[Closed] Streaming guilt. What to do?

Bandcamp is better for the artists

I have never ‘indulged’ in Spotify due to their lack of support of artists (they are too parasitical for my taste) but recently have ended up buying too much via amazon so I’m not exactly blameless.

I always reckoned that if you don’t support artists you like and enjoy then they won’t be able to keep producing stuff for you to listen to.

Recently I have ended up buying a couple DDL/physical product for Fiona Apple and Gillian Welch (at a fair uplift) directly from their own websites (and from the states!). I reckon this is probably the best support they can get...

I’d also have bought DDL from Maria Jose Llergo if such an option was available (instead of YouTubing it whenever I want to listen...)

I've stayed clear of streaming services so far, mainly because I like having an album to look at.  However I'm coming around to downloads as the environmental impact from vinyl is pretty big.  The issue i now have is finding high quality downloads to buy. Everything looks to be available as mp3 but not FLAC or WAV.

Places like bandcamp and bleep are good but not all artists are covered. Having difficulty tracking down new releases in better formats is frustrating and I end up back with vinyl or a cd to rip myself.

I think the record industry has decided that streaming is the way forward and some labels don't bother with high quality downloads.  This has led me to believe that I'm in the minority of wanting to buy high quality downloads so there isn't a market for lots of artists.

Luckily most of the stuff I like is on bleep or bandcamp, however there are a lot of albums not available like this, even physical releases seem to be forgotten, which will push me towards streaming...

I've fallen into the trap of Spotify being the convenient choice. I only really use it walking to work, but would love an alternative.

Even if it meant starting to buy/download most of the stuff I listen too.

What's the best way of doing things? Is there a good, easy to use player that would be able to take advantage of my downloads?

I use spotify but still buy cd's from artists I like, although many of my current favs are now dead so I dont worry about them

Hmm. I now listen to approximately 100x more music than I otherwise would, if I had to buy CDs, as do my wife and eldest daughter.

I suspect that the total sum going to artists from our bank account might actually be higher now.

I still buy a few cd's. Best thing to do after the plague is go to events or gigs.

Yeah to be fair, I have a lot of CDs I've bought over the years and been to plenty of gigs.

Never hurts to discover Spotify alternatives. I miss the iPod days! 🙂

Hmm. I now listen to approximately 100x more music than I otherwise would, if I had to buy CDs, as do my wife and eldest daughter.

I suspect that the total sum going to artists from our bank account might actually be higher now.

well if you’re not paying £100x more then you can see how the issue with streaming services paying artists arises.

the problem the music industry has with digital distribution is they resisted the move to digital for too long. Devices were being sold with the capacity to hold 1000s, 10,000s, 100,000s of songs and there was no legitimate way to put music on them so the default way to do that was through piracy.

that means the established value of a digital copy of musical recording is ‘£zero’

companies like Spotify can only sell their service if they offer access to a massive music library for a modest sum so that to customer the cost per song still feels like zero. What customers feel like they are buying is the ability to listen to free music whilst paying not to hear adverts.

As a (objective) Record label employee I know only too well both sides of the coin. I often find these articles really poorly researched or explained, So many circumstances & very little context delivered.

What I would say is if you wish to support an artist to a greater length, buy a live ticket, cd, T-Shirt, some even have gofundme or donation type accounts! don't feel guilty about using a streaming service.

Another one who avoided Spotify for ages but now uses it all the time. For the price I get so much music that it's so much better than buying physical CD's for me. It also means I've discovered lots of smaller artists, some of who I've seen live as they are touring. Hopefully that balances out the low pay per play.

The only way I can think of that artists could get more money for each play would be if they upped the subscription price as the current £9.99 just seems far too low personally. They could easily double it without too much backlash but then they have the issue of others undercutting them. It's a tough one to solve.

Have taken advantage of everyone’s rabid desire for the streaming craze and managed to buy pretty much any album I want for a pittance 2nd hand. I’ve had people give me their CDs as they couldn’t be bothered selling them.

maccruiskeen

the problem the music industry has with digital distribution is they resisted the move to digital for too long. Devices were being sold with the capacity to hold 1000s, 10,000s, 100,000s of songs and there was no legitimate way to put music on them so the default way to do that was through piracy.

that means the established value of a digital copy of musical recording is ‘£zero’

Worth mentioning the tech industry & music Industry are not the same thing, unless you're apple of course

buying a couple DDL/physical product for Fiona Apple

Winner! Much underrated over here.

Have taken advantage of everyone’s rabid desire for the streaming craze and managed to buy pretty much any album I want for a pittance 2nd hand. I’ve had people give me their CDs as they couldn’t be bothered selling them.

So the artist makes less from you than they do from a streaming service! I am listening to artists I would never just buy a CD on spec from so they are getting revenue from me (albeit a very small amount) they would not otherwise do so.

If it is an album I particularly like though I usually end up buying the vinyl if available and again, I would not have even considered their work in the first place if it were not for hearing it via a streaming service first (Tidal and Qobuz for me).

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/how-to-support-artists-coronavirus-guide-968378/

The problem isn’t us using Spotify, it’s them and others treating artists unfairly. But how this can change I don’t know. Bit like asking Tescos to pay their suppliers more. They can get away with it, so they don’t, and we still shop there because most of us don’t have the time and money to get everything from small ethical sources. Or like asking Amazon and Google to pay some tax every now and then.

Income for artists from streaming is pathetic.

https://twitter.com/tasminlittle/status/1262323181228036097

I looked at this about a year ago and IIRC Tidal paid 3x as much as Spotify and Apple about 2x, though things may have changed since then. If you want to support an artist there's just no substitute for going to gigs or buying downloads or physical product, preferably from their own site if there is one. Of course that won't come close to the convenience of having a massive music library on tap and on a whim, which is why I use Tidal.

I think artist's expectations have been set unrealistically high by the 80s where you became a millionaire overnight from a hit single. The fact artists no longer make a fortune from recorded music isn't a bad thing in itself (IMO). The landscape has shifted and they now make most of their money from touring. Ok, mid-CV when you can't tour they're not going to be making fortunes, but then these aren't normal times.

Spotify isn't profitable, so I'm not sure where the artists expect the extra money to come from?

https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/82445/spotify-conquered-music-industry-no-profit-streaming

Even if you doubled Spotify's monthly sub, it's not going to make a big difference to artists, but would probably push a load more users back to just pirating everything - which is free....

I often still use youtube even if I have the album as I cannot be bovered to dig it out though.

As above - live tickets/merch at shows is the best way to give money to a band. I'll normally see about 50+ gigs a year, though generally at the local band/small national touring level.

2020 ain't been that good for going to see bands though...

The fact artists no longer make a fortune from recorded music isn’t a bad thing in itself

Some do, but only the really big ones. Ed Sheeran has made over $9m from just one track. It's been streamed over 2bn times. In the rare cases like that income from a streaming service vastly exceed what he could have hoped to get from selling downloads or CDs/albums simply because they'd have been one-off instances rather than someone playing it from Spotify every morning of their commute.

slowoldman

Income for artists from streaming is pathetic.

Thats not fair, its rubbish.

sadly zero context attached by the BBC's article.

Ill play devils advocate to add some context, just because no one really knows.

Are those streams from the UK or say 'Turkey' where streams have less value. Why mention monthly listeners when you aren't paid for that figure. 5 or 6 million streams? which is it? ad funded or premium tier streams? they have different values, How many contributors / performers are on the record, the label credits suggest lots of other performers on the tracks all taking a share, not a solo performer, so what is her split? And then you have the various labels to which the music is released? so various deals & royalty rates!?

I only listen to music via Spotify now, have no need / desire for any physical media. I think artists just need to adapt to the changing world, people now stream and they need to come to terms with it (or take up another profession).

It's probably quite hard to buy cd devices now. Many artists only do downloads.

Footflaps +1

They need to consider the streaming service as a promotion channel for other product.

Footflaps +1

They need to consider the streaming service as a promotion channel for other product.

That's an appalling attitude, if I may say so.

Give away their core product for "exposure"? While techies and lawyers get rich off their work?

I don't use music streaming services and it would be pathetic for me to judge people who do, but it is annoying to hear that kind of Tory guff spouted by people who just want all the music for cheap.

Mmmm that’s a bit harsh IMHO.
I’m not saying I don’t buy the other products, indeed I do buy merch and gig tickets when I can. I just think that there has been a shift in what the main revenue earning part of the music business is.

Chakaping sed> That’s an appalling attitude, if I may say so.

Yup, well said.
Oldtennisshoes, that's not harsh at all.

I'd like to join chakaping's angry mob - not cool footflaps/oldtennisshoes!

The live gigs thing works for some people (not now obviously) but some artists are not suited to being live acts, can't tour for family/health reasons, etc etc etc - so they should just quit? The only artists that should exist are ones that can put on a good show and sell t-shirts? Hmmmm...

Use spotify to find music you like then either buy CDs direct from them or via whichever service they offer e.g. bandcamp.

Unfair to single you out, sorry. Just an attitude I see a fair bit and which bothers me.

I write things for a living and there's an industry joke about cheeky people asking you to supply work for "exposure".

Hopefully not many fall for it, yet some people seem to think musicians should actually do that.

With a Spotify family sub I spend more than I’ve done on music since I was a teenager.
Technology has ripped many business models apart and helped establish and reinvent many more. If Spotify can be a promotional channel, services like Patreon can be used to engage with and sell added value product to fans who want more.

Technology has ripped many business models apart and helped establish and reinvent many more.

Yep, otherwise we'd be arguing on threads about supporting our local candlestick makers etc....

I don't remember any of chakaping’s angry mob sticking up for them when their time came 😉

Isn't the problem the record companies though? I assume that if something is on spotify the label have agreed to do T&Cs?
FOr the companies to agree to that they must be making more money than they would through physical sales - I assume much less money per band/artist but a lot more plays of other stuff that evens it out, otherwise they would pull the plug on it.
Is it just a case of the labels not looking after the artists?
Genuinely asking as have no idea how it works for streaming.

I suspect there's no that much money in streaming or as much as the artists think they're worth.

They can (and some do) always form their own record companies if they don't like the big boys. Spotify will stream them regardless.

Spotify are quite generous but the record label keeps most of the revenue leaving the artist with next to nothing.

I like CDs. Never really done the streaming thing.
Bought a few CDs via Bandcamp as it gets more money to the band/artist, but generally use Monorail in Glasgow as it’s worth supporting.

The issue i now have is finding high quality downloads to buy. Everything looks to be available as mp3 but not FLAC or WAV.

Really? Is that not just audio snobbery? Can you really notice the difference and, even if you can, is it such a big deal that you cannot bring yourself to listen in that format?

I think artist’s expectations have been set unrealistically high by the 80s where you became a millionaire overnight from a hit single.

Are you really that clueless about the music industry!?
Do you really think every artist and band starts making music because they think it’ll make them rich?? The fact that there are still 1000s of independent releases every week, must tell you something, surely?
Ah, i can’t be arsed, cos you aren’t gonna change anyone’s listening habits this late in the day. Back to
Bake Off

well if you’re not paying £100x more then you can see how the issue with streaming services paying artists arises.

That's not how it would work. Because I wouldn't spend two grand on music each month.

I am listening to a lot more precisely because it's NOT on CD and I don't have to go out and buy and research them. And because I have more variety accessible than I ever did on CDs. Not only is it far more expensive per artist to listen on CD but it's much more difficult to find new bands so I wouldn't have bought them. In fact, I didn't. I had to make a conscious effort to buy CDs and I probably bought a dozen a year at most.

Where do you stop feeling guilty?
How much do Costa pay for coffee beans and their parent company Coca Cola nicking loads of water in some countries, but when your thirsty and want a chilled Coke zero or a £2.70 flat white do you reach for the tap instead ?

Business markets change. It's a tough change but I think now artist are starting to find other ways of making money. It's really the big labels that are loosing the most and it's mainly in because they haven't been moved with the in times and don't want to give up their unrealistic profits

It’s probably quite hard to buy cd devices now.

It’s not
https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/traditional-hifis/audio/hifi-systems-and-speakers/550_4278_31971_xx_ba00013487-bv00313063/xx-criteria.html

I'd hate to think what that JVC system sounds like for the money it reminds me of the crappy music centres from way back
My Marantz 50SE from '91 still sounds good

I boycott Spotify by ripping music from YouTube using a mp3 converter.

Or just listen to advert free Internet radio.

Ok, mid-CV when you can’t tour they’re not going to be making fortunes, but then these aren’t normal times.

Interestingly I spend more money on a "virtual gig" recently than I've spent on CD's, mps3, or streaming services in the last 10 years. I do listen to some spotify but funded via adverts - I treat it like radio without an irritating DJ and where the music is tailored to my taste rather than some special selection. I suspect someone working the recommendations algorithm well for the sort of stuff I listen to has more chance of getting to my ears (and the 0.01p payment) via Spotify than via mainstream radio. That does have the potential I'll take note and listen to more of their stuff (perhaps getting them 1p) or even go to a gig...

A former colleague was in a very part-time band which was probably making more £ from their "own label" stuff than anyone burning their own CDs etc in the 90s - they attributed it to having got on a couple of big playlists, mostly by luck (so I appreciate there are 100s of bands who never manage this), but interestingly unlike the DIY CDs option this continued to have a recurring income without them doing anything - as a "back catalogue" which is not something most budding bands can even dream of, but perhaps the right streaming service will forster and eventually cut the Simon Cowells out the equation!

Interesting thread - I use Spotify but shall be buying more merch.

I’d hate to think what that JVC system sounds like for the money it reminds me of the crappy music centres from way back
My Marantz 50SE from ’91 still sounds good

Yes you’re right, they probably are awful. I was just pointing out that it’s not difficult to find them. Although we have an older version of the Denon on that link for the bedroom and it’s ideal for that.

Take your pick from some better ones https://www.richersounds.com/hi-fi/separates/cd-players.html

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here) view this wrongly.

They look at downloads/listens, and then convert that into how many physical sales that would have been via CD/Vinyl - and compare how much they get.

How people listen to music has changed completely. I probably spend more on music via my family Spotify subscription than I ever have. But that money is split into tiny amounts and spread over a huge selection of artists, rather than 10 quid (showing my age) going to the Super Furry Animals because I bought their album this month. I wonder if one looked at the money paid across the whole industry how it would compare.

I'm not saying that artists shouldn't get more money per play - but that there are so many more considerations to how artists get paid now that have to be considered.

It seems to me that the way the consumption model works now is hugely biased towards (what would have previously been) singles. There are certainly "album" artists, but everyone else, when selling a physical album, would have effectively bundled their 8 or 9 album tracks with the single. The model being that those other tracks are collectively worth the difference between the single(s) and the album. I guess we are now finding out if that's true.

I just repel against the enforced subscription model across as many aspects of my consumption as I can. IMO it's a cancerous business model because it is so lucrative and powerful for the corporation. I still enjoy finding good albums and buying download files and owning the music. I think I would care less about the music if I streamed it. It would somehow be more background and throwaway.

Great news about cd sound system's. Thank's for looking.

Price per 1000 streams is roughly what? £2-£4?

I bought 5 Linkin Park albums over 20years for <£50.

The band have had zero further revenue from me. Had I not bought these CDs, I might well continue to listen to them on Spotify for the next 50years. Each time something new is released, their back catalogue gets a significant bump. Linkin Park might be a bad example here 🙁

The way I see it is I still buy CD’s and still would go to gig’s and almost all of my listening is via a convenience stream service (Apple music in my case) so 20 years ago I bought a cd by band x at the time they got their small royalty. If I listen to the CD they get paid bot all, if I stream it they get paid -a smidgen of a pittance- again. I will continue to buy physical media and merch from the likes of Bandcamp or from artists direct where possible and continue to stream guilt free.

I’m middle aged though and these young un’s probably only stream so they can feel guilty not me.

How can a musician be confident that a streaming service accurately accounts for every play? Trust a company named after an acne treatment?

It's interesting to read that some people appreciate algorithmic recommendations, this doesn't work for me, last thing I want to hear is a generic or watered down version of what I listen to. Amazon link to recommendations on all their pages, I don't believe I've ever discovered anything new that way, and I'll usually check something out if I don't recognise it just in case.

Playing music has never been a financially astute way to spend your time, even when you're turning a profit the cost/risk increases as you progress. If you haven't read it I'd recommend Steve Albini's little essay on how record advances work (spoiler, it's a loan but everybody would act like it's free money) which is twenty years old now.

My lot has a new record coming out in a fortnight. Streaming a "gig" to promote it, lined up on all the streaming services / bandcamp. It's been a real conundrum figuring out how many cds/vinyls to print as these sell best at shows.

So the artist makes less from you than they do from a streaming service! I am listening to artists I would never just buy a CD on spec from so they are getting revenue from me (albeit a very small amount) they would not otherwise do so.

The bands I like I always buy their new CDs when they come out.
I am genuinely mystified as to why people like the streaming services. I had a few months on Spotify and Apple Music and after a few weeks I just didn’t use them at all. I have no idea why to be honest, I just reached for a CD instead.

It’s interesting to read that some people appreciate algorithmic recommendations, this doesn’t work for me, last thing I want to hear is a generic or watered down version of what I listen to. Amazon link to recommendations on all their pages, I don’t believe I’ve ever discovered anything new that way, and I’ll usually check something out if I don’t recognise it just in case.

Me too - I’ve tried the recommendations after searching and listening to some stuff I really like and end up mystified as to why I have been pointed in the direction they suggested.

I still buy CDs, got a massive collection now, can't beat it. If I didn't have so much CD momentum now I'd probably switch to vinyl.

Think just streaming and not buying physical copies/regularly attending gigs is doing a disservice to music.

I recently read this interesting piece about how the Spotify algorhythm may favour certain songs and inadvertently create streaming "hits".
(Contains Pavement and Galaxie 500 content).

https://www.stereogum.com/2105993/pavement-harness-your-hopes-spotify/columns/sounding-board/

It’s not about how musics consumed though. It’s about how it is valued. Spotify and YouTube have created a market in which they set a very low price. This price doesn’t reflect the true value. They are effective monopolies - YouTube especially for younger people like my daughter. YouTube could easily afford to pay artists more (yes, easily) and Spotify are still working to “monotise” their monopoly (yep I realise the contradictions inherent in that statement but that also speaks to the ridiculousness of tech unicorns).

Few bits of information to add some perspective for the masses.

Spotify are generous someone has said above, astonishing ignorance, Spotify was built on giving away music for free, they continue to resist paying artist & label a fairer / larger share, its record labels weight that drives that royalty up.

You don't need record labels to release music, technically no, but Spotify has 40,000 new uploads a day, its not as simple as upload & stream...

Record company record turnover? Based on two things, People streaming Catalogue which generate new income for said artists & a select few mega artists such a Ed Sheeran. Not unpopular music.

Passive & Lean back listening. Lots of people still consider 1 million streams to be worth 1 million sales. it's simply not the case. you can have 1 million streams & below 1% collection / save rate.

Outdated record deals, they still exist, that itself is a separate issue & artist specific.

TimC’s first post pretty much sums it up with what to do if you want to put more money in artists pockets, I’ll add:

Streaming services are not a replacement for physical media, it’s the alternative to piracy. Spend on music has never been higher if you ignore the couple of years at the start of CDs when there was a lot of format switching purchases happening. And the proportion of consumer spend going directly to artists has never been higher. Look on the wrist of every rapper you’ve never heard of and the money is out there. If you want more money to go to your favourite artist then simply listen to them more!

Record labels have always taken their cut. Partly for the investment that they make into artists and partly for the services they carry out. As artists are more capable of reaching their fans directly and the cost of production goes down artists need labels less and contracts are starting to shift towards creators. In comparison to artists from the 80’s who are complaining about paying for services they received 40 years ago, ask Lil Nas X whether he’s happy with his deal...

Some details
= Apple pays 2x Spotify because the average Apple subscriber listens to half as many songs as the average Spotify listener. (Facts from 24 months ago)

= each service pools all the subscriber income per market and subscriber type, takes their cut, and then divides the pool to the content owners by activity. If you listen to a song once the content owner gets 1 X money/total streams. If your neighbour listens to Drake 1000 times then Drakes label gets 1000 x money/total streams.

= artists who don’t get money are not getting listened to. It’s that simple. You may love ‘xyz artist’ but if you don’t listen to them they don’t get paid. Listen to them more than the kids are listening to pop!

= stream rates roughly equate to a CD album being played between 20-50 times. If you don’t listen that much then the artist gets less money.

If you read between the lines of the above you’ll note the pool division process can be a money multiplier. If you pay your £10 subscription and listen to an artist more than the average listener then more than £10 can go to your artist.

The money goes to the content owners of the music that people listen to!

That stereo gum article on the algorithm is really good and quotes people who know more than anyone about this topic.

Ironically it would be possible (and occasionally is in some obscure small markets) for a stream to be as much as a penny. All the audience has to do is listen to very little music and the stream rate goes up.

(@timc fully agree about labels putting pressure on services to pay out a higher cut. The new ‘offer’ to reduce your % in return for algo plays is a pretty disgusting push by the new gatekeeper to abuse their position. On the other hand, if you believe in your content you’d take the deal to get a bigger slice of the smaller pie.)

I used to be in a band and run a small record label, bands would sell a maximum of 500 records but usually it'd be about 300 were my area. I never put stuff up for streaming as at the time it was a new market and I didn't think it was worth while. People would grumble about paying a fiver for a 7" that cost me £4 to produce but be happy paying a tenner for a CD that cost me £2 to produce.

As mentioned above, the knee jerk reaction to streaming is very skewed.

I can't remember where I read it but apparently Blur got 20p per Parklife CD sold, that's less than 2p per track. I've listened to that album many many times so each listen is worth a fraction of a pence, just like each listen on a streaming platform is worth a fraction of a pence.

No one seems to be concerned that ITV aren't paying Bruce Willis enough for millions of people watching Die had this Christmas but if Taylor Swift is only getting 7p per million streams then the internet melts.

People keep mentioning artists but the vast majority of musicians are hobbyists, should people be paid for their hobby? Shouldn't art be free for the masses to enjoy and only cost if you want to own it outright?

Streaming services are not a replacement for physical media, it’s the alternative to piracy.

Very true, but it's also a replacement for radio.

@franksinatra

Really? Is that not just audio snobbery? Can you really notice the difference and, even if you can, is it such a big deal that you cannot bring yourself to listen in that format?

I'll listen to mp3s on headphones when out and about, but I have a hifi setup for listening to vinyl and cds, and yes the quality drop is noticeable when played through a half decent system.  May be it is audio snobbery but I like my music so want to listen to it at the highest possible quality.

Warp records for example sell 24bit WAV files so it can be done when the record label and artist care about these things.

Some mp3s that I've bought have been crap quality, places like amazon don't make it easy to see what bit rate they've been ripped at, this may have changed as I've stopped looking at amazon for music downloads.

I suspect I'm in a minority of music consumers now but I still see buying from artists as the best way forward.  Radio still introduces me to new music as well as my kids. 6year old recently told me she was savage, quick Google later I realise we've been bad parents but that I now like Megan Thee Stallion :-).

Also, I wonder whether the "suck it up, the market has changed" crowd might have been enthusiastic users of Napster and Limewire etc. back in the day?

each service pools all the subscriber income per market and subscriber type, takes their cut, and then divides the pool to the content owners by activity

Interesting! It didn't occur to me that this is how they'd have to operate.

I am genuinely mystified as to why people like the streaming services.

Well, as I sit here working I can press a button and get endless music most of which I quite like, from bands some of whom I've never heard of, with no adverts. What's not to like?

And if I want to listen to an album, I can ask for that by name. On Amazon Music, I can build the equivalent of a 'CD library' and this can be made available offline if needed. If I come across a band or song elsewhere, I can search for it and add it. All at no extra cost.

It's also more available than CDs - I can go into the kitchen and get the same music that I have everywhere else without having to go and get a CD. I don't need to resort to the radio with its adverts, over-played tracks or endless waffle (BBC6M I'm thinking of you here).

On top of that, if some kind of music comes up in conversation with my kids I can play it to them even if I've never owned the CD, as part of cultural education. Which can be useful. We have much better access to so much more music now, and I'm listening to and enjoying far far more than I ever have. So yeah it's a win, for me.

I can’t remember where I read it but apparently Blur got 20p per Parklife CD sold, that’s less than 2p per track. I’ve listened to that album many many times so each listen is worth a fraction of a pence, just like each listen on a streaming platform is worth a fraction of a pence.

This would be my question if I cared more, yeah you get £12 for a few million streams of one song, how much would you have received for selling the same amount of CD singles when they used to sell for £4 a pop in Woolworths? I suspect everyone was taking a piece of that £4.

I always thought the payday for artists was getting music into adverts, TV or films and getting royalties that way

EDIT: Just read the article, seems like a lot of whataboutery IMO, issues that used to exist still exist now

Yes the problem with paying a set minimum to artists is that if the song gets streamed loads the streaming company doesn't get any more income. So they might end up being obliged to pay out more money than they actually have. A pretty risky business model to adopt!

Streaming isn't going away and artists are going to have to adapt. It is crazy that a monthly family subscription is £15 which about the same price as a single CD was at their peak price.

The reality for all steaming services TV /Movies and Music is that they are not competing against CDs and DVDs they are competing against IPTV, Bit streaming and dodgy Russian movie streaming sites. The choice is that the artist get what people are prepared to stump up for convenience versus going and getting it for free of the internet and them getting nothing I suspect that music piracy is significantly lower now than it used to be but how many people have IPTV to watch football as the cost of subscribing sky sports / BT sports etc is still prohibitive.

Personally I buy vinyl now off my favourite artist website if I can, I've crowd funded a few LP's as well and during lockdown I've paid to watch a few streamed gigs to try a support them best I can.

The issue i now have is finding high quality downloads to buy. Everything looks to be available as mp3 but not FLAC or WAV.

7digital sell some FLAC (some also in 24/96)

As much as you'd like to, you can't turn the technology clock back - I work in the print trade. 25 years ago you'd charge hundreds of pounds for a full-colour leaflet, now companies are practically giving them away!

The music industry isn't unique to being ripped apart by technology.

But on the other hand that same technology now enables artists to record, produce and have full control of their own music from their back-bedroom.

There's a great calculator and comparison tool here:

https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians

It's interesting to see how much you'd get over the various platforms and has a calculator to monetise it. I'm a 51yo Amazon music user here. Like most folk of my age I've been through cassettes, vinyl, CDs, minidiscs, iPods, etc. I used to listen to a lot of music in the car but we haven't got a car with a CD player in now and haven't for years. Spent plenty of money on music over the years and now (when I can) I go to gigs and buy t shirts and stream. Including Peat & Diesels fab new "cancelled due to the Rhona" t shirt to commemorate not being able to see them last week in Newcastle.

I guess like some I always think now that they might not get (their small proportion of) the tenner I'd spend on a CD but at least if I keep listening they'll get something from the repeated plays. The world's changing, there won't be new Pink Floyds or Rolling Stones but that's not necessarily a terrible thing.

Stainypants
Full Member
Streaming isn’t going away and artists are going to have to adapt. It is crazy that a monthly family subscription is £15

Why is that crazy? The sum cost of Netflix, Prime and Disney+ is less than that and I get access to thousands and thousands of TV shows and films which almost certainly cost more to make than the music did to make and the residuals paid to actors et al are quite high.

No one seems to be concerned that ITV aren’t paying Bruce Willis enough for millions of people watching Die had this Christmas but if Taylor Swift is only getting 7p per million streams then the internet melts.

Depending on Willis' original contract & the royalties agreed, how much TV have paid for the rights, he might well be getting more money than the £12 mentioned earlier in this thread.

Well, as I sit here working I can press a button and get endless music most of which I quite like, from bands some of whom I’ve never heard of, with no adverts. What’s not to like?

That’s the complete opposite to my experience. Listen to a few things I like, put in my preferences but it just churned out crap which was either not similar at all to what I was listening to OR just the popular hits in that particular genre. And I stuck with it for a few weeks.

And if I want to listen to an album, I can ask for that by name.

I had a load of CDs stolen when I was burgled at Uni. I thought either Spotify or Apple Music would have them so I wouldn’t have to repurchase a lot of them. Utterly useless, IIRC 75% of what I looked for wasn’t there.

I would love for it to have worked for me but it just didn’t. No idea why.

@molgrips all of the services work the same. One of them was thinking about making the pools per listener. So you put your tenner in, I put my tenner in. And each of our contributions gets divided up amongst the rights holders that we respectively listen to. It’s actually much more complicated than the market/subscriber types pools but puts subscriber money directly to the artists that we each listen to. If you only listen to one artist they get all of your £7. I thought that it would help convince “real music fans” to switch to that platform but the idea didn’t get carried out.

It’s funny how “real music fans” listen so much less than the average listener and therefore the artists they listen to get comparatively so much less of the pie. The artists that “not real music fans” listen to get much more of the pie.

If “real music fans” just listened more their artists wouldn’t have so much to complain about...