Music industry better off with streaming...

how so?

I am over 60 and no such option ever existed in my town....

Was this done in some parts of the country and not others or are you going back even further than I do?

I grew up in Helsinki, Finland.

The department store "Stockmann" had a music department where you could bring a record from the isle to the sales counter and the staff would hand you a pair of headphones and put on the record for you to listen to.

If it was a popular record they would have a sample record behind the counter for listening purposes.

Eric
 
Once again, I NEVER said these companies were making money on these services. I understand that it is part of the problem when someone puts words into your mouth that you never said, but if you can point to a post that I "have no clue about" what I speak please point it out.

It is very frustrating to have your name drug through the mud based on something you never said.

I apologized for this already (post#179).
 
Last edited:
Just remember that streaming, like radio uses a 40 db compression system. So is it just like vinyl or CD's? I think not.... Convenient yes, audiophile no.

That's a bold go without offering detail. Of what streaming concerns do you refer to? Please cite with specifics to validate compression and methods by the streaming company's who supply lossless streaming feeds, Deezer lossless, Tidal lossless and Spotify's beta hi-fi
 
I do not like the fact that MQA is being peddled on us through streaming either. Lossy - lossless compression system that needs an MQA enabled DAC (money spent on a new DAC), software that is MQA enabled. This is just another way to get you to spend more.

Right! MQA and more proprietary BS.. Make no mistake about it, no stream is there as a free service long term. They can and will lose for a time, but as things shake out it will be the consumer, listener, subscriber or whatever you want to call him, that will be paying more, possibly much more in the future. If not than that will indeed be the Day the music died.

MQA exists to line the pockets of Meridian and Bob Stuart. Since they can no longer license MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) for DVD-Audio production, now they want to dip their hands into streaming audio by providing lossy high-res streaming. (Yeah, I know...they throw sheetloads of technobabble and talk of "unfolding" and all that crap, as an obfuscated way of saying "lossy.") I find it very fishy that just about all of the audiophile press is very gung-ho about it. Are any of them practical day-to-day users of technology that all of us ordinary citizens use? No. They get sheetloads of free equipment to test for months on end, their systems in a constant state of flux, with never a penny coming out of their pockets except for the electricity to power it all. Seems more end users dislike MQA, based on various forum threads I have read around the Interwebz.

I swear...I should get a t-shirt made for AXPONA next year, with the MQA logo featuring a nice big red slash through it... ;)

I have a little info for you...I am a musician....play for the masses...make a solid .008 cents per play from streaming. I have only written 12 songs. You only get paid for the ones you write...not perform on. I made a solid 192.85 last year from streaming. Thats almost 25000 plays. That isn't much money. Only sold 11000 cds inthe same period and made almost 6000 for my cut. It is a big difference between the 2. And with a decent recording going well over 30000....Its a hard living my friends. And it doesnt matter how many grammys you have...its just hard.
Very true. I can't mention who it is here publicly (non-disclosure and all that), but I do some work for a well-known jazz band that has been around over 35 years now, and they have been on two or three major record labels over the years (MCA Jazz/GRP, and Warner). Their music is essentially "stuck" on those labels, not reissued except for lame compilations every few years. Only in the past 15 years have they recorded for themselves, and licensed the recordings to the labels (like HeadsUp Int'l, and Mack Avenue Records), so they can retain their masters. What's also sad is that there are still people out there who want their old CDs, yet the labels won't reissue them, nor will they relinquish the tapes so the band could reissue the recordings themselves. Their online store used to sell old stock of the CDs, but those have long been depleted now. (Many were cutouts--they bought those right from the label, if I recall.)

For them, royalties tend to start trickling in a year or two after a recording is released. Touring is a break-even proposition for them, and they equally split what is left between them once the engineer and expenses are paid. It's the bump in sales that happens with touring that carries them through. On the side, they teach at local colleges or universities, perform as backup for other musicians and singers, do some private tutoring, etc. It's only a very small number of performing artists these days who can actually make a living at it.

I haven't even discussed streaming with them. I imagine any little bit helps, but on the other hand, CD sales have fallen off the face of the earth, and many of their recent albums see a lot of download sales.
 
Yes I can. Streaming, although convenient is not what I want to listen to daily. If you like it great - it is not for me and sounds just bad.

with all respect, I do not think anyone can, consistently. I don't want to come off as a wise guy so I'll ask flat out...

how many double blind tests have you correctly identified the stream in vs the cd ?

and what organization set these tests up?



https://www.soundandvision.com/content/launched-tidal-high-fidelity-music-streaming-making-waves
 
b7d.jpg
I don't like tripe but I don't make a big deal over people who do like tripe or the industry that markets tripe.
 
I don't like tripe but I don't make a big deal over people who do like tripe or the industry that markets tripe.

not sure why someone would not like tripe

it's delicious when prepared in traditional Italian fashion, Turkish fashion or Dominican fashion.

as to those that market tripe, I don't think anyone does and that is the problem to it's low acceptance.

seems I always have to search it out.... never recall seeing more than a simple offering on a menu

:)

next time you see a billboard advertising it, let me know :D
 
Part Two - Perspective
Circa 1999 total music revenue (worldwide) peaked at $38.6 billion. The US share (at peak) was around $14.3 billion. Back then, the average music consumer spent $64/year on CDs, etc..

Circa 2013, post P2P sharing and several other mitigating factors, global music revenue had been slashed & gutted to $15 billion. The US share bottoms out around $7 billion annually.

Ok, so short of me being scalped again, I’ll add this most recent addendum report to the thread.

MIDiA Research has released its second State of the Streaming Nation report.

The report notes that streaming revenue alone (globally) in 2016 was $7.6 billion. It projects that streaming will reach $20.1 billion by 2025. Paid subscribers are also expected to increase from 106 million in 2016 to 336 million in 2025. <-- The music market now is a dramatically different one than that which existed in 2015 when there were "just" 67.5 million subscribers.

The current numbers and trend (solely via streaming) represent a much needed shot in the arm overall to a very ailing and stagnant industry.

One of the most notable takeaways I gathered here is that many millions of “average music consumers” are now spending $120/year on subscription music alone compared to $64/yr. on all forms vs. the “good ol’ days of 1999. And according to the research, people will continue to do so going forward.
a.k.a. People are finally and willfully paying for music again…double-time.

Yes, this is macro scale econ and I’m sure many are pondering how all this boom-town growth trickles down to the songwriters and performing artists in the form of compensation. As I’d mentioned earlier, understanding this disruptive/transitional music streaming biz has much to do about amortization and scale; both macro (industry) and micro (artists). So based upon many fantastic comments here, I think it’s fair we discuss and put some Perspective on these “incredulous” and "unfair" thousandths of pennies per play. I’ll pos that piece a bit later.
 
Last edited:
One of the most notable takeaways I gathered here is that many millions of “average music consumers” are now spending $120/year on subscription music alone compared to $64/yr. on all forms vs. the “good ol’ days of 1999. And according to the research, people will continue to do so going forward.


so there is still plenty of money to go around

good link, made clear much
 
Great thread!
The musicians deserve so much more!
Without them we are nothing!

Here's my idea:

Simply have a link to like and donate directly to the artist!

One dollar, they get all of it.
.50 cents, they get all of it.

You pay .50 cents or more, you get the song and all of it goes to the artist.


The steaming companies get their subscription fees either way.

Done, they stop eating cheap pizza and earn what they truly deserve!
Ah yes. If only intellectual property law, contracts, and musicians real life were just that simple.

A handful of artists/bands do have "donation"/buy direct schemes on their site...if they can afford (time moreso than cash) a website. Some distributors offer a "web package" but that too comes at a cost of someone's time and money. A small subset of the handful do reap revenues above nickels and dimes. They do "OK" with what comes in from rabid fans and the occasional drive by. Not saying it's not worthwhile. It's a you get what you give deal.

Every artist/band should indeed have a regularly updated fresh presence on the Internet along with a seamless means to contribute.
Problem/issue is, the overall "windfall" is relatively minimal for the average artist and most, even moderately successful, bands simply do not have the time and/or expertise (techno or marketing wise) to actively promote and manage that piece. Some do, some don't. Overall, that's a manager's job...so, say hello to the 20% or more take of bottom line rule.
index.php
 
Last edited:
My friend 48V and others seem to feel that things are "good as they are."
Not at all RhythmGJ. Thanks for "quoting" me but that's nowhere near where I'm coming from mate. I'm simply attempting to point out that this is a disruptive transition that is finally beginning to turn a very long & winding corner.

Yes it's painful for many learning yet another curve ball. It sucks, yes. It has nothing to do with diligence or intelligence. But a considerable part of this new "money grab/grub" cluster-**** (for the average musician) is due primarily to a very frustrating ignorance issue. Please do not take that as a disparaging comment. Take it in the vain that most singers/songwriters/performers simply don't know how to navigate, promote, and negotiate by this new distribution scheme.

Same as the old boss, there are those in a high castle (labels and artists alike) that do know how and are skimming the cream off the top. But streaming services are not at the top of this food chain...they're smack dab in the middle of a very tight viper pit.

Yes, some in the chain do take advantage and artists' hands are many times tied contractually and "independently" at various points along the way, but there are ways that artists small, medium and large can maximize/exploit the streaming system. So not it's not, as you say I said, "things are good as they are"...my spiel toward the artist, band, or small indy label is that it's an eat or be eaten and/or lemons to lemonade state of the business.

I'm not trying to be some dickweed antagonist here. I'm honestly trying to help steer artists and musicians such as yourself forward through some muddy & choppy water. :)
..... I have a _lot_ of plays, but I can't reach $20??

Labels used to work with 10ths of a penny, now it seems we are dealing with 1000ths and 10,000ths of a penny.

In 1977, 40 years ago we happily paid that for one album (not adjusted for inflation)! The artists got a hell of a lot more than .001 cent per song on that lp too.. The ripoff that was going on back then simply cannot be compared to what is happening today. The math doesn't support it.

OK. That all sounds extremely egregious. Let's examine and discuss (for perspective) this micro accounting ballyhoo.
"Lots of plays"
"1000ths and 10,000ths of a penny"
"hell of a lot more than .001 cent per song"

Let me begin with asking you individually and jointly,
--How many plays/listens is "a lot"?
--What would you deem fair as a royalty per listen from an on-demand streaming service to pay to the rights holder?
--What would you deem fair as a royalty payment per listen from an online radio station/webcaster?
--How much do you think/know the average artist/band receives from the sale of a $16 retail CD?


No trick questions here. I and others really want to hear some clear and factual feedback/numbers from both camps on your side of the streaming fence; an artist and an average consumer. Well, @Alobar is probably not average, but I'm fairly convinced he is an honest music consumer. ;) I'd also like to prod new member @Alan LaFleur back into this mix as another real world payee. All ears fellas.
 
Last edited:
Let me begin with asking you individually and jointly,
--How many plays/listens is "a lot"?
--What would you deem fair as a royalty per listen from an on-demand streaming service to pay to the rights holder?
--What would you deem fair as a royalty payment per listen from an online radio station/webcaster?
--How much do you think/know the average artist/band receives from the sale of a $16 retail CD?

IMHO, these questions are most powerful left as rhetorical.

Point made.

No trick questions here. I and others really want to hear some clear and factual feedback/numbers from both camps on your side of the streaming fence; an artist and an average consumer. Well, @Alobar is probably not average, but I'm fairly convinced he is an honest music consumer. ;) I'd also like to prod new member @Alan LaFleur back into this mix as another real world payee. All ears fellas.

yawn
 
OK. That all sounds extremely egregious. Let's examine and discuss (for perspective) this micro accounting ballyhoo.
"Lots of plays"
"1000ths and 10,000ths of a penny"
"hell of a lot more than .001 cent per song"

I don't know the exact figures, because there are not any really. Each were different from the days before the CD or LP. Still when I went down and bought a CD, I made a commitment to actually pay for that music. When I stream it, I rent it for a few minutes. Lets say that the artist received 10% on a CD (I believe I have heard this as a possible breakdown for the artist). That may be high, maybe low but it is an easy number to do math in my head with (dangerous thing for me) Again for ease of mental mathematics, lets say there are 10 songs on that CD. The artist in this case received $1 from me alone for 10 songs, or another way to look at it, 10 cents per song. Now lets compare it to streaming. Again keeping math simple, lets say they get from me .001 cents per song to stream it once. That is one thousandths of a penny so in order to break even with what the artists made I would have to stream each of those 10 songs 10,000 times! An unlikely thing to happen for any one individual.

While I can agree that nobody seems to be getting rich at this point, I am now starting to think even more than ever that streaming as a business model is doomed with the $10 a month pricing structure. Cell phones charge a lot per month, and there is a piece of ever changing hardware attached to it. Streaming has no hardware (other than any generic device connected to the web) and thus nothing to buy to join in on this great new future of listening. Without any hardware to buy (remember Apple is basically a hardware company and Microsoft is basically software and look how each is doing now!) streaming outfits will continue to cut each others throats.

Remember the thread topic claims to be "better off". My point in a prior thread was that we paid much more per month on music before streaming than we do now. I would buy an lp every few weeks to a month and those ran 7 to 10 bucks each and in dollars much more dear than they are today. I would submit to you that the only ones who are truly "better off" are the listeners, or at least in appearance they are. Could be in fact that when there is nobody producing new music anymore, or it all starts sounding a little like Muzak, then he will wonder what happened to the "greats", where they all gone too... Well the short answer will be heaven, where they can perform without the need for compensation!

To say that "Music industry is better off with streaming" is a little like a prisoner is better off getting 3 meals a day in jail than out on the streets. What choice does the music industry have today other than to embrace their fate?



Well, @Alobar is probably not average, but I'm fairly convinced he is an honest music consumer. ;)
Thanks for the complement! I do appear to strive to be a non-conformist! :)
 
Last edited:
when I went down and bought a CD, I made a commitment to actually pay for that music.

so the $25 a month I pay to stream does not count?

someone earlier in the thread submitted a link showing that at cd's heyday the average spend was $61 a year for music enthusiast


I am now starting to think even more than ever that streaming as a business model is doomed with the $10 a month pricing structure.

12 times 10 is 120

Streaming has no hardware

:rolleyes:
 
so the $25 a month I pay to stream does not count?

someone earlier in the thread submitted a link showing that at cd's heyday the average spend was $61 a year for music enthusiast
I am unfamiliar with a $25 a month plan. It sounds like a step in the right direction however. The $10 a month was used because the major players have set their prices to it. Spotify, AM, etc. Some are less like Amazon unlimited, and of course Pandora.

Yes averages. Numbers can be made to say so much! Was that $61 a year adjusted for inflation? Was it in the Napster era before law enforcement got off their butts? Was it the start of the 99 cent song era? I like to think of the heyday as being before the internet became a "thing". That 120 a year spent, and factored into it were inflation, would be approximately 25 or 30 bucks a year in 1975. As +48V says, I ain't average, but I know I bought more than 3 lp's a year back then..

12 times 10 is 120
Yes, but 10,000 plays of those 10 songs for the artist to reach the break even point for buying the cd is still an impossibility unless I set it up to just play 24/7.. Who does that? As it was brought to my attention, in spite of what I may have read elsewhere, nobody is making any money at this.. So where is the end game? One thing is pretty certain, the ones making the music will have a long wait for money from increased revenue in the "industry" to trickle down the line that far.. I would submit at this point that the artists are really not part of the music industry to which the OP speaks of.
 
OK. That all sounds extremely egregious. Let's examine and discuss (for perspective) this micro accounting ballyhoo.
"Lots of plays"
"1000ths and 10,000ths of a penny"
"hell of a lot more than .001 cent per song"

Let me begin with asking you individually and jointly,
--How many plays/listens is "a lot"?
I think "a lot" is really hard to measure. It depends on the artist. Bob Dylan has sold "a lot" of records, but he isn't Elvis. However, when we are talking about streaming, the numbers are going to be much larger than sells of a single in terms of the fact that you are being tracked every time you go back to it, rather than just being tracked for buying it once. If I listen to one song 50 times because it my favorite workout track, it isn't like I would pay $50 for it.

Let's put this in perspective. Drake has over 3.5 billion streams of one album. In comparison, The Beatles have reportedly (certified) sold 270 million albums (when you add them all together). We definitely aren't comparing Apples to Apples.
 
Back
Top Bottom