Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Author | |||
chopper 
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
 Posted: January 06 2016 at 07:35 |
||
That's what they said about home taping in the 70s - they were wrong then as well. I use Spotify - I also buy CDs and support prog bands as much as I can. How much do they get for each CD I buy? I have no idea. |
|||
 |
|||
|
Livit
Forum Newbie 
Joined: January 06 2016 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 09:13 |
||
|
Hi guys,
interesting topic and difficult as well. My few cents are: Streaming gives something close to nil back to the artists per listen. To give you an example of the scale please see the attached, 4 streams create a reward of less than 1 cent (!) in return:  Please note, that some margin already went to the company distributing the music to the various services. In above case it is Tunecore. It is obvious, that for pop-music with its typical high rotation on mobile phones and other devices even such low money can create significant returns, if the stream count is very high. But in case of rather low stream counts, like it is typical for prog rock listeners (or do you have "Supper's Ready" on high rotation??) there literally is no money coming out of this. Insofar streaming is good - for some artists. And bad for many others. On the other hand legal streaming services have much reduced the illegal downloads and copies, simply because it is even easier to handle, than making a copy. Even copyists are lazy. This definitely is something good in the bad. And at the same time this is the reason why the prices cannot go up to the benefit of the artists, because the consumers won't pay and probably would return to the illegal copy services. It is like being caught between a rock and a hard place. What do I do? I use streaming services (sometimes) for background music, like radio. But when it comes to my favourite music, I mostly buy hardware: CDs and even vinyl. If possible directly from the artist's web shops, even though this is not the cheapest option. Because only in this case most money goes straight to the creators of the wonderful music. But even if I buy from iTunes or Amazon some money goes to the artists, still much more, than through streaming services - except for high rotation music, as I mentioned above. In other words - Progressive Rock and streaming services do not go along well. ;-) |
|||
|
|||
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: May 23 2013 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 2839 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 09:34 |
||
|
Also, Livit, streaming services generally pay only for COMPLETE plays.
Done a 13 minute magnum opus ? (Some of mine are over 30 mins... ;-) ) If the listener clicks onto another track before it's completely finished, you get $0. So, as you say, prog rock and streaming don't get along too well. Streaming is antithetic to prog rock. If you are making hand crafted low sales volume music, you are wasting your time putting it on streaming platforms.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 2839 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 09:38 |
||
Chopper, let me put up the post I did previously - just buy the CD's. Honestly. As for home taping, nope, completely different. Then it affected mainly record companies who could, frankly, afford to lose a small amount of revenue to home tapers. Now it's epidemic. And directly affects musicians. Those stats about streaming again..... " Pandora Paid Pharrell Just $6300 For 105 Million "Happy" Plays"Pharrell Williams was paid just $6300 for 105 million plays of his hit song ‘Happy,’ according to the Financial Times. The $6k was reportedly before Sony took its share. While working on several fronts to reduce rates, Pandora currently pays about $.0014 per song play split among all rightsholders. "We’re projecting over a billion dollars of revenue next year,"said Pandora founder Tim Westergren, "and we’re sharing that revenue very fairly with the artist community.”"" |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 10:02 |
||
|
How much does Pharrell get per radio play of "Happy"? Just wondering.
|
|||
|
|||
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 10:08 |
||
Are you sure? What's the difference between a friend at school taping his copy of "Selling England by the Pound" for me (yes, I confess this did happen) and me listening to it on Spotify? Either way Genesis get either zilch or very near to it. And how about this? I own a number of Pendragon CDs and I sometimes listen to the very same CDs on Spotify. If I play the CD at home, Pendragon get nothing (on top of whatever they got from the initial sale). If I play it on Spotify, at least they get something, even if it needs a lot of plays before Nick Barrett can afford a new string. As I said, I buy lots of prog CDs and I'm an amateur musician. I use Spotify mainly as a way of checking out bands I would not otherwise hear and, if I like what I hear enough, I buy the CD. |
|||
|
|||
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 2839 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 10:12 |
||
|
Whilst you're supposed to get royalties - all radio stations are supposed to send a list of tracks they've played to (amongst others) performing rights societies.
Let me put it like this. Student radio stations, for one, trawl sites like Bandcamp, download all the "free" tunes and play them - rather than buy CD's, downloads, etc. I spoke to one once saying "do you have to use me as space filler ? " The reply was "We don't actually give a f*ck, you should be grateful for the exposure, your UK performing rights are worth sh*t here in Belgium. Believe me, Chopper, it's a long way to the top if you want to (prog) rock and roll. ;-)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 2839 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 10:16 |
||
|
"As I said, I buy lots of prog CDs and I'm an amateur musician. I use Spotify mainly as a way of checking out bands I would not otherwise hear and, if I like what I hear enough, I buy the CD."
Great. Experience shows that most people do not.... despite what they say...... so long as someone IS buying CD's, that's wonderful. However. Most people just using Spotify et al as a streaming radio service. I released an EP today. This was on Bandcamp. I note it's been played completely through about 42 times. It's 31 minutes long. Two sales. Most people must have liked it enough to sit through it but never actually clicked on "buy". Strangely, free releases are always hoovered up but charge someone even a penny..... nope. Most people - the vast majority - no matter what they say, are inculcated NOT to pay for music, no matter what. This is especially true of the current generation. And this is why streaming is a bad idea. Because it adds to the number of platforms where music can be had - listeners' choice - for $0. It devalues it. I am incidentally highly unlikely to release any more commercial music. I've got enough hardware - and muso mates - to jam along in a garage somewhere with a psychedelic lightshow and a few invited friends. No PA hire, no insurance, no ripoff venues, no travel, no posters, merchandise etc etc. If every musician thinks like me, and a lot are beginning to, the future could be very interesting indeed..... Edited by Davesax1965 - January 06 2016 at 10:39 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Livit
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 06 2016 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:09 |
||
Unfortunately correct. This underlines my words, that streaming only works with high rotation pieces.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Livit
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 06 2016 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:12 |
||
Have you ever tried to play on StageIt? This platform is good for paid streaming of such special live events - as long, as you catch enough people's interest.
|
|||
|
|||
|
VOTOMS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 18 2013 Location: KOBAIA Status: Offline Points: 1420 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:16 |
||
|
I sell more physical copies than digital. But I still can't make a living with the value I earn from both together.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17863 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:19 |
||
|
As I stated previous, seems to me if the artist is only getting $.0014 per play then it is up to them to decide NOT to allow this. The artist signs the contract, they see what they will get for their plays if they sign the dotted line then all is on the up and up.
Don't get me wrong, this type of payment amount is absurd....no doubt. Davesax, I know you are passionate as a musician...but you might have picked another example than Pharrell, that guy is more than well off. One thing these new artist know is that they cannot make a living just making music and selling records/cds.....he is a movie soundtrack composer, producer, pretty big business guy and being on The Voice pays him some big coin I would expect. Getting $6K for all those streams is for sure the sh*t....but it did not hurt him I am sure. In general I agree with you though.....Pay for your music.
|
|||
  
|
|||
|
|||
|
Angelo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: May 07 2006 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 13244 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:22 |
||
Crap. Nobody forces you to make your music available on a streaming site. And a lot of people listening to it on a streaming would not buy it even if it wasn't on a streaming site. If you don't like the (business model of the) channel, don't use it - instead of whining about it, as I wrote earlier on in this topic. Not personally directed at you, just what I've been saying ever since the whining started.
Edited by Angelo - January 06 2016 at 11:24 |
|||
|
ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
|||
|
|||
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:26 |
||
But is it the artist who agrees to be on Spotify etc or is it their record company on their behalf? |
|||
|
|||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17863 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:35 |
||
That's a good question.......regardless though, to me it would seem a contract between an artist and record/music publishing company would detail out who they distribute to and what everybody gets paid....I can't believe an artist is clueless on what royalties they are due. The days of actors, music artists signing away all their royalty rights is gone......Agents are the savior here, although its a dbl edged sword. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
RyanElliott
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 14 2011 Location: Cardiff Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 17:35 |
||
|
Really brilliant points of view coming from all over.
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 I was in a meeting with Nick Barret and Rob Reed and held a very interesting debate on streaming but I was coming from the opposite side of the spectrum in support of streaming. Nick has pulled most off his music off Spotify quite recently and Rob has never streamed any of his stuff except for BandCamp which I totally understand! However, I am a lot younger and know that most people in my generation listen through streaming now, and I want to put my music in a place where they can find me. The issue for artists in my generation I would say is getting heard over getting paid. If they discover and hear and get enchanted on it from a streaming platform, they may just buy the Vinyl edition! I discovered a lot of artists on Spotify where I've ended up buying the CD, Vinyl, Live show ticket, hand wound programme etc. if the music really resonates with people, people will invest in it, but it can't just be good, it has to be great! Streaming is in a transitory phase. Artists who are succeeding in moving along with the times if they are expressing issues with it are agitating for better deals, because it needs to be better. Imogen Heap is going ahead with Blockchain technology which is a mind boggling idea. If I am really candid though, I think too many artists are spending a lot of their time complaining. Being a bit brutal, the ones complaining are for the most part, the artists who people aren't listening to! But what I have to question is why Spotify mainly gets the bad press? YouTube is probably the reason that Spotify is unable to pay artists more at the moment. (Double standards from Taylor Swift) and Don't get me started on Apple Music which launched last year and is a disaster! One of you made a good point on long songs. I think it will be worth getting clarity on paid aggregation for full listens to 10 minute plus songs. Most prog big hitters that are streaming their music are getting between 100,000 - 1,000000 streams per epic song! As a progressive rock artist, I would say it is a blessing that the whole fanbase is built on devotees, there are some seriously passionate people about music here who will support the artist if they identify with the music which is awesome, you're all awesome! Physical has a prevalent place in this community now much more than a heck of a lot of other music communities. But it's clear that many of you who are listeners are embracing streaming and the opportunities it provides and I think artists should too! |
|||
|
|||
|
ginodi
Forum Groupie 
Joined: September 13 2011 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 62 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 20:15 |
||
|
Rather late to this discussion as usual. I never tried Spotify. I do use You Tube a lot, and I have purchased CD's or went to Itunes to make purchases after hearing what I heard on there. I bought eight albums since Christmas, and it is my biggest bad habit, and I don't even want to let on how many I bought in 2015. Most of what I purchase is from Italian bands, and lots of stuff from the seventies...not sure if they can find most of the members to pay them a royalty check...even it is a dollar or two.
|
|||
|
|||
|
zravkapt
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 12 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6446 |
Posted: January 06 2016 at 20:42 |
||
That's something I've been trying to figure out myself. Some individual artists ask their music to be taken off; some labels have all their artists' discographies on there, while other labels won't let anything go on there. I've heard of people being surprised that their own music was on Spotify, while others argue that it's all in the contracts the artists signed (even if said contract was from before the internet). |
|||
|
Magma America Great Make Again
|
|||
|
|||
|
Livit
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 06 2016 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Posted: January 07 2016 at 02:26 |
||
|
Before going into some of my answers I must say, that I am not a streaming service insider as such, but what I say comes from my own experience as listener and artist.
I believe (but don't know for sure), that from a certain level of public awareness and success an artist or his promotion company can negotiate individual conditions with the streaming providers. As success usually is measured by listens, we get a multiplication factor here, as only artists with already good success will be able to negotiate higher pays for stream listenings. They probably get even more from Spotify and Co. All the others do not get this benefit. This is sad and sounds not fair. On the other hand it actually is fair enough, because today customers (as we are talking about the commercial side of things now) select their preferred streaming service based on 1) monthly costs and 2) if their favourite artists are available. As most of the people listen to popular music (this includes all genres), the availability of top successful artists is essential for the commercial success of a streaming service. That's why Adele, Taylor Swift and many others are in the position to have a degree of control over their financial conditions with a streaming service. And what about the other, less known artists? Well, streaming services, like Apple music, mostly offer radio-like services, which supply music by generated playlists. If an unknown artist is on the service and his music is tagged well, there is a chance, that his music will be played, despite being unknown. This is the chance to get heard. Once a listener "liked" this song, it might get a higher rating and will be chosen for plays more often in future. The problem with this is, that with new progressive rock music apart from the famous classics it will be very hard, if not impossible, to ever reach a commercially interesting level of listens through a streaming service. The marketing concept is based on endless hope, not on actual success and financial returns. This must be clear for everybody trying out this concept.
Well, that's the idea. But, as others already posted here, it is more a hope, if not a dream, that such "listen stream first, then buy hardware" becomes standard. But this is the mandatory condition for an artist to earn significant money. Therefore the concerns about streaming remain and are reasonable.
Times they are a-changing, right. It does not makes sense to ignore this. When speaking about financial returns it is about suppliers ("artists") and customers ("listeners, fans"). As the customer's listening preferences change, the supplier has to adopt. I appreciate, that this rational view on things sounds harsh, but to me it is a fact. The big problem of many, many artists today is, that the times of the big record deals are long over. Even the record companies as such don't exist anymore in the known way. Service providers, like Tunecore are taking over their position and help adopting to the new market requirements. But again: this business model is based on endless hope, that some time in future the artist will get enough money out of this. But will it ever happen? It is hard, very hard, to earn your living just with making music, especially for prog rock artists. If you still want to try, you have to find your peace with the new market requirements. That's the challenge. In my case, just to mention this, I gave up trying to earn my living with making music long ago before streaming services came up. We were kind of successful with LIVIT between 1992 and 1998, especially with the second album "unspoken", but 4 out of the 5 band members never gave up their main jobs and this was the reason why we had to split. We had to prioritize. It was sad for the fans, but when looking from hindsight it was the right decision. Others might have decided differently, though. Today technology allows to make, record, promote and distribute music fairly on your own, which was not possible in the 90's. From this perspective today's possibilities including streaming, YouTube, StageIt, etc. are a massive advantage for the artists. It is like the dream coming true the artists going for independent labels in the 90's had. On the other hand today it is even more difficult to earn your living just from making music, I think. That's the tragic downside. It is important to keep this in mind when considering streaming services as "the future chance" for artists. It might be (0.0001% chance), but likely is not (99.9999% chance). Edited by Livit - January 07 2016 at 02:33 |
|||
|
|||
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 2839 |
Posted: January 07 2016 at 02:35 |
||
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. ;-) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Streaming!
Topic Options
Davesax1965 wrote: