Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
đŁ NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Nov 8, 2014 19:08:56 GMT -5
By Aloe Blacc 11.05.14 | 6:30 am I am many things: a singer, a musician, a businessman, and a philanthropist. But above all, I am a songwriter. At our core, songwriters are creators. We challenge ourselves and others to reflect on the world around us. And the work we produce has powerâpower to capture peopleâs emotions and imaginations like few other art forms, power to transcend traditional barriers of age, language and culture, and power to transform a conversation and generate positive social change. But does our work as songwriters have value? Coming from someone who has spent his life working hard to master his craft in order to touch the lives of others, that may seem like an absurd question. But in todayâs rapidly changing music marketplace, the answer is increasingly unclear. Just this week, Taylor Swift removed her music from Spotifyânot because she doesnât want you to stream her songs, but because she wants to be compensated fairly for her work. She wants Spotify to treat her work as though it has value. This problem ought to cause anyone who cares about the future of musicâprofessionals and fans alikeâto stand up and take note. Let me explain why. First, unlike most people in creative industries, songwriters seem to have less control over our work than ever before. Knock off a handbag design from a high-end fashion house or use a sports teamâs logo in your new t-shirt line, and expect a lawsuit in short order. And good luck copying a big tech companyâs patented innovation. You need express permission from the original creators to use or copy their work before you resell it. Thatâs how they protect the value of their work. But the world doesnât work that way for songwriters. By law, we have to let any business use our songs that asks, so long as they agree to pay a rate that, more often than not, was not set in a free market. We donât have a choice. As such, we have no power to protect the value of the music we create. The abhorrently low rates songwriters are paid by streaming servicesâenabled by outdated federal regulationsâare yet another indication our work is being devalued in todayâs marketplace. Consider the fact that it takes roughly one million spins on Pandora for a songwriter to earn just $90. Aviciiâs release âWake Me Up!â that I co-wrote and sing, for example, was the most streamed song in Spotify history and the 13th most played song on Pandora since its release in 2013, with more than 168 million streams in the US. And yet, that yielded only $12,359 in Pandora domestic royaltiesâ which were then split among three songwriters and our publishers. In return for co-writing a major hit song, Iâve earned less than $4,000 domestically from the largest digital music service.If thatâs whatâs now considered a streaming âsuccess story,â is it any wonder that so many songwriters are now struggling to make ends meet? The reality is that people are consuming music in a completely different way today. Purchasing and downloading songs have given way to streaming, and as a result, the revenue streams that songwriters relied upon for years to make a living are now drying up. But the irony of the situation is that our music is actually being enjoyed by more people in more places and played across more platforms (largely now digital) than ever before. Our work clearly does have value, of course, or else it would not be in such high demand. So why arenât songwriters compensated more fairly in the marketplace? I firmly believe there must be a way for innovative new music services to succeed in the marketplace without undervaluing the contribution of songwriters. And, thankfully, I am not alone in that view. Through performing rights societies, this summer songwriters successfully convinced the US Department of Justice to open a formal review of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees that govern how the vast majority of American songwriters are compensated for our work. The world has changed dramatically since this regulatory framework was first established in 1941, but the consent decrees havenât been updated since 2001âbefore the iPod even hit stores. Updating the nationâs antiquated music licensing system will better serve the needs of not only music creators, like me, but businesses that use our music, consumers and the global marketplace for music. But the digital music services that see a financial advantage in maintaining the status quo are fighting hard to obstruct any meaningful reform. I, for one, can no longer stand on the sidelines and watch as the vast majority of songwriters are left out in the cold, while streaming company executives build their fortunes in stock options and bonuses on the back of our hard work. Songwriting is truly a labor of love, one that often does not result in wealth. But I know the work we create has real value. And I believe policymakers will one day recognize that a system that allows digital streaming services to enjoy enormous profits while music creators struggle is imbalanced and broken. Until that day comes, I will do my part to try to convince people that the music they love wonât exist without us, and that we, as songwriters, cannot continue to exist like this. And you can do your part to protect the music you love by buying albums and urging streaming services to uphold the value of songwriting. After all, if songwriters cannot afford to make music, who will? www.wired.com/2014/11/aloe-blacc-pay-songwriters/The highlighted text is very interesting and it puts another perspective on Taylor Swift holding her albums from Streaming Services like Spotify.
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,067
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 8, 2014 19:16:53 GMT -5
....Damn. I take back everything I said about streaming.
|
|
Spidey
Diamond Member
I love you, it's ruining my life.
Joined: July 2008
Posts: 16,673
|
Post by Spidey on Nov 8, 2014 19:27:27 GMT -5
....Damn. I take back everything I said about streaming. This is why you do your research before speaking. ;)
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
đŁ NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Nov 8, 2014 19:33:14 GMT -5
popbox I want to hear what you have to say about this since that number you were tossing around was clearly fabricated. In 2013, Spotify said that it pays between $.006 and $.0084 per song stream. Not the $.89 figure that you were tossing around as fact. I wish people researched streaming royalties before they commented on them. They truly are that dismal. Fractions of a penny. Streaming may or may not be ruining the industry. I don't think I will ever understand this when it's said. Then the entire music industry of artists need to revolt if it's so horrid for them. But you don't see most of them complaining. The average is close to a dollar per stream for big names on Spotify (I think it's 89c last I checked). Do you realize how much that adds up on a site like Spotify where streaming is in the millions per song for big names? It's the small artists it really hurts, not the big. The average is less than a nickel for a lot of them. They're the ones that should be complaining. Anyways, do you know the royalty most artists make off albums? It's not a whole lot better. Never has been, never will. Hence why touring exists. That's how the artists get rich. Albums, singles, digital, streaming...it's all for the businesses not the artist. She should pull her stuff from iTunes if she's really making a statement against all that. As far as it being ridiculous to say her ego is huge, well just look at her personal life. I'm sorry, but you can't have dozens of failed relationships and still maintain it's them not you. I mean the Lautner relationship is like the only time she'll admit to having screwed up. Out of countless others. C'mon now, if her ego isn't the problem then she's just a very difficult person. Which usually ties back to the ego. All of that said, I do agree it could be the label that's pulling the power play with Spotify. But the fact that Taylor won't say anything even remotely suggesting it's not her makes me think it is. I don't think the label would "scare" her into silence if it wasn't something she agreed with. That's not Taylor to say the least. Clocked.
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,067
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 8, 2014 19:37:42 GMT -5
....Damn. I take back everything I said about streaming. This is why you do your research before speaking. ;) I knew the price was low, and I'd seen the price, but I thought it was 6 cents, not literally 0.6 cents... Eek!
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
đŁ NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Nov 8, 2014 19:42:46 GMT -5
This is why you do your research before speaking. ;) I knew the price was low, and I'd seen the price, but I thought it was 6 cents, not literally 0.6 cents... Eek! Its not even that much; it's in the thousandths of a cent tier. A million streams in the Top Tier equates to $8400.
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,067
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 8, 2014 19:44:43 GMT -5
I knew the price was low, and I'd seen the price, but I thought it was 6 cents, not literally 0.6 cents... Eek! Its not even that much; its in the thousandths of a cent tier. A million streams in the Top Tier equates to $8400. ...#ISupportTaylor #Trendsetter #RoyaltiesQueen
|
|
Ginger Spice
5x Platinum Member
candy coated heart shapes
Joined: November 2013
Posts: 5,016
|
Post by Ginger Spice on Nov 8, 2014 19:48:45 GMT -5
Yes, it sucks for the artist. However we live in a world where people just don't want to pay for music anymore (unless it's Taylor Swift, apparently). That sorry ass payment for streams is still better than the nothing they get from illegal downloads.
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,067
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 8, 2014 19:50:40 GMT -5
Artists need to start actually competing instead of just releasing a song/album and hoping they get lucky. If you're relying on Spotify... you really need to get creative with your promotion techniques...
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ŕźşŕźŕźť Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,480
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Nov 8, 2014 20:02:22 GMT -5
This is a great article, significantly because rather than rant about what streaming does to the value of art or something effervescent along those lines, there is a clear economic problem that is outlined: the streaming revenue system does not support songwriters.
I hope that proper modifications are going to come from this review, but ultimately a big issue is that money has to be pumped in from somewhere. Telling people to by music like they used to 2 decades isn't a valuable solution, they tried that and it failed repeatedly.
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
đŁ NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Nov 8, 2014 20:23:48 GMT -5
According to his calculation for Pandora an artist gets paid $.00009 per stream.
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,067
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 8, 2014 20:25:53 GMT -5
According to his calculation for Pandora an artist gets paid $.00009 per stream. That's... I can't even...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2014 21:11:38 GMT -5
Yes, it sucks for the artist. However we live in a world where people just don't want to pay for music anymore (unless it's Taylor Swift, apparently). That sorry ass payment for streams is still better than the nothing they get from illegal downloads. Agreed. It sucks, but it's the reality of the industry. Artists need to look for other ways to make profits. Album and single sales alone just won't do it anymore.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 8, 2014 21:20:06 GMT -5
According to his calculation for Pandora an artist gets paid $.00009 per stream. Pandora is passive and free for consumers. The payouts have always been lowest from pandora. My only issue with Aloe's piece is how he didn't give a shot of people knew he was singing on Wake Me Up, but he's pissed he's not getting paid enough for writing it.
|
|
popbox
3x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 3,493
|
Post by popbox on Nov 9, 2014 4:12:10 GMT -5
popbox I want to hear what you have to say about this since that number you were tossing around was clearly fabricated. In 2013, Spotify said that it pays between $.006 and $.0084 per song stream. Not the $.89 figure that you were tossing around as fact. Then the entire music industry of artists need to revolt if it's so horrid for them. But you don't see most of them complaining. The average is close to a dollar per stream for big names on Spotify (I think it's 89c last I checked). Do you realize how much that adds up on a site like Spotify where streaming is in the millions per song for big names? It's the small artists it really hurts, not the big. The average is less than a nickel for a lot of them. They're the ones that should be complaining. Anyways, do you know the royalty most artists make off albums? It's not a whole lot better. Never has been, never will. Hence why touring exists. That's how the artists get rich. Albums, singles, digital, streaming...it's all for the businesses not the artist. She should pull her stuff from iTunes if she's really making a statement against all that. As far as it being ridiculous to say her ego is huge, well just look at her personal life. I'm sorry, but you can't have dozens of failed relationships and still maintain it's them not you. I mean the Lautner relationship is like the only time she'll admit to having screwed up. Out of countless others. C'mon now, if her ego isn't the problem then she's just a very difficult person. Which usually ties back to the ego. All of that said, I do agree it could be the label that's pulling the power play with Spotify. But the fact that Taylor won't say anything even remotely suggesting it's not her makes me think it is. I don't think the label would "scare" her into silence if it wasn't something she agreed with. That's not Taylor to say the least. Clocked. Yeah, hence why I admitted I got mixed up on that as soon as it was pointed out to me in that thread. I was thinking of what most artists get per album, not stream. I did however post an article that showed what Spotify had reported paying out on streaming royalties and it had some projections on what some of the better streamed songs had made in royalties in 2013 (some were over 500k). So you see how those fractions of cents add up for big artists whose songs are being streamed as much as hundreds of millions of times. I also said that I agree that the streaming rates aren't fair at all for newer/smaller artists (like Aloe Blacc). The single and album rates really suck for those artists too though, so it's not just a streaming issue. The label gets most of the royalties on all this kind of stuff, not the artist. Taylor should be taking the issue up with her label more than with Spotify. Assuming its actually about the money for her and not just a power play as I expect. And all that has nothing to do with Taylor's Spotify dropout anyways, or if it does she's very misguided. Because if Spotify increases her royalties to get her back, it will be for her and maybe some other huge name artists if they chose to pull what Taylor did. It will in no way help the smaller, less known artists though (who are the ones that truly need the change). So please don't try to tell me she's doing it all for them. And I said all this in the 1989 thread, so read all of it please, not just cherry-pick what posts of mine you quote.
|
|
|
Post by Ezekiel 23:20â21 on Nov 9, 2014 5:19:03 GMT -5
My only issue with Aloe's piece is how he didn't give a shot of people knew he was singing on Wake Me Up, but he's pissed he's not getting paid enough for writing it. It seems that Avicii doesn't like to credit the vocalists on the songs which is a shame. That sort of shady business was common back in the day too (the whole Black Box debacle with Martha Wash and then again with Clivilles & Cole), but in the end, Aloe Blacc did write that song that he happened to sing. Shouldn't he receive some sort of compensation for his contribution? The situation with this Avicii song is a bit more complicated though because the song is in a Dance/Electronic style. This style of music tends to sell far less no matter how popular it gets or how much the song is liked, or played on the radio. It's just one of those things that has been happening. The sales for many of the recent Dance crossovers were so shockingly low. People will enjoy the song, but they will stream it for free via one of these services or they will listen to it via YouTube, or worse, they will illegally download it because they don't find enough value in it to spend the $0.89 to $1.29 at one of the stores to buy it to put on their computer or devices. Look at how horrid the sales have been for many of these Dance artists' albums even though there were huge singles associated with such projects. Daft Punk's album last year was a major exception to that as they have built a brand and a loyal following that was waiting for that album so naturally it would do better. With extremely low sales for the songs and albums, it's hard to earn enough from the royalties and residuals to make a living unless one is doing lots of songs or they are really successful and selling well. The streaming via Spotify and other services does generate income, but so little that it's insignificant. Touring, merchandising, and endorsements are where the real money is, but for many, they won't see any of that money because all those big companies will not just choose anyone and everyone for the endorsements. Touring only works if you have established and built an audience, and you only make money if the production costs are significantly lower than what you are taking in. It takes years to build an audience like that. Madonna can charge up to $1000 per ticket because she has been around 30 years and has established her brand. She has cultivated a loyal audience that is willing to pay that price and they do. Meagan Trainor is brand new and she cannot possibly justify charging that much. With the way things are in the music industry now, artists will have to find other ways to earn money as one cannot earn much from the royalties if they wrote the music, and of course from selling the music as single and album sales are dwindling, and unless they can establish themselves and get an audience willing to pay, touring won't work either.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,586
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 9, 2014 8:15:26 GMT -5
you know how much money he made from radio play? millions. wish he included that figure here.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Nov 9, 2014 8:39:02 GMT -5
According to his calculation for Pandora an artist gets paid $.00009 per stream. Pandora is passive and free for consumers. The payouts have always been lowest from pandora. My only issue with Aloe's piece is how he didn't give a shot of people knew he was singing on Wake Me Up, but he's pissed he's not getting paid enough for writing it. Receiving public credit and paid credit are two different things though. Not everyone is concerned about having their names mentioned but if you're doing it as a job, there is a certain expectation to get paid for it. Think of speechwriters, for example. They expect to get paid for it but most are okay with not having their name directly attached to the speech when read out by someone else. The thing about this is that he did use potentially the lowest paying streaming service as an example. So you have Pandora, but then you have the other major streaming services too. So he earned $4,000 from Pandora, plus another X,000 from another one, XY,000 from another one, and it adds up. Not to mention all the royalties from radio airplay. (it should be noted that he did split that between other songwriters so maybe another point to look at is - don't write songs with a bazillion other songwriters.) Of course, that's probably not his point. I'd be curious to know how much of a profit is made by Pandora itself through advertising or however they make money, after paying the artists their share. That would tell the true picture. The thing with Pandora is that as a streaming service, it isn't serving as the next saviour of the music industry in the way iTunes was in response to illegal downloads. So with that in mind, there is justified resentment toward services like that by artists who seem to be getting the short end of the deal, especially considering that streaming services are taking away from digital purchases, which takes away from payments artists receive. When you look at the evolution of music, it goes CD -> digital -> streaming. Digital purchasing was put in place because people were moving away from buying CDs on their own in favour of illegal downloading. So digital was seen as a positive progression and solution in the face of a very negative situation. But streaming just kind of butt itself in there on its own, in my perspective, and has taken a more proactive role in how people listen to music while digital was reactive. So in that sense, streaming is actively taking from potential music buyers and now a lot of people have settled into the idea of paying $10/mo for all music rather than $x.00 on iTunes. And then you need to look at it from the consumers' perspective. Is it a fair tradeoff for them? I'm sure the general answer is an overwhelming yes but then you have the Taylor Swift situation, which could occur more and more as streaming continues to play a bigger role in how people listen to music. It's definitely a challenging topic to approach because, while I'm someone who does believe in supporting the artist and buying the music (though I'm still stuck on buying CDs and vinyl), I have also been in favour of mp3s and artists/musicians/the industry being more receptive and proactive in keeping up with technology and what the people want. Streaming obviously does offer more convenience and at $10/mo, you really can't beat that, but artists need to be fairly compensated. EDIT: electricliterature.com/taylor-swift-and-the-myth-of-the-mean-greedy-artist/And this article I found yesterday that talks about Taylor Swift and the accusation that artists are greedy for asking to be paid for their work. It's mentioned in the article about how hard pressed people are to pay for music when they're willing to pay $5 for a latte. One of the replies to the article takes an approach to it with marketing and the whole idea of a free market and it made me think about how artists aren't given the ability to set their own prices. It's a one-size fits all model now for all songs but obviously, all music isn't worth the same to us.
|
|
SHOOTER
Diamond Member
3x Poster Of The Year!!!
Typical of those in power to stay worried about the *wrong* shit.
Joined: April 2006
Posts: 75,056
|
Post by SHOOTER on Nov 9, 2014 12:05:17 GMT -5
Yes, it sucks for the artist. However we live in a world where people just don't want to pay for music anymore (unless it's Taylor Swift, apparently). That sorry ass payment for streams is still better than the nothing they get from illegal downloads. Agreed. It sucks, but it's the reality of the industry. Artists need to look for other ways to make profits. Album and single sales alone just won't do it anymore. Agreed. Historically, most artists have never earned significant revenue from album and single sales as it is so, while I understand their position completely, it does baffle me a bit that they would expect better payment from sources where people aren't even actually buying the music itself.
|
|
kml567
Gold Member
Joined: June 2005
Posts: 972
|
Post by kml567 on Nov 9, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5
I don't understand why Spotify offers free streaming. They should charge $0.01 per stream.....with a maximum cap of $9.99 per month. That seems like a fair solution.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 9, 2014 15:20:04 GMT -5
I don't understand why Spotify offers free streaming. They should charge $0.01 per stream.....with a maximum cap of $9.99 per month. That seems like a fair solution. Spotify argues that itss free tier actually makes people more willing to pay the $9.99 a month later on, once they get used to using a streaming service and want the ability to use it for on demand track plays and portable listening. Whether it actually does or not, who knows. The success of streaming services depends on transitioning as many people as possible to being paid customers. An ad-based model isn't sustainable, at least unless the service plans to pay nothing (i.e. Pandora). Wake Me Up sold about 4 million copies in the US. At $1.29 each, that comes out to $5,160,000. Apple takes 30% off the top of each sale as a commission. That leaves $3,612,000. Let's say the label takes 50% of that (it's probably more, but just for argument's sake). That takes us down to $1,806,000. Avicii, as the credited artist, producer, and songwriter, takes 30% off of that for himself. That leaves $1,264,200 for the other 5 individuals (3 more song writers, a co-producer, and a keyboardist and the songwriter's publishers credited on the song according to the liner notes. Let's say the co-producer and the keyboardist each get 3% of the sales. That leaves a little over $1 million to be split 3 ways (plus the publishing companies' commissions). Yes, $4,000 isn't much. But it's not like that was his only income. Wake Me Up has 300 million streams on Spotify. 485 million on YouTube. Who knows how many more on other streaming services. And that's not to mention that fact that the notoriety that he received from appearing on the song allowed him to have a top 10 hit of his own, that would have had nowhere near the audience if he hadn't been featured on Wake Me Up. The Man went double platinum in the US. His album opened at #4 with 43k sold, after his first two albums didn't even chart. I understand his frustration that he isn't getting the royalty he thinks he deserves from streaming, but it's not going to change anytime soon. The people who actually make money off record sales and streaming have always been, and always will be, the labels.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,586
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 10, 2014 10:59:43 GMT -5
No one forced him to sign a record deal.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 10, 2014 12:34:06 GMT -5
you know how much money he made from radio play? millions. wish he included that figure here. That would only help his argument... He's not saying "Look at me - I made this hit song and am poor." We all know that's not true - especially since Billboard Biz ran a backhanded article about how he's one of the shrewdest businessmen in music and made a killing off this song (despite not getting credit). He's saying "Look at this channel - look how many people listened to my song on this channel - look at how important songs like mine are to the proliferation of this channel - and look at how little I get paid." This isn't a "music industry sucks" rant. It's a "this particular form of streaming sucks" rant. Agreed. Historically, most artists have never earned significant revenue from album and single sales as it is so, while I understand their position completely, it does baffle me a bit that they would expect better payment from sources where people aren't even actually buying the music itself. Well, Spotify is in the limelight now, and at its most vulnerable (from a perception standpoint) since everyone loves Taylor Swift. So it makes sense to put together these sorts of rants...and quickly. But I do think the disillusionment is welcome. People talk about streaming as "the future" and a way to protect the music industry amid the rise of digital (and piracy), but this data shows it is absolutely not a substitute for traditional single and album sales.
|
|
Kinney
Gold Member
Joined: December 2012
Posts: 577
|
Post by Kinney on Nov 10, 2014 18:54:38 GMT -5
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 10, 2014 18:59:19 GMT -5
Yeah, Taylor cares so much about people not getting her music for free, they gave away free downloads of This Love through Starbucks...
I also think its cute how they make it out like Taylor Swift is the first artist to not have her new release on streaming services as soon as it came out. Beyonce's album still isn't on streaming, apart from the singles. Coldplay wasn't on streaming to start. Sam Smith wasn't on streaming.
|
|
Kinney
Gold Member
Joined: December 2012
Posts: 577
|
Post by Kinney on Nov 10, 2014 19:14:19 GMT -5
Starbucks pays for their free Song/App of the week downloads when the customer redeems their code through the Starbucks app.
They're not making it seem like Taylor is the first to keep her album from streaming services (they note other artists have done so), but she is quite clearly the biggest artist to do so at the moment and the easiest for readers to identify the situation with. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 10, 2014 19:30:05 GMT -5
Starbucks does not pay full price if they pay anything at all. It is far more likely they front an advance.
BTW, quoting an article in full like that violates Fair Use, FYI.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Nov 10, 2014 19:36:13 GMT -5
you know how much money he made from radio play? millions. wish he included that figure here. That would only help his argument... He's not saying "Look at me - I made this hit song and am poor." We all know that's not true - especially since Billboard Biz ran a backhanded article about how he's one of the shrewdest businessmen in music and made a killing off this song (despite not getting credit). He's saying "Look at this channel - look how many people listened to my song on this channel - look at how important songs like mine are to the proliferation of this channel - and look at how little I get paid." This isn't a "music industry sucks" rant. It's a "this particular form of streaming sucks" rant. Yeah. Think of it like you're working two jobs. Job A pays you $80/hr while Job B pays you $5/hr. You aren't so much complaining about the fact you don't have any money but the fact you aren't being fairly paid from Job B. To up the analogy a little (it's not the best one, I admit), let's say you have a great reputation and being employed at both jobs brings in a lot of revenue for each company. You could quit Job B because you aren't being paid well and it won't make TOO much difference in your bank account but it could hurt the Job B's profits because they lost one of their star employees. People keep trying to look at this from a perspective that Aloe Blacc, or Taylor Swift, or whoever are complaining from a personal standpoint rather than strategic. If Taylor wants to give away her music for free from one outlet, she has ever right to do so even if she complains about another outlet's lack of fair payment. In the case of Starbucks, their free download of the week can bring a LOT of attention whereas being present on Spotify playlists doesn't really do many favours. If I had a choice between having my music available on Spotify with the option of getting paid pennies for a couple thousand streams or giving one song away through Starbucks' free download, I'd absolutely choose the Starbucks avenue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 21:11:51 GMT -5
Since this has become the 'opinions on streaming' dogpile thread, here's another one. Adele's manager weighs inI don't like that Billboard titled the article "Adele's Manager: Streaming Is the Future" because it's rather misleading. The guy isn't really pro or anti-streaming. He recognizes that it's not about to go away but points out that the solution will not be the same for every artist. This may be the best opinion I've seen anyone give on it, but I'm probably biased because he literally said the same thing in this article that I did in Taylor's thread.. I won't quote the whole thing but here are some of the more important parts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 21:31:08 GMT -5
Starbucks does not pay full price if they pay anything at all. It is far more likely they front an advance. BTW, quoting an article in full like that violates Fair Use, FYI. Eh, even if Taylor could be said to be 'giving' the song away, there's a pretty big difference between giving away one song and making an entire album available for free streaming. And as Beta said, I don't think anyone is trying to act like Taylor is the first one to do it. She's a huge star and just had a huge release week, so anything she does is going to get a lot of attention anyway, but especially when you make a move as bold as pulling your entire catalog from Spotify. I think it says a lot that Big Machine DID want to use streaming in other markets where Taylor's star status is not so ubiquitous yet. That's kind of a tacit acknowledgement that streaming is useful for new artists, but more detrimental for more established or highly successful ones. There's nothing wrong with that perception. Of course, it also implies that the payoff for streaming in other countries must not be enough for Scott or Taylor to think it is worth sacrificing some potential sales in the US. Also since you are interested in helping people not break the law, you may want to make it a regular habit of reminding everyone in the Hot 100/Hits/Billboard 200 threads know about that fair use violation too. It happens at least five times a week when the charts come out.
|
|