company played a card on her leverage of stardom in a way that they are in it for themselves. http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/11/why-whats-good-for-adele-sucks-for-everyone-else.html