[Closed] Subscription music = death of music?

I listen to a much greater variety of music that I would never have bought or even looked fondue tomsubscription services, those artists would never have received a penny from me so it's not black and white, the payment system is probably the problem not the tech

Free versions of Spotify etc

YouTube shouldn’t be overlooked

Digital Music meaning copies are relatively high quality unlike what you got with cassettes

the payment system is probably the problem not the tech

I agree, to a point, but would people bother using them if they had to pay the equivalent of the full album rate?

YouTube shouldn’t be overlooked

True, but it's much harder to take the music with you with You Tube. I use YT myself, but only to check out stuff before I buy the album.

the payment system is probably the problem not the tech

Probably, the amount paid per play is insulting, a million plays will barely equal a month’s pay at minimum wage, less than a thousand pounds. Apple Music has one of the highest royalty rates in streaming services, but it’s still nothing like actual music royalties from album/CD sales.

Have a read through this, it gives a lot more background;

https://medium.com/cuepoint/the-devaluation-of-music-it-s-worse-than-you-think-f4cf5f26a888

I'm a massive fan of subscription services. I use Apples iTunes and TBH, I think I'd die before I got through 1/4 of the stuff they have available.

I listen to a very wide variety of music, Apple have pretty much everything I listen too..

And I also subscribe to Soundcloud, this service offers a Mass of DJ's and it's primarily THE place I visit for some funky house choons.. and a couple of my mates release stuff on there or post podcasts of releases ..

So, the death of music?

Nope, I don't think so at all.

Didn't home taping kill the music industry back in the 80s

I agree, to a point, but would people bother using them if they had to pay the equivalent of the full album rate?

It's not the same thing though is it? If it cost me a pound for every track on a Spotify radio stream I'd turn it off.

The cost of owning a track should be different to a play (the more you play the more it pays) do Apple music pay on tracks you own or just the ones you stream you don't have in your library? Stream/rental will be the market for the next few years so artists need to work out how to make it pay.

Didn’t home taping kill the music industry back in the 80s

Nope, quite the opposite, in my experience.

There are so many factors as to why musicians mostly have to do it for the love of it these days, streaming services play a minor part, the main thing is the massive proliferation of music available these days. Going back to the whole history of music, plus all the masses available from various outlets, the internet in particular -the money spent is spread so thinly, unless you have a record company behind you, promoting you to radio stations, or are already an established name, you can’t expect to make a living from it.

Fortunately, there will always be people wanting to make new music, so it won’t die, not for a while yet.

so artists need to work out how to make it pay

I don't see why they should have to.

If it cost me a pound for every track on a Spotify radio stream I’d turn it off.

Exactly my point.

So, the death of music?

Nope, I don’t think so at all.

If the artists aren’t getting paid for the work they do, how many are going to carry on?

Do you work for less than minimum wage? Didn’t think so.

And home taping didn’t come close to the vast amount of music people like you are consuming for basically nothing, because the greater majority of people were still buying vinyl and CD’s while borrowing stuff to tape that they were unlikely to buy anyway, which is what I used to do, and if I really like a taped album, I’d go and buy it anyway.

The payment amounts artist receive is tantamount to slave wages. Even for large, established artists the only way to make money is from touring.

I know of sucessful musicians that that are in the fortunate position to have their day job within the music industry. They write and produce music for TV and film, along with writing and production work for even bigger artists. Their side projects, effectively their hobby, is what they are generally know for outside of the industry types.

I read an an article about a producer artist based in Nashville that opened up about the streaming revenue he received from the streaming sites and traditional radio. Radio out paid streaming by a factor of 100, but even so with close to 5 million streams the payment he received was barely $5000. That was the total annual royalties for a successful album and singles from all sources, radio, streaming, etc.

I still prefer to buy music, normally directly from the artist, but then I've got very obscure and niche tastes.

I don’t see why they should have to.

Because it is their living they need to protect, like others form a union, get collective bargaining just telling people it's cheap isn't going to work, a mass removal of music from streaming would change the model and force the issue.

Or do you suggest we all write in and demand to pay more?

As mikewsmith says though - its not black and white - there are loads of bands that get listened to on things like Spotify that wouldn’t get a look in anywhere else. I’ve started to use Spotify more to check out stuff I’ve read about, so those artists are getting the exposure (and a few pence maybe) that they wouldn’t have done otherwise. I still buy all formats and use bandcamp a lot, but I also download stuff for free, listen on Youtube.... its a varied and fascinating subject!

IMO, platforms such as Bandcamp should be the way forward: A platform that has a roaming capability but also allows the artist to set their own price and the site takes a much smaller cut that the likes of ITunes and Spotify.

Bandcamp takes only 15% of music sales and 10% of merch sales.

Or do you suggest we all write in and demand to pay more?

Actually, yes, if you value music.

Let's see how that works out for you....

http://www.brudenellsocialclub.co.uk/

Looking at the list of upcoming gigs I can’t see the end of music any time soon

From the article in the OP,

We're going all the way out to Eastern Europe to break even on the show while the gas that it cost us to get there means that we're actually paying for that show. That's subsidized by our shows in Western Europe where we get paid better guarantees. I don't know if it's worth it anymore

Was it ever any different for 99% of bands?  And talking about product cycles, netting and grossing... Bloke should be an accountant not a guitar player. Most of my favourite bands have never made money and were never likely to. Didn't stop them putting out the best music ever. I'm glad the bubble's burst; maybe we'll see fewer Biebers and Swifts in the future.

I'm not so sure about this. The argument would be simpler if we were all not paying a thing a la kodi add-ons because clearly then they wouldn't be getting a thing. And I'm flat out militant about that. Equally do we see anyone moaning about Netflix being too cheap?

As consumers we didn't set the price or business model for it. That's between them.

maybe we’ll see fewer Biebers and Swifts in the future.

Quite the opposite: That's potentially all we'll be seeing.

Bandcamp takes only 15% of music sales and 10% of merch sales.

And a lot of artists give stuff away free on bandcamp. Because (not always, but a lot of the time) they have made something for the love of it and just want it to get heard.

That’s potentially all we’ll be seeing.

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is? The actual amount of different styles and artists out there now is phenomenal - the range is getting wider, not narrower!

Just check out the new release lists on a Monday from a site like junodownload - I tell you, its mind blowing how much music is being released, and how much you’ll never get to hear. There’s just too much!

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is

Its no more ridiculous than your assertion that paying artists a pittance for their music will see less of the most popular mainstream artists: It's artists like that who are best positioned to make the most from streaming services.

Where do I say that?

I don't get paid for my hobby, plenty of bands I go to see are in it for the crack rather than making a living you know.

@ DezB

You didn't, bob_summers did.

So the less black and white part (part 2)

Barrier to entry has gone down, you can get a following without wining the lotto of getting picked up by a dj, or label, artists can build a following across a much wider base than before. Flip side is a nice big record deal is probably not coming to you if youn were the lucky one.

Last time we had one of these I think the stats had plays being a huge order of magnitude greater than CD purchases at their peak so the money going into the system was getting close to similar, expecting sale prices for a stream is a non starter, it's not the same thing

Or maybe it's not?

Listening to Radio1 (I know. Its not cool to admit that on STW) it's surprising how much of the music is from UK rap artists, so maybe streaming has democratised music somewhat. Its no longer the case that just being a band with three other white blokes* is good enough to earn a living.

At the other end of the scale, far from killing off the album you end up with Ed Sheeran filling the top ten in the charts because people stream the whole album rather than buying one single.

I don't see why music should be any different to any other art/hobby. Plenty of painters, runners, cyclists etc don't get to give up the day job the moment they rise above mediocre. Is there any reason why being a successful musician from sales should be any easier than a runner getting to the Olympics?

*because that is what the music industry looks like.

Everyone knows video killed the radio star.

maybe we’ll see fewer Biebers and Swifts in the future.

Quite the opposite: That’s potentially all we’ll be seeing.

*shudders*

It always reads like bands are being cheated out of money. The expectation that they should all be earning millions and rolling in a jet like Led Zeppelin. Times have changed. Funny thing is back in the day it seems like they were all in it for the money then a bit of artistic integrity kicked in. The availability of music now will never stifle creativity, it just won't pay .

I find it takes effort to find music I like. I tend to find a lot of stuff I think is great at first, sometimes rush and buy it then listen to it once and that's it. You have to unearth I think. I haven't used Spotify, maybe that's the problem. I currently use the Tune Association Thread and Discogs as a way of finding music I haven't heard before. Have found some stuff I really like, but it can be a bit hit and miss basing your music consumption on a word in a title of a track that someone else posted.

Music labels like dead certs, they sell a lot ofntunes, play a lot and sell out stadiums along with nice tv plays and film soundtracks $$$$$$$

Niche bands are just that low return, big risk and hard work. The industry part of the music industry is the bit to remember

There are a dozen or so bands just in my local town of 150 000 people. Lots of supply, not so much demand. I follow one quite closely - I work on their guitars. They recently toured in Canada, their objective being to have fun, a few moments of living a high and seeing a bit of the world. Everything they do costs them money, their kit, making a CD, financing tours. It's their passion in life and they work to pay for it. That is the life of all but ahnadful of bands.

It's the same in many other fields. Most competitors in a rally or MTB race are paying for it out of their hard-earned cash and those sponsors if their are any only pay a fraction of the costs. Some might break even, a few really good competitors will make a living and the odd one or two might make it rich.

The idea that music is somehow special is odd. As for the copyright rules they're seriously unfair and what IMO are really killing music. If a pharma company spends a fortune on developing a new drug they get a few years to make money before it falls into the public domain. A musician get his life plus 70 years or something like that. So just because Jimmy Reed recorded a drunken noodle first nobody else can play the same drunken noodle without paying for another - well you work it out years. Al the good riffs have gone, stolen by generations dead or dying from the world of music.

For me the issue is where does the revenue from subscription services go (and is the overall music industry revenue in decline). I think subscription/streaming is a great model but if it's just making Amazon/Apple/Spotify etc. richer (and their shareholders) vs compensating artists well something needs to change.

Fundamentally no musician has a right to earn a living from music but if enough people like what they produce and a re willing to pay for it then ofc they should get a decent return from it. It seems like in the current model though only the few top artists get a good returns (with tens of millions of streams) and everyone else gets shafted. Not sure how it will change though as there will always be enough people trying to make money from music (or creating it for the love of it) that there will be sufficient supply for the streaming services under their current model.

These lot seem to be doing ok.
<h4>The World’s Highest-Paid Musicians 2016 in full</h4>

1. Taylor Swift ($170 million)
2. One Direction ($110 million)
3. Adele ($80.5 million)
4. Madonna ($76.5 million)
5. Rihanna ($75 million)
6. Garth Brooks ($70 million)
7. AC/DC ($67.5 million)
8. Rolling Stones ($66.5 million)
9. Calvin Harris ($63 million)
10. Diddy ($62 million)

Niche bands will never make millions from album sales purely because they are niche. I don't think streaming services have changed much, if anything they open up niche bands to a wider audience.

I don’t see why music should be any different to any other art/hobby. Plenty of painters, runners, cyclists etc don’t get to give up the day job the moment they rise above mediocre. Is there any reason why being a successful musician from sales should be any easier than a runner getting to the Olympics?

This is true - music is, and always has been pretty much like these other activities - only a select few can rise to the top, everyone else has to do it for the love of doing it. I suppose the big difference with music is it's not the (measurable) best that actually succeed, but other factors, like luck play a huge part (see list above!!).

copyright rules they’re seriously unfair and what IMO are really killing music

Isn't this the same as the "home taping" thing though? It's not [i]killing[/i] music. It's making it more difficult for some artists to make money, but no way is it killing it.

Book I'm reading at the moment, "Retromania" suggests that the most likely thing to kill music is people's desire for the past - reformed bands, re-releases, tribute bands, retro-sounding new acts (War on Drugs *spit*), all that shit - if punters are more interested in looking back than forward, will here be a point in making new sounds, new music, being original. But then there will always be new creators who want to fight against that, so I don't see an sign of music dying just yet.

Book I’m reading at the moment, “Retromania” suggests that the most likely thing to kill music is people’s desire for the past – reformed bands, re-releases, tribute bands, retro-sounding new acts (War on Drugs *spit*), all that shit – if punters are more interested in looking back than forward, will here be a point in making new sounds, new music, being original. But then there will always be new creators who want to fight against that, so I don’t see an sign of music dying just yet.

"Retromania" has always been there - when I was growing up my dad didn't listen to Iron Maiden, Scorpions, Saxon etc - he listened to the songs of his youth - Elvis, Cliff, Roger Whittaker, Beatles etc.

The old system was so expensive to record and release music on physical media that it was a big financial commitment - you'd need the backing of a label, and they'd also sink money into marketing so they'd have a hope of getting a return on it. The artist would get paid an advance but all the early money is the label's until that commitment is paid off.

It funnelled a select few into the system and gave a reasonable chance of success - critic reviews, record shop placement, radio play, touring. Still by no means guaranteed and plenty still failed to make a lifelong career of it.

The massive reduction in cost to record, produce and distribute music is great in some ways - it democratises music, it gives us way more choice, it lets niche bands find a global audience, small labels can flourish. But except for a few at the top, that spreads out the money to be made - there's only so many venues to play at and people in those towns to buy tickets. More can make a modest living, but fewer millionaire rock stars.

His band is a metal band which is very niche, and i've also not heard of and I listen to metal now and again via apple music. Listening to them now on said apple music (ironic?) they sound like many other bands, IMO not only are they in a niche market, they are not unique, they sound very similiar to other bands I hear when I listen to the metal playlist.

Not sure if subscriptions will mean less Biebers or Swifts as I dont think I am wrong in saying they both built followings and then became mainstream?

*edit - I have now listened to the 5 top songs ranked by Apple Music from his band and they are not my cup of tea, off to find some speed metal, I prefer a higher tempo and less whining...

In a word - no

There will always be musicians who want to produce music, and as others have pointed out, that doesn't immediately infer a right to earn a wage from it. It isn't necessarily talent that propels someone to stardom, so in that respect that list of top 10 earners is sort of irrelevant. What is broken (IMO) is the influence of labels and distributers who do decide what/who they promote, but that's probs worth a thread all by itself.

Loads of new music available now  much more than even 10years ago, and it's easy to find, and there a counter argument that streaming services have played a part in that wider access to huge amounts of niche. That Taylor Swift isn't paid what she wants is irrelevant to the fact that John Smith's self funded garage album is on there..

 but other factors, like luck play a huge part (see list above!!).

I would say nepotism, huge generational wealth, and connections pay a bigger part.

eg: Taylor Swifts parents were rich and well connected and pretty much bankrolled Swift to success via their existing connections.

Exactly - many other factors! Including some undefinable!

Also, it's worth remembering a stream =/= a lost album/single sale.

It's very possible a large part of that £5000 wouldn't convert into an album sale. Maybe that breaks even, maybe they're loosing out. I'd theorise those who would buy the album, would do so anyway alongside streaming, so maybe double revenue streams there.

It would be an interesting study.

To the OP. A band like Periphery probably only have a career and an audience because of the internet. I think they also write and collaborate remotely so then complaining about streaming seems a bit hypocritical.

The way I see it things are easier for bands with subscription, it opens them up to an instant global audience and the cost of entry is comparatively low. From my perspective this has allowed me to investigate artists and they get paid rather than looking them up on YouTube, although they may well get paid for ads on their channel anyway. Ironically that is the exact issue that makes it harder for bands to get a break, it's not just your local music scene any more, you're competing with every other band on the planet for a listener.

The other issue is that nowadays the good bands and artists are being swamped by a deluge throwaway pop designed to get a ton of listens quickly and then vanish just as quick. The music industry's business model has changed from one that invests in artists for the long term to one that is just about short-term profit maximisation. But who drove this change? Is it the listeners quest for new music that has reduced their loyalty to a band or artist or has the industry's lack of commitment to its artists meant that they're forgotten after the first album?

Who of the current top 10 artists are still going to be here in 5 years ..... Drake? Rudimental? Dua Lipa? Portugal The Man? Marshmello? Post Malone? Settle? Kendrick Lamar? Justin Timberlake (ok, he's been around for a while), or Liam Payne?

And yet here I am listening to an album that's 21 years old from a band that's still releasing albums (Foo Fighters), I wonder if either of my sons will be able to say that at my age?

As consumers we didn’t set the price or business model for it.

Well we kind of did. Music publishing has been forever behind the curve in terms of being ready to serve new models of distribution

If you look back through history the first way you could listen to music at home was to sit at the piano and sing it. So to hear a new song you had to buy the sheet music and thats how music was sold. You could say 'well why pay to buy a song, why not just make one up' but its harder than you think - even people who are famous for writing songs write surprisingly few properly good ones in a lifetime. So a good song is a goose that lays golden eggs.

The publishing industry was extremely resistant to recording and radio - because if someone heard a new song once they didn't need to buy the book, they could sing it and play if from memory. And the point of a good song is you remember it.

Right up into the 80s there were restrictions on the amount of recorded music a music radio station could play each hour (the 'Needle time agreement') which is why Radio 1 had to fill air time with jingles, phone pranks, whack whack oops and inappropriate touching.

The problem with digital music sales is the capacity to listen to digital music- iPods etc- existed long before the the sale channels for digital music were created. The industry was trying to protect its investment in physical media instead. But in a few years players went from being able to store an album's worth of material to being able to store more music than any private individual would have legitimately have bought.

If someone has bought a machine that can play a month of music with out repeats then the owner feels they deserve to be able to fill that capacity. So the whole file sharing thing took off, but in doing so consumers set both the price and the business model:

All music ever, instantly available, for free.

So for the industry as a whole thats the standard expectation of the customer: I want it all and I don't want to pay anything for it, and I don't want you to get in my way.

Streaming / subscription services then have to offer massive catalogues and charge next to nothing for them as the value has already been established as zero. You can't manage the release or distribution of your product because the customer believes they already have a right to it, and deserve it, and if you don't give it to them right now they'll just take it anyway.

I wonder if either of my sons will be able to say that at my age?

Imagine the choice they'll have! Mind blowing.

Streaming / subscription services then have to offer massive catalogues and charge next to nothing for them as the value has already been established as zero. You can’t manage the release or distribution of your product because the customer believes they already have a right to it, and deserve it, and if you don’t give it to them right now they’ll just take it anyway.

Another fascinating aspect of it all... younger people who can never appreciate the value of [i]that[/i] monthly purchase from HMV that we used to have. Most probably don't even see a human being making the music at the beginning of the process! Want music track, want it now. Thanks!

I hope CountZero etc has read and can now appreciate it's not so black and white. Some fascinating views on here. Love it 🙂

Let's be honest, Spotify is basically legalised freeloading and its users are not likely to agree with you OP, because it suits them very nicely.

Let’s be honest, Spotify is basically legalised freeloading and its users are not likely to agree with you OP, because it suits them very nicely.

Do you mean just spotify or all music streaming services?

Spotify is basically legalised freeloading

In the same way as listening to the radio is legalised freeloading?

Another fascinating aspect of it all… younger people who can never appreciate the value of <em class="bbcode-em">that monthly purchase from HMV that we used to have.

And sitting looking at it for an hour on the bus home before you got to even hear any of it.

Its funny how heavily linked some music can be to your memory of the first play of it. I don't think future generations will have the same experience of harking back fondly to their first clicks.

Another fascinating aspect of it all… younger people who can never appreciate the value of <em class="bbcode-em">that monthly purchase from HMV that we used to have. Most probably don’t even see a human being making the music at the beginning of the process! Want music track, want it now. Thanks!

IME music just isn't as important to kids these days, it's just a small part of a much bigger entertainment market. I don't think any of my daughters friends have a bedroom covered in band posters.

For a lot of us growing up in the 70s and 80s music was front and centre of our lives as there was very little else available to us to express who we were.

Do you mean just spotify or all music streaming services?

I don't know about any others so I cannot judge them.

In the same way as listening to the radio is legalised freeloading?

Don't be facetious, you know that artists are paid more fairly for radio play.

but anyway

Music-making won't 'die'. But new music and new musicians maybe won't have the best expression that they could have. Its true you can record and release more cheaply than ever. But its only certain tools that a cheap. Having a good song and a nice way of singing it is one thing but begin afforded the time and expertise of talented people in making recordings is something else.

There was an interesting interview with Mick Jagger in which he was saying that there used to be no money in popular music - artists were exploited terribly, promotors and managers would pocket all the ticket money (*unless they were in my Dad's venue) and make bands feel lucky if they got their bus fair home out of the takings.

Then suddenly musician could be rich

And now they can't

His point was they he was very lucky that his career sat exactly in that middle bit. And now things are back to how they were. Music existed and musicians made it before there was real profit of them in doing so and they'll carry on on doubt.

* very briefly my dad was at the Royal College of Art, around the same time as David Hockney and co, when it was all really very cool - and as 'Social Sec' for the RCA booked up and coming bands such as Bonzo Dog to play there. His policy was to approach each band at the end of the night with all the door money in his hand. Count out the venue's cut in front of them, then hand them the rest with instruction to give it to their manager so that he could take his cut. Just so they could see how much they were being humped by their management.

There's positives and negatives tbh. I reckon if a band has a clue about how to promote themselves and understands the targets they need to hit and understand that they need to diversify their income streams . Then they'll do alright for themselves.

If they make and album hit 1mil streams and think they are owed a living for life. Well they need to rethink

Barriers to entry virtually nil.

If folk want to be be professional musicians then go touring and earn the money from a bit of graft.

Music streaming is a great promotional platform.

There was an interesting interview with Mick Jagger in which he was saying that there used to be no money in popular music – artists were exploited terribly, promotors and managers would pocket all the ticket money (*unless they were in my Dad’s venue) and make bands feel lucky if they got their bus fair home out of the takings.

Yes, there has always been music but for centuries nearly all musicians were just 'journeymen' who did it more for the love than big rewards.  The early 70's to the birth of Napster were the exception, we're now returning to the norm when only a very few get well paid.

I can't help thinking it's partly the music industry's own fault.  If they'd embraced streaming early and set a realistic price they might have been able to stop file sharing completly destroying revenues.  Once file sharing had set the price as zero it's been hard to edge it back up but people are paying again - not much, but they're either paying a subscription or there are ad revenues (file sharing has pretty much disappeared again).

Spotify is £10 a month - I was spending more on that when I was still at school in 1980's prices.  i was spending more than that when i was a penniless student and through most of my 20's and 30's I was spending more than that a week.

The other issue is that nowadays the good bands and artists are being swamped by a deluge throwaway pop designed to get a ton of listens quickly and then vanish just as quick.

When you say 'nowadays' do you mean 'for the last 50+ years'?

When you say ‘nowadays’ do you mean ‘for the last 50+ years’?

Not sure it's quite that long, certainly since the start of the Pop Idol / X-Factor age.

I tend to find a lot of stuff I think is great at first, sometimes rush and buy it

How quaint!

I am Mr Average. I like music but not massively so. Since using (subscription) Spotify, I listen to far more music, and spend more on music, than I have done a any point in my life.  I'm listening to artists that I would simply not have heard otherwise, and even attended a few gigs of bands that I 'discovered' through Spotify.

I am pretty good on my Pop master but when those old top of the pops are on I don't know half the bands. Pop has always been throw away.

Regarding streaming, we are all  more than happy to buy secondhand CDs in which the artist gets no money at all.

There's only 3 current bands that I follow. I will buy their music direct from them.

we are all  more than happy to buy secondhand CDs

We are?

Music streaming is a great promotional platform.

Maybe so, but it shouldn't be at the expense of actually buying the products and supporting the artists.

I am pretty good on my Pop master but when those old top of the pops are on I don’t know half the bands.

Yes, it's interesting how much you forget isn't it. I would have been familiar with all of the music currently being repeated on TotP (1985) but there are bands whose names I'd never have guessed who sang big hits. Debarge? Never heard of them. Despite the fact that I can sing 'Rhythm of the night'!

Don’t be facetious, you know that artists are paid more fairly for radio play.

Sorry dad (he used to say "facetious") - don't you see that the limited number of artists actually making money from radio play is tiny compared to those who can make it from people listening through streaming services? So which is better?

Most musicians have been pretty much doing it for love not money since music began. We had a golden period from the 60s until probably the 90s when musicians were making decent money but now the blip is over.

A few will make a shed load most won't.

Of course there will always be musicians who are happy to make music just for the love and passion of it: However, we are running the risk of replacing one form of media that once offered payback with one that doesn't.

No, musicians don't have a right to make a living out of their chosen "hobby" but, as with any profession, they have a right to get a fair rate when they choose to sell their product.

There is always the view that streaming is good marketing for musicians, which is fine as long as people then go out and buy the music in a way that will benefit the artist. As it is, we see people using the likes of Spotify as their sole source of music; meaning they don't then go out and buy the product. Yes, they may go to a gig or two but, as we see in the OP, touring is also becoming increasingly difficult, without strong financial resources.

"But, I've listened to more music since I joined [insert streaming service name]": Ah yes, the old "it benefits me, and therefore it must be good" argument. Its a very insular and selfish argument. Many people on here, and elsewhere, bemoan the loss of high street shops in favour of online services and supermarkets: Streaming services are having exactly the same effect on the music industry.

Is it melodramatic to say streaming services will be the death of music? Yes, it is, but it's certainly not good for it, IMO.

Sorry dad (he used to say “facetious”)

So you've got form then?

don’t you see that the limited number of artists actually making money from radio play is tiny compared to those who can make it from people listening through streaming services? So which is better?

Streaming would be better if it paid more fairly. Comparing a small number of artists getting a reasonable income from one channel to a large number of artists mostly getting FA from another isn't really helpful.

Neither is the statement: "Let’s be honest, Spotify is basically legalised freeloading".

(said currently listening to an album purchased from Bandcamp btw)

If Spotify is so terrible why do bands have their music on there?

Double edged sword init.They get paid FA,but get a the chance of bigger exposure. This may then generate more revenue in other areas. Is it not true that a lot of bands/artists make more from  merchandise sales at gigs ,or direct from their websites?

Amazing no one has thought of anything but bands. What about classical music requiring a full orchestra? There are many more people to come together - as their job not a hobby - and halls to hire etc to produce a recording then they get virtually nothing per play.  Apart from some concerts there will be a crash in the amount of new recordings.

I have amazon streaming but if I like a piece of classical then I try to find it and buy it on CD or high bitrate audio.  Without support we will all end up with either old recordings or dreaded Beiberpap.

Without support we will all end up with either old recordings  -  does that matter with classical?

or dreaded Beiberpap. (as already discussed), we're a hell of a long way from that.

Yes it does. There are different artists/orchestras bringing out different things in different pieces. And, believe it or not, people are still writing music of that genre *now*.  Or is this a “I don’t like it, it doesn’t matter, who cares?” response

it would also mean that the only instruments young uns would study would eventually be limited due to the fact there would be fewer places to go, no point in learning as it would lead nowhere. “Sorry kid no point in thinking about a career in instrument x as you will never get paid as the Beiberites now own the entire music industry”.

So, then why should classical be any different from other music - it's either a hobby/done for the love of it, or to get paid you're really lucky/exceptional/connected ?

Because it would have to be a hobby for >100 different types of musicians all who live within a certain area and could meet and pay for a rehearsal hall and pay for everything else, like transpiring quite large instruments.

Unless you think they would all fit into your garage of an evening? And practice a 50 minute piece without a conductor in an hour or so?

And I don’t agree with that to be a musician of any type you have to have it as a hobby. Some do which is fine. Some need to pay for their food and accommodation.

I take it that you would quite happily do your job as an unpaid hobby?

Oh, so you do think classical music should be different. I don't really understand how it fits into this conversation tbh.  How have orchestras made their money from plays/sales in the past? Surely there are too many orchestras for them all to be making money from airplay? And/or CD sales?

My job isn't in the arts. It's salaried, really not a comparison.

A band like Periphery probably only have a career and an audience because of the internet

That ^

In t'olden days, we had loads of bands, but also loads of people buying music. Now we seem to have more bands than we know what to do with and no real physical way of buying music that hasn't somehow become niche (CD sales are nosediving, while although vinyl is going up, it's a mere drip in the ocean)

Spotify and the like are never going to be able to reimburse the artists in any meaningful way based on their model, tenner a month buys you one or two CD's, Spotify gives you endless access.

Unless people suddenly ditch digital and go mad for physical formats again, then only the top 50 artists will make the money because it's in Spotifys interest to have them on their roster