David Byrne Criticizes Streaming Music Services

[Chelsea Press 2]

David Byrne Criticizes Streaming Music Services
'Our future as a musical culture looks grim,' singer writes
By RJ CUBARRUBIA
October 11, 2013 2:45 PM ET

After David Byrne declared Monday that the richest one percent are draining New York's cultural resources, the former Talking Heads frontman is leveling similar criticism at the Internet and streaming music services in a new essay for The Guardian, writing that the new landscape will leech away creative content from the world.

Byrne says he understands why people stream music. "For many music listeners, the choice is obvious – why would you ever buy a CD or pay for a download when you can stream your favorite albums and artists either for free, or for a nominal monthly charge?" he writes, noting that Spotify is the second largest source of digital music revenue for labels in Europe. But streaming services like Spotify, Byrne says, result in padded pockets for labels, not artists.

iTunes Radio Prepares to 'Pounce' As Streaming 'Arms Race' Heats Up

"The amounts these services pay per stream is minescule – their idea being that if enough people use the service those tiny grains of sand will pile up. Domination and ubiquity are therefore to be encouraged," Byrne writes. "The major record labels usually siphon off most of this income, and then they dribble about 15-20 percent of what's left down to their artists." Byrne points out that a band of four people receiving a 15 percent royalty from Spotify streams would need 236,549,020 streams to secure an annual minimum wage of $15,080.

Even Daft Punk, who racked up 104,760,000 Spotify streams for "Get Lucky" by the end of August, won't rake it in: they'll make only around $13,000 each for those streams. "This is just one song from a lengthy recording that took a lot of time and money to develop," Byrne writes. "That won't pay their bills if it's their principal source of income. What happens to the bands who don't have massive international summer hits?"

Artists will be out of work in a year if they rely almost solely on streaming revenue in the future, Byrne says, and not everyone can support themselves with big tours, die-hard fans and label support. "Up-and-coming artists don't have that advantage," Byrne writes. "Some haven't got to the point where they can make a living on live performances and licensing, so what do they think of these services?"

Though some artists see view Spotify as a positive and accessible way to spread their music and give listeners a risk-free way to listen, Byrne disagrees with their assessment, saying there are other paths of discovery like the artist's website, sites like Bandcamp and even previews on Amazon. "I like what I hear, there is often the option to buy," he says.

He continues, "I also don't understand the claim of discovery that Spotify makes; the actual moment of discovery in most cases happens at the moment when someone else tells you about an artist or you read about them – not when you're on the streaming service listening to what you have read about (though Spotify does indeed have a 'discovery' page that, like Pandora's algorithm, suggests artists you might like)."

Because labels have a controlling interest in Spotify, artists don't necessarily stand to benefit from the growth of the service, Byrne writes. Spotify dished out more than $500 million to U.S. major labels for the rights to license their catalogues, with another payment to follow; the labels also received equity, becoming partners and shareholders in Spotify, which is estimated at $3 billion in value. "That income from equity, when and if the service goes public, does not have to be shared with the artists," Bryne writes. "It seems obvious that some people are making a lot of money on this deal, while the artists have been left with meagre scraps."

Byrne ultimately doesn't have a solution, though he does have a big concern regarding streaming as a main method of consuming creative content in general. "Perhaps we might stop for a moment and consider the effect these services and this technology will have, before 'selling off' all our cultural assets the way the big record companies did," he writes. "Musicians might, for now, challenge the major labels and get a fairer deal than 15 percent of a pittance, but it seems to me that the whole model is unsustainable as a means of supporting creative work of any kind. Not just music."

He finishes with a bleak warning. "What's at stake is not so much the survival of artists like me, but that of emerging artists and those who have only a few records under their belts," Byrne writes. "Without new artists coming up, our future as a musical culture looks grim."

Read more: www.rollingstone.com/music/news/david-byrne-criticizes-streaming-music-services-20131011#ixzz2hS4w5jZp
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[Nick]

I always wondered how much the artist gets when you stream. Truth be told, there were many hit albums in late 2012 and all of 2013 that I did not purchase since I've been a Spotify Premium customer.

Why would you buy if you have the music on all of your apps? You can always just buy your favorite artists to complete your physical CD collections, but since I'm paying 9.99 each month I notice I'm more than satisfied just having these albums on my laptop, iphone and ipad. The "offline" feature is great since you can listen on the train where there is no internet connection.

As for David Byrne, I did purchase a Talking Heads "Greatest Hits" collection on Amazon a few years ago. lol. He needs to get over it and accept these are the times we're living in. You want more money? Go on tour bitch!

[Physical]

Lol like artists need any more money. They make so much money off tours and endorsements, that it doesn't even matter if they make any off of streaming. Most celebrities already make way too much money. Have you seen most of their net worth? They make a crazy amount of money off tours, endorsements, and also a little bit from single and album sales. It's still way more than the average person makes in a lifetime. So get the f**k out of her with the concern for artists not making enough money off of streaming.

[Chelsea Press 2]

Oct 11, 2013 17:42:37 GMT -5 Physical said:

Lol like artists need any more money. They make so much money off tours and endorsements, that it doesn't even matter if they make any off of streaming. Most celebrities already make way too much money. Have you seen most of their net worth? They make a crazy amount of money off tours, endorsements, and also a little bit from single and album sales. It's still way more than the average person makes in a lifetime. So get the f**k out of her with the concern for artists not making enough money off of streaming.

It takes a lot though to make money from the tours. Some of the costs associated with the tour can be so high that very little money is made from them for the artist, unless they price it just right. Let's say there is some new artist out now who wants to tour, they can't charge the type of ticket prices someone like Bruce Springsteen or Madonna charge now as those artists have been around a long time and they do put on really great shows that are worth the money shelled out for tickets. It's easy to say that any artist can do this, but it's not always possible.

Endorsements aren't guaranteed either. It's not like any singer can go to some company and say "Can I endorse your product?" (maybe that does happen), but most companies don't have the money to just throw it around like that.

Given the lavish lifestyles some of these singers are living, they often spend their money faster than it is coming in and then some who mismanage their money and/or surround themselves with sycophants and leeches, they run out of the money and end up broke.

I know an artist who used to be signed to a major label in the 90s. She had a string of hits and several successful albums. Because they kept pushing her in a direction she didn't want to go (they kept trying to recreate the success of one of her biggest hits in 1999 by hiring the same producer, songwriter and remixers), she bought out her contract and left that label, started her own label and did it all on her own fairly successfully. She could write and arrange songs and had a longtime collaborator who she worked well with so she kept making music. Despite her writing her own music, the royalties coming in aren't that much. And any money she makes comes from her selling the mp3s or CDs directly to the fans (through her website). She refuses to put anything on Spotify or any streaming service because the amount of streams needed to make even a few cents would take years and years, so she would rather people buy the songs from iTunes because that brings in a little more as she wrote or co-wrote those songs and it's her label so she doesn't have to give up as much percentage-wise. She doesn't have the luxury of touring the way Madonna or Bruce Springsteen do because she doesn't have the kind of money to produce such a show and she can't get some corporations to sponsor such a show. She does live performances several times a year and makes money from that, but after subtracting her lodging and transportation costs, it's not much at all.

This brief tangent brings me to my next point. Some artists and their management will ultimately choose to not allow their music to be on these streaming services because they want people to actually buy it. Up until about a month ago, Rihanna's last album Unapologetic was not on Spotify. I know Taylor Swift and Adele's last albums were not on Spotify during their run. I think both might be there now but I haven't checked lately. Even though streaming is playing a bigger role now in music consumption than before, it is something that needs to be re-evaluated.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

The writing is on the wall. Dont sign with labels. Artists are the ones making the music. Make the music and put it on streaming services yourself. Contract out the marketing to the labels or a marketing company but dont give them licensing priviledges. Streaming democratizes music and its consumption. Artists will take advantage or they wont.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Oct 11, 2013 17:42:37 GMT -5 Physical said:

Lol like artists need any more money. They make so much money off tours and endorsements, that it doesn't even matter if they make any off of streaming. Most celebrities already make way too much money. Have you seen most of their net worth? They make a crazy amount of money off tours, endorsements, and also a little bit from single and album sales. It's still way more than the average person makes in a lifetime. So get the f**k out of her with the concern for artists not making enough money off of streaming.

The problem with your thinking is that you're equating artists with celebrities. Very very few musicians and artists become "celebrities". Most make a livable wage and that's it. The glory comes with the travel but it's probably not "glorious" for them because to them it's work.
For every Rihanna, there's a few dozen musicians making $26,000 a year.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Oct 11, 2013 18:54:19 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Oct 11, 2013 17:42:37 GMT -5 Physical said:

Lol like artists need any more money. They make so much money off tours and endorsements, that it doesn't even matter if they make any off of streaming. Most celebrities already make way too much money. Have you seen most of their net worth? They make a crazy amount of money off tours, endorsements, and also a little bit from single and album sales. It's still way more than the average person makes in a lifetime. So get the f**k out of her with the concern for artists not making enough money off of streaming.

The problem with your thinking is that you're equating artists with celebrities. Very very few musicians and artists become "celebrities". Most make a livable wage and that's it. The glory comes with the travel but it's probably not "glorious" for them because to them it's work.
For every Rihanna, there's a few dozen musicians making $26,000 a year.

Agreed. Artists should be making the bulk of the dough. If artists treated record companies like contractors for the marketing of their music and gave record companies the 15-20% they'd probably be somewhat better off on average. However, the streaming market is still really only just beginning. 200million streams isn't a lot of streams to me. For streaming to become a lucrative source of revenue for record companies and artists it has to completely upstage radio as the primary source of income...as in 200million in streams per week for a single song. Then ad rates will go up as a result everyone will make more. Radio tracks all these things and has all these personalities coming in between the consumer and the music. This all costs money.

[mluv]

I think Byrne forgets that musicians just starting out even decades ago also didn't make any money. If they went with a label the majority never got any money from their album sales. They traded all that in order to get the promotion they needed to get people to come to their shows. As Mick Jagger said in this interview: "“When we first started out,” Jagger told the American business magazine Fortune, “there really wasn’t any money in rock n’roll. Obviously there was someone who made money, but it wasn’t the act. Even if you were very successful, you basically got paid nothing.” So same complaint different villain.

What's happening is David Byrne is so wealthy now he's developed amnesia about the fact the good old days were not exactly what he remembers. Musicians have been complaining forever whenever there's been a change in music whether it's been from albums to CDs. I remember when the complaint was that Apple and Itunes would be the end of it all. Now Spotify is the next boogie man.

No one is going to guarantee you wealth because you're able to write a 3 minute song. Musicians will do what they've always done which is toil at their craft if they're any good, quit if they're not. I actually think streaming services are not the enemy he paints it to be. I've discovered quite a few musicians that i would never have found otherwise.

[KeepDeanWeird]

I get what Byrne is saying about the $$$, but as others have pointed out, streaming allows listeners to discover music in ways that were previously not possible. In fact, if you like a "big" artist, you might get a recommendation for a lesser know or emerging act and check out their music. I agree with MLUV regarding Byrne's amnesia - I remember the days when "college" radio was the only place to hear new music. Because of streaming and YouTube, I've discovered or rediscovered many, many artists and songs.

[Myeahhh.]

As a music business major, I can tell you streaming services are absolutely poison to the industry. Everyone likes to automatically think of Britney Spears or Lady Gaga with a cool 200 Mill in their bank account. Who they're forgetting is the 99.98% of the industry that consists of songwriters, producers, audio engineers, record label workers, etc that are lucky if they can pay their car insurance that month. It's just another nail in the coffin of an industry that has been having a funeral for itself for the past 15 years. All this does is discourage creativity & musical development, and in the end it ultimately hurts the consumer.

[mluv]

I don't buy the argument that creativity has something to do with financial compensation. Mozart managed to be extremely creative while he served for the court doing extra jobs like giving music lessons. At one point in his career he found himself out of money and took an extra job as an organist. I do believe people in music deserve to be compensated but creativity is not dependent on that. The term starving artist came about for a reason. Some of the best artist endeavors came about during the lowest point in an artist's life. In fact some of the best musical works from many modern musicians came about before they became rich and famous. it's after they got to be rich and comfortable that some musicians put out pure crap.

The music industry will adjust like it always has to changes in the business. There was lots of crying when the cassette and tape recorders came about with musicians then complaining about people being able to record their music for free off of the radio or from their concerts. They also complained that the people would have no reason to pay for their music when they could get it for free. That turned out to be nonsense. I have no doubts that musicians and other people in the music industry will find a way once again to make us the consumers pay for their music. In the meantime, it's very nice for the consumer that they have streaming options and they can choose to listen to the music they want to and not what just the labels pay the radio stations to play. In that way streaming benefits the smaller musicians. NPR had a story a few months ago about a young guy who got discovered because he sang music covers on YouTube. He ended up getting invited on a tour and touring through Europe. That's the kind of success story you couldn't have had before streaming.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2013 17:36:44 GMT -5 Nick said:

He needs to get over it and accept these are the times we're living in. You want more money? Go on tour bitch!

This.

His calculation that an artist would need hundreds of millions of streams to make minimum wage is ridiculous- like that's the only source of an artist's income. The vast majority of musicians get by on very small income. If it's really about making big money, you don't accomplish that by putting out songs and nothing else. Signing with a major is a trade-off (and even moreso now with 360 deals). If you want to be a superstar, you sign over a large chunk of your entire brand. If it's really just about the music, you'd stay unsigned or sign with a small indie label and have your creative freedom and a larger slice of the pie.

The music industry is changing, just as it always has. It's just changing quicker than ever now because of how accessible the Internet has made music. The RIAA and labels screwed up big time by trying to fight downloading for so long instead of embracing consumer behavior. So far they're getting it right by being ahead of the curve with embracing streaming.

[imbondz]

Oct 11, 2013 18:25:15 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

The writing is on the wall. Dont sign with labels. Artists are the ones making the music. Make the music and put it on streaming services yourself. Contract out the marketing to the labels or a marketing company but dont give them licensing priviledges. Streaming democratizes music and its consumption. Artists will take advantage or they wont.

Exactly what I was going to say. No one is forcing an artist to sign with a label. Make music, play around your town/city. Sell CDs at the live shows...etc.

If fame is what you're after than sign w a label and deal with the consequences. Get a good lawyer and negotiate a good contract. But don't piss and moan because you're fame isn't making you the money you think you deserve.

[popstop]

I don't think Byrne is even talking about fame-level sales though. We are talking enough to live on, enough that flipping burgers at McDonald's wouldn't pay better.

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2013 10:19:46 GMT -5 popstop said:

I don't think Byrne is even talking about fame-level sales though. We are talking enough to live on, enough that flipping burgers at McDonald's wouldn't pay better.

Then most non-famous musicians have another job anyway. The average musician doesn't make a living on doing music alone.