Pink Floyd slams Pandora

[SA-708]

Interesting blog post by David Lowery of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, with screenshots of his songwriting royalty statements:

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!

 

[bshorey]

Am I the only person who agrees with Pink Floyd here? I don't think they're arguing because they are greedy, they're arguing for the sake of struggling musicians (they say 90% of them get less than $5000 from online revenue from services like Pandora) I don't listen to Pandora, I don't like the ads and I don't like not controlling exactly the song I want to listen to. My wife listens to it... She hasn't bought a cd in years. What's the point for her? She just puts on Pandora.

Maybe 90% of the musicians on Pandora suck? I don't know, the Internet, YouTube, Pandora, etc, has provided a platform for all kinds of people to express themselves. That doesn't mean that all of them are good, or that all of them deserve to become rich.

The difference is that 30 years ago, when all we had was big record companies and terrestrial radio, those 90% never got the chance to be heard.

bs

 

[Duke58]

The music industry as most of us knew it growing up is no longer the music industry. Because of the internet, about 10 years worth of music gets downloaded to sites like YouTube about every week. I know artists who get 50,000 hits on a particular song and get a check for a few dollars. For a band to make any money, they had to sell records. Now, hit bands hit the road and make bucks performing live. Seems funny, in Beethoven's day, live music was all there was.

I personally like the combination of sites like Pandora and iTunes. If I like a song or album, I buy the LP if it's available, or at least an iTunes song for $1.00 + tax.

Don Mclean wrote a couple hit songs then disappeared because of contract issues. A guy called Rodriguez, who was thought to be dead, turned out to be a hit artist in other countries such as S. Africa. He's got lawyers after the record companies seeking what he's due.

I'm with Matteos on this one- I'd produce the music myself and sell a copy for a few bucks, do live shows. You can buy software and do it all. Its more important to have computer skills as it is to have music skills.

What's the difference between Justin Beaver and Taylor Swift? Taylor has talent and writes her own music. We'll have to watch as Beaver Boy crashes and burns, one day at a time.

 

[cubdog]

.

Except that isn't the solution. I want what's best for the artist, but, I'm not going to start going to concerts and I'm done with records and cds. Like it or not we are in a new age and were not going back any time soon. I don't have any answers but I'm not going to change my listening habits either.

cubdog

 

[dumptruck]

Except that isn't the solution. I want what's best for the artist, but, I'm not going to start going to concerts and I'm done with records and cds. Like it or not we are in a new age and were not going back any time soon. I don't have any answers but I'm not going to change my listening habits either.

Then buy their record digitally? If you're only interested in listening to a radio-style mix of stuff and just would like artists to get something from that, that's nice but I don't think you really need to worry about it unless you really want to research and get involved just on principle. Nobody short of superstardom is ever going to make any significant amount of money from that type of listening, nor did they used to. To be clear, I agreed with the last paragraph of the article 100%.

 

[dumptruck]

P.S. Or, if true on-demand services like MOG are what you're talking about, that's a far more straightforward situation. Artists should get fair compensation for what people play, and you should support that. Just remember, it's more straightforward conceptually, but not necessarily legally. Recording artists? Songwriters? Labels? 3rd party owners? Who gets money? Who's in charge? Who has to do what to get money? Beware of anyone telling you "this is obviously what's most fair and I only need a couple sentences to describe it so sign this petition".

 

[JohnVF]

Yes, ideology and wishful thinking are not going to give artists a paycheck. Even the very small ones that most of them get. CDs are dead and vinyl is and always will be from here on a niche product for a small subset of consumers.

The largest Best Buy in Chicago is down to one rack of CDs and what little vinyl they had two years ago has dwindled. I went by FYE today, the one remaining large record/DVD/BluRay store in downtown Chicago, and they were having a going out of business sale. They're dying with the format they sold. They tried a last ditch effort to sell vinyl like the independent store two blocks south, but that format won't support a large retail space. Not even in the 3rd largest city in America as the only large music/movie store downtown.

You can no longer sell enough plastic discs with their attached middle-men to somebody when they can get it instantly on the devices they'll play it on. So if there are going to be artists, how those artists pay for their rent and food will have to change with the times, or they'll do something else for a living. We'll always have music but if nobody can make a dime on it, the quality of that music and the quality of the recordings will reflect how much time and effort people can afford to put into it. Most bands today aren't in it for the money but it's not cheap to buy instruments and recording gear, or studio time if you don't want to invest in doing it yourself. And touring schedules aren't friendly to most means of steady employment.

Read up on any number of small bands and semi-successful musicians when they decide to pack it in. Living in shitty motels, a tour van, and on borrowed couches might be fun at 21 but when you're 30, 35, and you're married with a kid or two good luck supporting them on royalties and T-shirts. But any little bit helps and that is what this is about. If you enjoy art you should compensate the artists for the enjoyment they gave you.

 

[tannyhoban]

I would think most artists, especially the relatively unkown, would welcome as many outlets that might play their music as possible, even if it meant zero royalties. I can't see how they'd make more money with even less exposure. A band like Pink Floyd, although way less relevant today then they once were, doesn't really need internet exposure, so I doubt they really know where the "little guy" is coming from.

I've purchased some songs lately from Amazon because I heard them on various internet sites that I would normally never heard, and therefore never purchased, so I think they're out in left field on this one and not seeing the whole picture.

My brother has published and recorded various songs and jingles and once made a decent part time wage from the royalties for these efforts. The rights were sold to a large company (in Texas I believe). I don't know all of the particulars but at no time did he give up his right to royalties. No longer do the royalty checks come in, but he does get the privilege of hearing his music used on commercials both radio and TV. His attorney told him "Get in line and good luck collecting".

If he doesn't get the royalty, then hearing it on different outlets yields him zilch. So there is that.

 

[matteos]

Maybe 90% of the musicians on Pandora suck? I don't know, the Internet, YouTube, Pandora, etc, has provided a platform for all kinds of people to express themselves. That doesn't mean that all of them are good, or that all of them deserve to become rich.

The difference is that 30 years ago, when all we had was big record companies and terrestrial radio, those 90% never got the chance to be heard.

bs

Yet the big record companies churn out Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and all that crap. They're obviously doing a great job of filtering out the dross.

SA708 just posted a link showing someone had their song played over a million times and made $16 from it from Pandora. I don't know how anyone can justify that.

 

[TheX]

I pay 5 bucks a month for Spotify. Don't care about Pandora.

 

[krisjay]

It may be fine for a young band who actually needs the exposure. Pink Floyd in any form do not need the exposure. I don't find it in any way a touchy subject or tuff to figure out. An artist has the right to charge what they feel is a fair price for the work they create. If Pink Floyd or any artist doesn't feel that the cut is big enough, they should have every right to "opt out" of Pandora or any other online service, radio, etc, etc. I feel I am worth this amount, if you don't want to pay me that amount, Im not on board and don't use my art for your gain. Pandora has no "right" to my work or art. In a secondary point, if the label I am attached to, has in the contract that I signed stipulations for online radio and other services, well then not much you can do, read before you sign, these are strange days indeed. At one time, video killed the radio star, now it seems internet killed everything, Im just glad that i lived through times when bands and albums meant something, they were part of our culture, part of the times, it just was different and I feel a hell of alot better. Now if you will excuse me, I have some teenagers to run off my lawn, damn kids these days.

 

[cubdog]

P.S. Or, if true on-demand services like MOG are what you're talking about, that's a far more straightforward situation. Artists should get fair compensation for what people play, and you should support that. Just remember, it's more straightforward conceptually, but not necessarily legally. Recording artists? Songwriters? Labels? 3rd party owners? Who gets money? Who's in charge? Who has to do what to get money? Beware of anyone telling you "this is obviously what's most fair and I only need a couple sentences to describe it so sign this petition".

I use both MOG and Pandora. But, whatever my source for music, if it's available and legal I will listen. I don't need anyone to tell me it's a messy situation. The end user didn't create this mess and the music industry needs to straighten it out. The listening audience , without whom the music industry would cease to exist, need not be held accountable.

cubdog

 

[dumptruck]

I use both MOG and Pandora. But, whatever my source for music, if it's available and legal I will listen. I don't need anyone to tell me it's a messy situation. The end user didn't create this mess and the music industry needs to straighten it out. The listening audience , without whom the music industry would cease to exist, need not be held accountable.

I am only telling you (and it wasn't really directed at you personally) that it's a messy situation in the context of discouraging uninformed activism, which is, in a way, the main point of the Pink Floyd article. You are fine. Maybe if you find yourself listening to a particular band a LOT, consider checking into if there's something you could buy to help them out more directly, to be nice. Maybe not. I wouldn't express any disapproval either way .

 

[derekva]

Different situation:

http://www.soundexchange.com/service-provider/licensing-101/

Online streaming media companies are not treated the same way as broadcast stations for the purpose of paying royalties, by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange

Clearly a case where intellectual property law is not keeping up with technology. Traditional broadcast media is in decline and online solutions like Pandora are filling the gap. I don't agree that royalties should be reduced, but I do think that perhaps internet radio sites should not have to pay, similar to traditional broadcast radio.

-D

 

[hjames]

Robert Fripp (of King Crimson, etc) has a blog and has repeatedly talked about how the digital rights for King Crimson sales (itunes, web media, etc) have NEVER been sold and yet he keeps seeing their music played on Spotify and other services. He has to set lawyers on them and complain and it never really ends. He basically figures the lawyers with these services (and with some record labels he has been with in the past that have never paid royalties on some of his releases) are pretty much just buffers that are paid to stand in the way and make sure nothing gets accomplished. He figures they are hired to waste his time and keep him from getting any real satisfaction. He's pretty bitter about it - figures he can manage the music for himself and the band, or tour and play, and this legal stuff (and some other issues) just took all the joy out of his touring to play music. http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm

 

[+48V]

Interesting blog post by David Lowery of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, with screenshots of his songwriting royalty statements:

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!

David Lowery's slants and rants against Pandora are fairly well known (at least in the inner circles of this issue).

But for anyone who really knows how these royalties are collected and distributed, there is no way to fairly make a judgement or quantify an argument against Pandora based on those screenshots of his "vs. statements". As a trained mathematician and former quant, Lowery knows well how to fool eyes and minds. :nono:

He's leaving out a few select & critical details.....But revealing them would dilute the impact of his spectacular headline. :thumbsdn:

 

[JohnVF]

What exactly could he leave out that excuses them for paying less than $17 for the product they're selling? They seem to want to be able to sell something without paying the original "manufacturer" for the goods that they're selling.

 

[+48V]

The result is dramatically different royalty rates: satellite pays about 7.5% of revenues and cable pays about 15%, while Pandora pays more than 50% of revenue in royalties.

Interesting figures, but those are not royalty rates. That just shows how lousy Pandora's business model is.

Yet the standard used to determine rates for satellite & cable are vastly different than the standard for internet radio. Apply the same standards to everyone and then we can talk about business models. :thmbsp:

 

[+48V]

What exactly could he leave out that excuses them for paying less than $17 for the product they're selling? They seem to want to be able to sell something without paying the original "manufacturer" for the goods that they're selling.

Seems, indeed-->if you base it solely on his rants & charts.

Firstly, he's chooses (cherry picking) only show payments he receives as the songwriter. Consider that Cracker also receives a much healthier stipend as the performer from digital streaming services such as Pandora. i.e. 1M performances/listens of the song Low--Pandora pays $1,100. Terrestrial radio pays him zero royalties as the performer.

Secondly, he slyly professes, "Terrestrial (FM/AM) radio US paid me $1,522.00" ($1,374 for Low) "comparing" that to his mere $17 from Pandora. Why such a huge difference? Because David is comparing 18,797 total spins from all US AM/FM markets to Pandora's 1 million listens. Big difference there.

Internet radio pays based upon number of people that actually hear/listen to the song....not the number times it was played X a best guess of audience size per market.

In other words, had Pandora "played" the song to the same number of people that AM/FM did....his check (as a songwriter) would've been exponentially larger and on par with what he received from terrestrial radio. Truth be told, David Lowery is bitching that his music isn't heard as much on Pandora as it is on the conventional radio dial.

 

[JohnVF]

He didn't hide the fact, at all, that he was discussing songwriter royalties. If anything the writer should get equal or more than the performer. Or else we end up with a sea of cover artists playing better songs than they could write themselves.

Also, there is a big difference from FM and Pandora. You have no information on who FM played his song to that actually sought out that station for THAT song. It was more incidental to the draw. It was not a specifically sought out product that FM had on sale, which is why I feel Pandora should pay more. And so should Mog, and Spotify. FM sells a genre and most people are listening at random and many of those as background music. Specific-demand services are selling an artists specific work. They should, if anything, pay the same cut as retailers, not FM.