Streaming!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=105402
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 14:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Streaming!
Posted By: RyanElliott
Subject: Streaming!
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 10:57
|
I am very curious to throw this discussion out there, as I think it is one of the biggest debates of the last 12 months, but what are the progressive communities' general views on streaming and artists? Is there too much sense of self-entitlement amongst musicians trying to make a living as an artist due to the internet? Or are musicians getting a really bad deal? Two of my favourite music journalists have completely polarised views on this, both fascinating: Bob Lefsetz - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFBdfVrkfzE" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFBdfVrkfzE and Anil Prasad - http://medium.com/@Innerviews/the-finger-s-on-the-self-destruct-button-8502f3cc4b5c#.h6nmmn19x" rel="nofollow - https://medium.com/@Innerviews/the-finger-s-on-the-self-destruct-button-8502f3cc4b5c#.h6nmmn19x I've got to say, I agree with Lefsetz but what do you think? |
Replies:
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 11:16
|
As far as I am concerned, this is a very good time for this debate. The other night, I reread the exceptional interview that Jim Garten did with Martin Orford on this site. I would,thoroughly recommend that people read it again, because it is absolutely one of the finest I have ever read anywhere. To summarise, Martin retired from the music business owing to the fact that he objected to the fact that he could no longer have a sustainable business model, this, according to him, owing to a combination of illegal downloads, and a pittance paid to artists from legal streaming sites. I might add here, btw, that Martin left IQ for differences over the writing process, not the Internet issue. I also read a later interview with Nick Barrett of Pendragon, another artist I greatly admire, in which he made similar points, and backed Martin to the hilt. Forum members would also note the supporting comments by Rachel (Wilcey), who, I believe, met Nick via an interview she did with him for PA. My view is this. I have never downloaded illegally, because I believe it is tantamount to stealing. An artist deserves to get paid for the work produced, and the nature of the acts we listen to, by and large, do not have that large an audience in the first place. Streaming, however, is a different matter and beast altogether. For a start, sites such as Spotify, iTunes, emusic, and the rest, are perfectly legal. Indeed, I have started to subscribe to iTunes cloud streaming service myself recently, this to have access to a large library on the move (I travel a lot with work), and also to "try before I buy". A good recent example of this is the new Karnataka album, which I purchased after listening to it first on this medium. I am quite old fashioned, in that I like to have a physical product. There are certain acts, Marillion, Pendragon, Hackett, IQ, Edison's Children, to name but a few, where I will buy any new release, usually pre ordering. This is because I am a fan, and a long term one, at that. However, I do find the streaming sites to be very good for listening before I spend money, and I take comfort that they do, at least, pay something over to the artist (any "inadequacies", or "unfairness" in these models are not my doing, and I no longer feel much like trying to change the world after years of trying to do so in the Trade Union movement, and not getting particularly far). The Internet is a fact of life. It ain't going anywhere. Successful acts have harnessed it, and turned it to their advantage. Marillion are a very good example of this. It is right and propert that sites such as this discourage, actively, illegal activity where music downloading is concerned. However, to conclude, I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with people, consumers, legally streaming. Nice thread, Ryan, which I hope can be an interesting, useful, and positive debate on the site  ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 11:51
|
What is the deal with music being provided on streaming services? Aren't the streaming services required to get the permission of the artist, its' managers, or its' label to include the artists' music as part of their streaming service? If yes, then it is hard for me to feel sorry for the artist for agreeing to provide their product for such poor terms. The artist can choose to forego the exposure that they might receive on the streaming services by not providing their music to them. On the other hand, if the streaming services are "pirating" their music and getting around the illegal nature of this by paying the artist a pittance, then I think that there is a problem. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 11:51
|
Pretty much what lazland said. I want my hard copy but streaming is a great way to try something before I buy. Right now I only have two albums in my collection that were download only. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: AEProgman
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 12:15
|
An interesting follow up article by Prasad on an alternative business model for streaming that would benefit the musicians more. Parts of it I kind of like, but not so sure in the long run, it would need tweaking. https://medium.com/@Innerviews/a-fair-music-streaming-model-is-possible-453d4a9b34c2#.qnukrlbb9 I really don't have any objections to streaming services as long it follows what Lazland mentioned, the only one I subscribe to is the XM/Sirius satellite radio (radio and internet). I have discovered new bands that way and went on to purchase albums by them as a result. I always thought it was a double edged sword to artists with streaming services, the musicians can get exposure to their work but not get any substantial gain financially from it (although I do not have any knowledge of what they do or do not get, but can't imagine much). ------------- 
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 12:23
|
Streaming is perfect for what it provides: occasional access, similar to radio, or to check out something you want to listen to before buying it. With no physical record store around, this is the best alternative to having a listen before buying like I did years ago at the local store. If I like something, I will buy the CD (or even the vinyl) anyway. If artists are underpaid, maybe they should behaving more like business men (which they are, from the moment they want to live off their music) and start negotiating with the streaming services, instead of wining in the press. A good example of one who has a (relatively successful) different approach to that is Dave Brons - who recently toured with GB3 (with Dave Bainbridge of Iona and Paul Bieiatowicz of the Carl Palmer band). Check out his blog on http://www.davebrons.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.davebrons.com . He can pay his mortgage and living off what he makes with his music, and even managed to free up enough money to donate the proceeds of his november and december sales to charity in 2015. And yes, I know some of the above is put very black-and-white. Business is business, and business is not about making compromises up front.
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 12:50
|
Hi, Anyone not looking at the history of music, will die regretting anything that happens to it. At one time, music was only known by word of mouth and your friend hummed a bit of it. Later some of it became local bar songs, or theater songs. Later something else ... and later still ... something else ... and so far of these 2K plus years, no one charged anything as far as we know and understand, and it was only on the Shakespeare days that we learned that there were some "tickets" that had prices on them. That means, that no one got paid for nothing, but, as has been suggested in many movies, they were thrown food, and money and whatever else, and later they collected it for themselves? What is really difficult is that the "business" side of the music world has gotten so out of control in stealing, that streaming is considered a steal, specially with so many services that are not paying the artists what they deserve, and instead are stealing the 90% of the money for it ... and no one is doing audits of these folks to find out how much they are actually streaming ... if they are not raking in as much as we think, I have no issues with the artists not getting a whole lot, and I can not suggest that there are more streaming folks out there, that would suggest that musicians are being robbed of millions and millions, when in essence the very folks saying that have been the biggest robbers of all time! And they are the ones ruining the system. I, honestly, do not feel that Martin has a whole lot to complain about, since he is one of the few folks that got lucky ... it feels like the Beatles complaining about the extra millions they did not get. There is another side. I grew up in the early days of bootlegs, when the record companies did not think that rick music had any value whatsoever, and it wasn't until they saw that many people at Woodstock that the business model changed ... even Mr. Graham Fillmore said it ... Woodstock killed the music ... and the wrong people became in charge of it. At that time, there were many bands that allowed the bootlegs, and the 2 most famous have never worried about it, and they are 2 of the richest folks out there when it comes to music and self ... Bob Dylan and The Grateful Dead. They say that every coin has two sides. I, like LAZ, do not stream a whole lot, and do not visit many of those websites, and I already avoid the tube that so many list here, because you know that some artists are not happy with it. However, many artists are extremely happy with it and have gotten a lot of interest and sales because of it ... so what is good for one, is also good for the other. I agree that streaming needs a face lift, but I do not want to see it in the hands of a music company that decides the top ten and you think that those are the only good albums out there ... or do what Virgin did way back when ... start their own top ten, and lie to people, and then all of a sudden, they are selling like crazy ... nothing like a good lie! The main hypocrisy for me, is that Mr. Flying Balls, owes a lot of people a lot of money and three of the most famous ones were Mike Oldfield, Tangerine Dream and Gong ... and you and I know that others were also ripped off, but he is now a Lord (or some sheep dip like it) and everyone thinks he's this and that, and in essence, he was a thief ... and I do not wish to associate many of these websites with someone like him ... a god of thieves that we even worship and fly his airline! I do think that there has to be some accountability ... but are you going to spend 24 hours auditing the 24 feeds that Joe Schmoe has and which songs were played (and not in its entirety!!!!!!) and then which songs were downloaded? That would be two different financial situations. I do not have an answer ... but I will tell you one thing. I have no issues using the tube or some fo these websites to gain my fame, and one day, I pull everything to my own website and close down the distribution of any other music to other sites ... and now, someone is playing with their livelihood for touching your music, see? ... but you better be ready for some fan backlash, upset that you took away their fun, and now they are not going to buy your next album, or bother with your upcoming concert ... it's a two edged sword that will hurt you regardless. Martin, and many others, were lucky and made a lot in their lives. They should really be more thankful of their work and what they received from it. I really have no qualms with his comments, but find the whole thing similar to the greed that so many bands have shown over the years ... and my comment is ... what about the music? Is it really important? Or you really don't care and just want the money? I have enough to live on ... do I really need/want a lot more that I should have that Mr. Flying Balloon stole from me? NO. He can have it ... I don't need his balloons or airplanes and don't want them. I just want to live and love the art! I could use the money, but don't need it! Now, tell me honestly ... who do you trust more? ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 13:04
|
I use Spotify quite a lot and have discovered a lot of new prog acts from it. I know that the artists don't get much money from streaming but in many cases I have bought CDs from the acts as I still prefer to have a physical copy of an album I really like. I also listen to albums I already own on CD, because I work from home 2 days a week and have Spotify on the laptop all day. In these cases, although it's not a lot, the artists are getting money they wouldn't be getting if I just played the CDs. |
Posted By: omphaloskepsis
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 14:11
|
I listen for free on progstreaming.com or bandcamp. I listen to the streams and I buy the albums I like. I bought 17/19 of 2015 progressive rock releases in this manner. (I preordered Steven Wilson and Leporous) Then I use the Progarchive Collaborators Year End List of Prog to backfill album releases I missed, because they weren't on the progstreaming site. I'm old fashion. I never download anything. I've never used ITunes, Spotifly, or the others.
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 14:59
|
Exactly what Steve (lazland) said......I don't use the internet streaming sites like those mentioned. I do use the old Zune Marketplace, I think now called GrooveMusic by Microsoft. Been a subscriber since 2006 and have paid a monthly subscription since. That is where I listen to music and use it to decide if I want to own the physical copy, if not I am fine as I am paying a monthly fee to listen as much as I want. It's not up to me how much the artist gets, they need to make that decision themselves before signing on the dotted line with these services, if they don't like the return then they can pull their catalog off, recently like Prince has done. On the other hand you have the Fab Four best boy band in the world, Beatles  , who have just made their catalog available....Since this came out about a month ago, on GrooveMusic they are now the top downloaded/purchased/listened to rock artist. Somehow or another you should buy/pay for your music....if not it's stealing. -------------   
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 15:23
|
Not that I am complaining, because I enjoy listening to albums on Spotify or Amazon Prime, but it seems odd to me that bands make their entire album available for streaming. I can see making their "Radio hits" available for streaming to supplement the fact that these "Radio hits" don't get played on the radio any more, but to provide the entire album for streaming is a disincentive for people to buy the album. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Yes, collectors such as ourselves are a different breed who actually buy what we like but the general public prefer free milk. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 15:27
|
Continuing that thought from a why the entire album is available point: getting a pittance from streaming is a tiny step above from getting nothing from pirating. It does appear as though more prog bands are shunning the streaming and selling downloads and only offering CD purchases or downloads on their websites, their label's websites, or sites like SoundCloud or BandCamp. They are more difficult and expensive for their fans to gain access and may turn off more casual fans but it is a business model that I have been seeing more of lately. -------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 15:31
|
^ Good point Scott.....Other issue is I bet the vast majority of listeners on these streaming sites are teenage kids, Jr high, HS and even elementary.....they are not "buyers" of music. That being said if the artist only concern is getting their music out there with the hope that some of it will be bought, then ok...but don't complain when you have zippo for sales. My youngest son is 16yr old......To my knowledge he has not bought any CDs or music online or any store. By the time I was his age I probably had 200 albums in cassette, 8-track and vinyl formats and a smattering of 1/4" reel tapes too. I bought the cow, not only did I get milk but I got hamburgers and steak...... -------------
|
Posted By: garfunkel
Date Posted: January 05 2016 at 15:31
|
I use Spotify for probably 80% of my listening, so you'd know I don't have problem with streaming. I've also bought around 35 albums, all in the last year when I found that I love music, as well as several bandcamp downloads. I've illegally downloaded one album (Orang-Utan), here's why: "I have to comment on this remarkable group and their case history in retrospect: It’s pretty damn sad that after having paid for the then “State of The Art” recorded studio time that went into making up their excellent early Heavy Rock album, with zero credit whatsoever at the time and now having several subsequent CD reissues since, that these same actual band members of which some are still active musicians today, have yet to receive a single cent for all their early stellar hard work!" - http://waxidermy.com/orang-utan-same-1970-bell-records/" rel="nofollow - http://waxidermy.com/orang-utan-same-1970-bell-records/ I've bought 4 King Crimson albums (most out of any band). Smart move on KC, they're too good for streaming. |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 03:16
As usual from Lazland, lucid and apposite comments which I endorse entirely. Illegal downloading is theft and I've never done it; streaming isn't, and the clever bands can indeed use this to their advantage. Personally, though, I far prefer 180g of vinyl to a file on my computer. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
lazland wrote:Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 05:05
One thing to remember is that streaming depends on an internet connection. Yes, you can store tracks from Spotify locally but it's a proprietary format and there's a limit on how many tracks you can download. I listen to most of my music on the Tube whilst commuting to and from work so streaming is not an option there, nor is it in my car. Hence, although I use Spotify I still buy CDs. |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 05:17
|
Streaming is an absolute complete utter rip off if you're a musician. Support it and music will die. Simple as that. ------------- |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 05:49
You seem intimately acquainted with Martin Orford's finances. Perhaps you do not know them that well. The last I heard, he was looking for a full-time job and living on benefits (which were about to run out) in a small terraced house. He actually made very little money from his music and supported himself with a full time job managing GEP; to my knowledge, all the other members of IQ have employment as well. Most progressive rock musicians (except a few, very fortunate ones) live on a financial knife edge and need to sell their music to live. Freeloaders and thieves (which is what illegal downloaders are) ruin that situation and the result is that we lose musicians like Martin. Sure Martin is lucky in that he was able to get his music out there and become (in the prog world) a famous and highly respected artist. But don't fall for the myth that he got rich. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 05:51
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 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d9129d38-0e94-11e5-8aca-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3d8acqAFQ" rel="nofollow - 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," http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/pandora-our-0-001-per-stream-payout-is-very-fair/" rel="nofollow - said Pandora founder Tim Westergren, "and we’re sharing that revenue very fairly with the artist community.”" ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 06:00
|
Let me be blunt. Streaming is a total ripoff. Anyone who supports it is killing music - real music. Artists get absolutely nothing - pennies - for their work. It may be a very good deal for the consumer, who can console themselves with the idea that they're paying for streaming music "and therefore some of that goes back to the artist". Er, no. Streaming costs a fortune to run and most of it goes back into the websites, servers, or the pockets of a few people. Not to the artists. Everyone here on this site consumes hand made, low sales volume music crafted - I use the word advisedly - by proper musicians. These musicians do it for the love, in the main, but they have to make some kind of living as well. Not all musicians, in fact, the great majority, will never make enough money to "give up the day job". And that's fine, we accept it. But no one is going to accept being ripped off forever. And this is a rip off. If you're a fan - a proper one - buy the music, support the artist. If not, you are, quite frankly, a parasite. This is a two way relationship between artist and public. It seems to be pretty much bu88ered up at the moment. Streaming sites came along pretty quickly - things change fast in the modern age. Suppose all decent musicians decide that they've had enough of being ripped off and there are no fans left - at which point, they all play for themselves and their own amusement ? At that point, you will be left with (a) the back catalogue and (b) a group of rappers playing "beatz" on streaming sites. By all means use streaming sites to listen to new music..... but if you then don't actually buy it, there will come a day when no one is willing to produce new music for you. Supply and demand. ------------- |
Posted By: chopper
Date 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. |
Posted By: Livit
Date 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. ;-) |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date 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 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d9129d38-0e94-11e5-8aca-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3d8acqAFQ" rel="nofollow - 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," http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/pandora-our-0-001-per-stream-payout-is-very-fair/" rel="nofollow - said Pandora founder Tim Westergren, "and we’re sharing that revenue very fairly with the artist community.”"" ------------- |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 10:02
|
How much does Pharrell get per radio play of "Happy"? Just wondering. |
Posted By: chopper
Date 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. |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date 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. ;-) ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date 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..... ------------- |
Posted By: Livit
Date Posted: January 06 2016 at 11:09
Unfortunately correct. This underlines my words, that streaming only works with high rotation pieces.
|
Posted By: Livit
Date 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.
|
Posted By: VOTOMS
Date 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. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date 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. -------------
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date 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.
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: chopper
Date 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? |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date 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. -------------
|
Posted By: RyanElliott
Date 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 " rel="nofollow - 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" rel="nofollow - 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! |
Posted By: ginodi
Date 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. |
Posted By: zravkapt
Date 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 |
Posted By: Livit
Date 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). |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date 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. ;-) ------------- |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 06:06
I thought he was referring to your use of Bandcamp rather than Spotify. |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 06:50
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?
 ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 06:54
Neither, see above. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Meltdowner
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 07:26
I hear a lot of music on streaming at work, it's where I discover new music that I later buy to listen at home... also because it's not practical to bring a pile of CD's every day  I can buy on CD, vinyl and even cassette but I never buy digital files.
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 07:43
I put my downloads and rips of my CDs on my network drive at home, and every week take a selection from that to put in my phone, for use at work and in the car ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 07:53
|
Hi Angelo, yes, to be fair - good point. Unfortunately, the modern musician has to be adept at self promotion and advertisement to get anywhere. It's a shame, but let's all live in the real world. ;-) 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.
------------- |
Posted By: timbo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 08:00
To me this says Pharrell is being ripped off by his record deals, not by streaming. 0.0014 cents/play equates to $147,000, not $6300. Pharrell/Sony are apparently getting less than 5% of what Pandora pays. Where is the rest going? Presumably some to the songwriter (not sure if that is Pharrell or someone else). Not sure who else, if Sony has to take their cut from the remaining $6300. Tim |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 08:06
|
Good points, but there is enough critisism of the model around to make me believe things will change (again) - perhaps for the better this time. Nothig is carved in stone. 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" rel="nofollow - http://www.davebrons.com . ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 08:07
| I used to prefer the hard copies, either CDs or Vinyl, but gradually I've come to appreciate the digital format more and more, mainly for the convenience of being able to carry my whole library in one device, so I can listen to anything I want when I'm away from home. Provided you have a good stereo or a quality pair of headphones, the sound is quite good. Streaming gives me the opportunity to sample some music before I buy it, so it's a good thing I guess. I've discovered many artists this way. |
Posted By: ginodi
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 08:35
| Same here. I can carry over 200 albums on my Ipod. One time I thought I misplaced the device and almost went crazy until I found it. I could lose my phone, but the Ipod stays with me and is protected like my wallet. |
Posted By: Meltdowner
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 08:58
 I have a 16GB USB drive in the car with some CD rips, but I only change the music three times a year, I'm too lazy  Besides, I'm 21 and so my collection is not big, I could probably listen to all my CD's in a month or two if I would do that
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 09:26
|
Me too. Everything on the MP3 player - everything - is something I've bought, either via download or CD, and then downloaded onto the player. Couldn't live without it. Angelo, I think you're right, the current model is..... well, the result of short term unsustainable thinking. I think what will happen is that we'll effectively get the rise of not exactly the record label again, but smaller weblabels producing artists whose music - or extended catalogue - can only be got via subscription. And I think that some bands will adopt the same model - the Enid did it years and years ago. 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". ------------- |
Posted By: timbo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 09:40
|
Isn't part of the problem the fact that in the 1970s, some musicians (including many prog musicians) got super rich? Then everyone expected to get super rich, record companies included. They started to structure their deals to maximise profits (money men always chase the money), and the deals for artists started to get worse except for the established stars who could guarantee sales and negotiated on the back of that. We're living with the burden of that expectation, when even back then it was confined to the very few. The pendulum has now swung the other way, and no record company will take a risk because they're not going to make any money out of a struggling prog artist. The only ones that do well are the established stars of the 70s who can still pull in monster sales and charge Ł100 for concert tickets, or the manufactured X-factor generation, carefully steered and controlled not to do anything out of line. Outside of that, you have no chance. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 09:47
|
Does anyone know how Progstreaming works? Do they pay the artists per streams? Do they pay the artist a fixed amount for the right to provide their album for streaming? Or is it more of a promotional thing where the artist agrees to allow the album to be streamed for free for a month or two with the knowledge that they are receiving publicity for their music? Or do the artists pay Progstreaming for the right to have their album included there because of the publicity that they receive by doing so? This seems to me to be the way to go for niche artists. Rather than being lost in the jungle of Spotify or Pandora, they would seem to have more exposure on a niche site that specializes in their niche. The number of streams being limited to a number of free streams or only available for a fixed period of time would likely encourage listeners to buy these albums before they disappear. -------------
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:03
|
Hi Timbo - ummmmm. I think it's more complicated than that. Yep, a few supergroups got incredibly rich. That was quite some time ago. The problem is that a concept started up that "music equals fame and money". Everyone uses this idea - to rip "musicians" off. This is why a Gibson will cost you Ł2,500. Basically, a certain number of musicians buy into a dream. Of course, this dream is 99% impossible. ;-) Bad musicians - there are plenty - go on stage and play for MONEY. Or for attention. When they get no money and no attention, they soon give up. This is all the marketing and ad men understand as well, hence the music industry. And Spotify, et al. You are, if you're a member of Joe Public, not really buying money. You're buying "product" disguised as music. However, there is a hard core of proper musicians out there who just play for the love of it, mainly. These are the people who you see playing small gigs and holding down day jobs, under no illusions about fame or fortune. Ideally, they'd like to be able to give up the day job and play 24/7. This used to be possible three or so decades ago. The money from a small gig and vinyl sales (if you could scrape the money together to get a pressing together) combined with merchandise sales kept quite a few working bands going. Even this is becoming pretty much impossible now, what with "pay to play", PA hire, lighting hire etc going through the roof. If I want to do a vinyl pressing, I have to find Ł1000- 1500 and spreading the word takes all of my time up. The problem with the general public seeing music as "free" - which is now becoming the accepted idea with sites such as Spotify - is that sales disappear. The hard core proper musicians will keep going, but.... would you buy into this ? ;-) Yes, times have changed and you can have a whole music studio in a spare bedroom. Instruments are effectively much cheaper than in the 70's, in a lot of cases. I have enough equipment for a moon shot. I didn't 40 years ago, that's for sure, nor could I have afforded it. But. It is becoming totally impossible for even hardcore musicians to make a single penny, as the concept is now that music is "free". Not everyone will make it. But if no one makes it, and that becomes obvious, no one will sign up to be a proper musician in the first place. You can only take so much disappointment. ;-) With me, money is NOT the motivation. I've been playing a long time. Even giving music away for free doesn't work, it generates a lack of respect for it, to be honest. Every single "proper musician" I know is utterly disillusioned and plays because they love the music. If it becomes financially impossible to book small gigs because the pot's dried up..... very bad sign indeed. If the trickledown effect of Pandora, Spotify et al is to somehow taint and devalue ALL music, God help us. ;-) I think Angelo is right, things will change. If it's because a few people at the top of the food chain aren't making money one way, they'll think of another one. ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:05
|
Rushfan - I'd actually sign up for Progstreaming. Why ? "Suitable venue". I don't mind it if it's going to be heard by the right people. I very much doubt Progstreaming will be paying me anything anytime soon, either. ;-) No, checked, free either way. Actually, I feel happier with that. Tell you what, I'll set my disbeliefs about streaming to one side for a while and upload one album. Let's see if this generates cross sales for the rest of the catalogue. Any bets, ladies and gents ? ;-) ------------- |
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:12
|
Hi. I want to talk about another face of Streaming sites. I am living in IRAN. I know many of music fans (specially Progressive Rock) that don't have access to their fav music easily. POP and Rock and Metal music find in IRAN easier than genres like Progressive Rock. I access to my fav music and I don't talk about myself but I have money and I have family outside Iran and ... but most of Iranian People don't have those things that I have. They can use "only" Streaming sites and blogs. And another thing : Many of music Sites and Blogs are filtered in IRAN and fans must find some ways to breaking filter . Progressive Rock fans have many troubles to access to their fav music.
|
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:22
I know that the owner of Progstreaming personally asks the artists and/or label for permission, and sometimes gets turned down. I don't think there is any payment going either way, its all promotion. ------------- Magma America Great Make Again |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:23
|
Hi O666, I fully sympathise. But by the same token, that's like saying an artist should just give his music away. If I dropped the price of an album to $1, would most prog rock fans in Iran buy it ? If they have access to streaming sites, they seem to have been able to afford a computer, so $1 doesn't seem unreasonable. ;-) ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:28
|
Yeah, Progstreaming sounds OK. I'll give it a go. What do I like about it ? By prog fans for prog fans, no big business, no pretence of paying musicians... why not ? But I doubt there'll be cross sell. ;-) Incidentally, here's some Bandcamp stats for you. Last 12,000 visits, nearly... most visits do not come from Progarchives. In fact, less than 1%. The Muffwiggler site is a site for electronic music fans who build their own synths. Most are from within Bandcamp itself. People don't do click throughs. So you have to ask yourself: if a prog rock band advertising on a prog rock forum get less than 1% of people looking them up when they've placed a lot of stuff on here (672 posts) then will the prog rock band on a streaming website have people deliberately looking them up on Bandcamp as a result of hearing them on another website ? Not very likely, is it ? ;-)
------------- |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:47
That would be hell.... ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:49
It's free for the artists, and they're streamed for 2 months. The site and its maintenance are paid for through donations and advertisements. http://www.progstreaming.com/_wb/pages/about-us.php" rel="nofollow - http://www.progstreaming.com/_wb/pages/about-us.php ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 10:54
672 posts on a forum is a lot, by some standards. Question is how many views these posts got. Depending on the forum section they're put in, and the time the are posted, they will be seen by more or fewer of the intended audience. A forum like this is, for a lot of people, not the first place they go looking for new music. That would also explain why Bandcamp itself (Where people do go for that reason) produces more hits on your music. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 11:37
|
Most of the music that I own I get off of bandcamp directly from artists for free, but I still spend more on music than most people with paying for engineering/etc. I understand that music holds little value to the public so I don't expect things like success. I need to make my own favorite albums and nothing else. It really sucks that no one can make money off of it anymore. Most of my favorite musicians have to work day jobs... I guess in the end that slows down the creativity for the world. But I also think no one making money off of music weeds out the losers. ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 12:56
Most musicians I have ever met, live on the edge ... but some that I have also met, have another edge, and while streaming may be a problem for some, it isn't for others! Fer crying out loud ... the likes of Dream Theater, Marillion and many other bands, ended up making their future off a lot of sharing of the music when they needed it. I am not an illegal dl'r and would not advise my friends to steal from our friends and the like, and my whole collection of LP's and CD's is all bought, baby ... all of it! And through out my life, I even lost my job because I said ... "love over gold" ... but in the end, I am proud of having stood up for the right situation, and the other folks ended up in the dumps deservedly so, for lying, cheating and the like. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: January 07 2016 at 15:57
I agree with everything you said, Steve! Happy New Year!
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 07:02
Hi Angelo, you may recall that one particular thread we had a discussion on recently had over 2,300 views. I'm in IT sales and marketing as a day job, so take it as read that I know how to shift - well, software, at least. ;-) ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 07:06
Hi Smurph, I don't know if that's quite the right interpretation. If we say "No one at all will make any money off music, full stop" - which is becoming the case, with the exception of a tiny, tiny, tiny few people, all of whom are producing commercial music.... that doesn't weed out the losers. It weeds out everyone. Supply and demand then kicks in as musicians..... stop bothering. To assume people will keep creating music which coincides with your (and my) particular niche market tastes when there is zero money in it and nothing but continual rip offs..... is pretty much a big assumption. ;-) ------------- |
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 08:59
Hi Smurph, I don't know if that's quite the right interpretation. If we say "No one at all will make any money off music, full stop" - which is becoming the case, with the exception of a tiny, tiny, tiny few people, all of whom are producing commercial music.... that doesn't weed out the losers. It weeds out everyone. Supply and demand then kicks in as musicians..... stop bothering. To assume people will keep creating music which coincides with your (and my) particular niche market tastes when there is zero money in it and nothing but continual rip offs..... is pretty much a big assumption. ;-) Why would a musician stop bothering just because there is no money? Some people have a need to create that goes far beyond what any other human cares about. If everyone on the planet died, I would have to spend a lot more time surviving but I would still create albums. I would rather not listen to a musician that would give up so easily. ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: Komandant Shamal
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 10:18
Why would a musician stop bothering just because there is no money? Some people have a need to create that goes far beyond what any other human cares about. If everyone on the planet died, I would have to spend a lot more time surviving but I would still create albums.
I would rather not listen to a musician that would give up so easily. [/QUOTE] 
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 11:17
|
No, no, gentlemen, that attitude stinks and it represents what's happening in the music world. People seem to have forgotten it's *a two way relationship*. Fans support bands Bands play for fans And that's what's wrong with the modern music scene. If you expect someone to do something for you *for free and as a favour* then you can't really complain if they don't. A fan, simply put, is someone who supports a band. Not someone who just likes the music. Compliments are very nice but essentially, try eating them. I'm just as happy to play with like minded musicians in a practice room.
------------- |
Posted By: Meltdowner
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 11:31
 I saw this yesterday, it reminded me of this conversation.
|
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 12:30
This attitude might stink to you but all I'm doing is responding to the way the world is. We can't make people think that music has value. My response is to keep making music anyway until I die. I'd be happy to hand out a free album to anyone that personally asked for it. I'd also give 1$ to anyone that would be willing to sit down and listen to one of my albums with their eyes closed and headphones on, focusing on nothing else. If someone would film video of themselves doing that (make sure I can hear the bleed from the headphones being super loud), then write even a scathing review, and I'd send someone 1 dollar. I value my own art more than ANYONE will ever value it. I would bet you money that I couldn't pay most people to focus and care about what I do. And I'm fine with that. It sucks, but I've accepted how little value music has anymore. I'm contributing to the devaluing of music because I'd rather die than stop making albums. I can't seem to understand people that seem to think that they have value. We have no value. Every Tom, Dick, and Jane is an "artist" or "musician" now. Our insignificance is insurmountable. There is nothing we can do. In fact, most of the music I make is not a favor to anyone. In fact, I would say that its existence is more of a burden on the world than it is a positive thing. But I have to do it or else.
I agree that artists should be paid but how can we change the shifting group think of mass culture? ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 18:54
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 19:12
|
Posted By: Komandant Shamal
Date Posted: January 08 2016 at 21:09
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 09 2016 at 05:34
|
God, have you been hornswoggled or what ? "Word of a true artist" - well. I release a lot of music for free. I give away a lot of albums for free. I'm not bothered about the money, it's not the primary concern. Hardly even a concern, in fact. What I AM bothered about is being ripped off. Nor do I want to rip anyone off. Music should be presented at a fair price to fans who should SUPPORT bands by buying it at a fair price. Dream Theater recently released a 4 CD set for $129. That is a total and utter rip off. Festival tickets are a complete rip off, too. Why do bands do it ? Well, in most cases, it's the management doing it - and if, frankly, Joe Public won't pay money for music, bands will get their own back by charging them more to attend a concert. The attitude of "Oh, I can't afford it, I won't pay for it" is what's brought us down to this mess. What's really meant is "Oh, I can get away without paying for it". Or. "What personally suits my circumstances is right". Wrong, totally wrong. Why has it become socially acceptable to not pay for music and to imagine that "proper" bands will keep on playing for nothing, buy equipment, buy studio time, go on tour, with no income ? Get real. ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 09 2016 at 05:39
|
PS Meltdowner, I love that graphic. ;-) Apologies if I sound ... irritated by the idea that I should play for nothing or I'm not "a true artist". I wonder why that is ? In the interim, I'll resist the temptation to double the price of all my Bandcamp releases, based on the idea that I'm doing specialist music for a limited market. Which is something a lot of bands could do - want specialised music ? Pay a fortune. "You may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb". Suppose I'm a cabinet maker. I go off and make a fantastic table out of flame maple. It takes me months - after taking years to learn all the skills and a fortune investing in the tools. Someone says, wow, nice table. I can't afford it. Give it to me. Same logic. Oh yes, if I say, "no", then I'm apparently not a master cabinet maker. Also, if I ask 32 million for it, I'm ripping a potential buyer off. Fair price for the goods, fair deal for the cabinet maker, fair deal for the buyer. Suppose no one buys. Eventually, all the cabinet makers say "No money in this" and go off and flip burgers. It takes me 10 months of all my spare time and money to make an album. That's more time than it would take to make a cabinet. The logic is VERY simple.
------------- |
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: January 09 2016 at 08:34
Hi. We (Iranians) can't pay for music in internet! I don't know why?! Paypal or Visa or ... don't support Iran country! It's so outrageous that a nation deprived to buy music in internet. Is it reasonable?! |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 09 2016 at 08:56
|
I do sympathise, but, by that logic, all goods on the internet should be free to Iranians who can't buy by Paypal. And that seems very .... wrong. ;-) ------------- |
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: January 09 2016 at 09:18
|
Hi I want to talk about my opinion about Streaming as a Progressive Rock fan and I Ignore troubles in my country. I agree with Streaming and I don't think streaming hurt musicians. For Example "COLDPLAY" band. Their new album(s) presented in Streaming sites as soon as it released BUT people buy their album and pay for them. We must Categorize musicians for this. POP and Rock and Metal stars and Famous musicians sell their releases with or without Streaming sites.One question : Is it reasonable that I pay for Unknown band or artist that never heard anything from them?! My answer is NO. I must listen to their music (as a sample) then pay for it and I can use Streaming sites for this. IMO streaming sites help to young musicians to present their music and find their own fans. There are too many good bands that never "Listened" and never found their own place in music market. Tours, Live Concerts , T Shirts and ... make money for KNOWN bands. I hope you get my point clearly.
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 09 2016 at 09:57
|
"I don't think streaming hurt musicians" - well, no one HAS to sign up for it, as a musician. But those who do are paid appallingly. We all seem to agree on that. "BUT people buy their album and pay for them." - unfortunately not. People just seem to use streaming sites as a free radio station. You just mentioned that you can't use Paypal in Iran.... so how are you going to actually pay for music you've heard on a streaming site ? " Is it reasonable that I pay for Unknown band or artist that never heard anything from them?! My answer is NO. " - mine, too !!! No one would expect you to do that. However, you can anyway, and not use streaming sites to listen to music. "IMO streaming sites help to young musicians to present their music and find their own fans. " - in my opinion, as a musician, they don't. People just use it as one big, free radio and never actually buy the music. The problem is that music is being presented to the general public as "nearly free". "Tours, Live Concerts , T Shirts and ... make money for KNOWN bands." This is very true. To get to a point where you can do that, you have to have built up a fan base who will buy merchandise, tickets, etc. The trouble is that I can't see many people listening to streaming sites and buying music as a result afterwards. It's all presented as "You don't really have to pay for it, of course." So it just devalues music. Listen to a band on YouTube or Bandcamp and then buy their music if you like them. But please DO - however you listen to it- buy the music at some point. Streaming sites are just used as free music radio by the vast majority of people. And that's a bad thing. ------------- |
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: January 09 2016 at 18:43
|
O666: I'm guessing that international sanctions against your country are the reason you cannot use Visa or Paypal... ------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 06:40
Makes you wonder how they DO pay for music in some countries. I think the simple answer is that they don't. ------------- |
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 08:42
Oh no. You don't know me and you judge me and its upset me. I said to you that I don't talk about myself but unfortunately you use another things to proof yourself!!! You are not "Reasonable" . I can't and don't want to say to you how I pay for music that I like and this isn't your business! You talked about Streaming not me! I saw guys like you in forums so much. You repeated ONLY 1 thing without hear to anyone. You choose wrong way to discuss. I prefer to talk with Reasonable guys about music not about Personal and dangerous things.
|
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 08:49
Yes. You right 100%. In one hand west political guys talk about freedom and democracy and in other hand their sanctions don't let Iranians to buy music or ... in internet! I heard some of these sanctions will break soon. (I don't know using break is right or wrong! ) . Thanks a lot for mention to sanctions.
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 10:11
|
That's a bit odd, I was mainly agreeing with you. ;-) Apologies for any offence caused ! As a PS, I have a number of Iranian friends and don't agree with sanctions against Iran, but best to keep politics out of the discussion.
------------- |
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 10:31
|
No my friend (I know you as a friend that I disagree with him). You accused me to lie. It isn't fair. Believe me I don't listen to Streaming sites everyday. I like to have my fav music with Best quality and complete information. I prefer to buy CDs than pay for Download. I have a great (IMO) archive of Progressive Rock music and I payed for most of them from 30-31 years earlier till now. I want to be honest. Sometimes I saw a new band name that labeled with Progressive Rock sub genres. In this conditions , I refer to one of Streaming sites to hear what they play. If I like them , I got their album.
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 11:01
|
That's great. You buy the music, which makes you a proper fan. Well done. ;-) And that is the best way to use streaming sites. I wish everyone did. ------------- |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 11:05
Glad you guys agree. Omid, the word 'you' in the sentence 'so how are you going to pay' does not refer to you as a person, but to people in general. It's a bit odd to read it like that if English is not your native language, but I am very sure that Dave was not trying to accuse you here - he's far to friendly and polite for that. :) EDIT: Dave, let me make this work two ways. I've been in touch with Omid before, and he is sincere here as well. We talked about music that we both bought when we were you (and our tastes seem to match), and we actually own quite a few of the same albums it turns out. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 11:12
|
Hi Angelo and Omid - thanks, Angelo. Omid, honestly, I was only speaking generally and wouldn't think of accusing you of anything. You are using streaming sites properly, as they should be. That's great and I wish everyone was. All the best ! ------------- |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 11:57
Welcome Dave, I owed you one after our similar issue over the word 'you' last week  ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: O666
Date Posted: January 10 2016 at 13:00
|
Hi Angelo You right. I talked about myself and Dave talked about people generally. I thought about that deeply but I can't say Streaming is bad. Dave right. Perhaps many people use Streaming sites badly but they are mistake not Streaming site. Oooh its hard for me to explain clearly my opinion. Another question is If you close Streaming Sites , Are you sure people that use them, now pay for music? Perhaps some of them do this but (with Dave point of view) most of them try to find another FREE way. I don't think Streaming sites hurt musicians very hard. Now another point : You can using a Knife for ordinary reasons like cooking or cuting fruits or ... and someone can Kill a man with that knife. Are we must stop produce Knife?! ofcourse not. Maybe you say to me , these 2 condition are Un-Comparable but we can think about that. I want to talk to you Dave : I guess I make a new "Misunderstanding". Honestly I thought you accused me to lie but Now I'm sure you didn't . Sorry if I upset you Dave. Thanks for your replies. |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 11 2016 at 07:05
|
No worries, gents - a subject we all feel very passionately about ! ;-) ------------- |