Aloe Blacc: Streaming Services Need to Pay Songwriters Fair

[imbondz]

Nov 10, 2014 12:34:06 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Nov 9, 2014 8:15:26 GMT -5 imbondz said:

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.

Nov 9, 2014 12:05:17 GMT -5 SHOOTER said:

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.

Yeah I get that. I still have zero sympathy.

[Enigma.]

Just pointing out that million streams is not a lot, in Finland the most listened songs have 300k streams/week on Spotify and this is a country of 5.3m inhabitants. When Spotify and other devices really take over, the amount of streams in the US should be 10m on a weekly basis for biggest songs. If a song gets let's say 80m streams in 3 months, that's a lot of income for artist from streaming only.

BUT then again, if you do NOT get hits, it's more complicated for an artist... but it has always been. If you don't sell records, you don't get the money, it has always been very simple.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Nov 11, 2014 0:08:49 GMT -5 imbondz said:

Nov 10, 2014 12:34:06 GMT -5 kanimal said:

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 I get that. I still have zero sympathy.

How come? Where do you think his argument loses you?

[imbondz]

I am a big believer of the market, and letting the market dictate what the fair value of 'stuff' is, and as long as nothing illegal is going on, the market value is what the 'stuff' is worth.

I understand musicians want more for their work, but so do I. If he's so against Spotify, Pandora, don't allow your stuff to be streamed. simple. No one is forcing him to participate in streaming his music. If he will make more money selling his stuff, touring, radio play, stay there. If his record contract dictates he must, don't sign it.

He comes across as a pretentious d-bag imo. It's a letter he should have kept internal. Vent all you want. (Same thing I felt when John Cougar Mellencamp wrote a letter a few years ago complaining about his lack of radio play.) I respect Taylor Swift for just taking her music off of it, rather than complaining she's not making enough money. Aloe Blac made tons of money of The Man and Wake Me Up. I am not going to feel bad for him or any artist who participates in a service willingly.

Now, if Spotify, and other streaming services start increasing the costs of their services, say, $40 / month or $50 / month for premium members, and the market continues to purchase the services, then artists will see an increase in income. But the market determines/dictates it, not whiny musicians, no me, not you, not Spotify.

[imbondz]

I'm a graphic designer. Should I write a letter to the graphic design industry complaining about how clients don't see the value in my work on the level it is? I want to make $1 million dollars per website I create, or per poster, or brochure I create. But I don't determine that, the market does. I try to charge for my services as much as the market will allow me to, the point where a client still says yes, rather than going somewhere else for their graphic design needs.

If I charge $1 million dollars per creation, I am not going to get any clients, unless I am one of the best graphic designers in the world, which I'm not.


If I am not happy with what a client is wanting to pay, I am not forced to take their business. If I am not making enough for my creations, then either I am not good enough, or I need to be a better marketer. Or, I need to work more, get more clients, etc.. to make the amount of money I want to make. Or, I need to find a different profession that pays more.

Aloe Blacc complaining about Spotify, is saying 'I do not agree with what the market has dictated for the value of my creation'. Poor baby. Get a different job that pays more then.

Communism would force Spotify to increase their rates. Capitalism let's the fair market determine it. And streaming services value might go up in the next few years, and Spotify might raise their prices. If we decide to continue staying with them, then artists pay will increase. If we decide Spotify is not worth the increase in price, we leave, and artists get less. It's simple supply and demand at work in the marketplace.

[imbondz]

If anything, artists should be mad at the Record Labels for negotiating with Spotify such a horrible rate for their streams.

[Enigma.]

imbondz, you nailed it!

[newpower]

I'm just waiting for the South Park episode about this whole issue of streaming/Taylor Swift/Spotify.

[kanimal]

Nov 11, 2014 8:08:20 GMT -5 imbondz said:

I am a big believer of the market, and letting the market dictate what the fair value of 'stuff' is, and as long as nothing illegal is going on, the market value is what the 'stuff' is worth.

I understand musicians want more for their work, but so do I. If he's so against Spotify, Pandora, don't allow your stuff to be streamed. simple. No one is forcing him to participate in streaming his music. If he will make more money selling his stuff, touring, radio play, stay there. If his record contract dictates he must, don't sign it.

He comes across as a pretentious d-bag imo. It's a letter he should have kept internal. Vent all you want. (Same thing I felt when John Cougar Mellencamp wrote a letter a few years ago complaining about his lack of radio play.) I respect Taylor Swift for just taking her music off of it, rather than complaining she's not making enough money. Aloe Blac made tons of money of The Man and Wake Me Up. I am not going to feel bad for him or any artist who participates in a service willingly.

Now, if Spotify, and other streaming services start increasing the costs of their services, say, $40 / month or $50 / month for premium members, and the market continues to purchase the services, then artists will see an increase in income. But the market determines/dictates it, not whiny musicians, no me, not you, not Spotify.

Can't force you to change your opinion about Aloe Blacc's stance or streaming in general, but saying Taylor Swift didn't complain about the streaming payout is factually untrue.  She talked about how streaming is devaluing music months before she initiated her Spotify "policy," and she reiterated that stance in an interview with Yahoo.

Yes, Taylor spoke in broader terms than Aloe Blacc, but I think it's very misguided to assume Blacc was exclusively bitching about his own plight rather than using his easily digestible example to shed light on the overall situation for songwriters.  Learning that a monster hit song like Wake Me Up only produced a few grand in Pandora royalties is a far more compelling demonstration than having some unknown songwriter say she's only made a few hundred bucks off streaming.  The payout for this song was eye-opening to many - as evidenced by the traction it gained.

And note that Aloe Blacc's method of argumentation, no matter how "whiny" you think it is, was very effective.  You'll see someone on this very board who initially rolled his/her eyes at Taylor Swift's stance -- playing to the "she's still making tons of money off streaming" misconception -- who became convinced by Aloe Blacc's demonstration.

Taylor Swift broadly saying "It doesn't pay the artists fairly" does not capture the magnitude of the situation as effectively as saying "Here's how much I got for my massive hit song."  There are reports coming out that Swift would have made millions off Spotify this year, and while I don't think that in any way hurts her argument (which is that her music worth many many more millions), it will make the public less sympathetic.

As for your free market argument, I do agree with you that ire is being unfairly directed ONLY at the providers (rather than at consumers).  Hell, you had that troll Bill Werde saying he believes the entire Spotify collection is only worth $5/month.  Spotify would obviously take more money if it could get it, so consumers like THAT are keeping the price low and payouts unfair.

However, what if the argument were directed at both?.  Why can't Aloe Blacc and Taylor Swift be simultaneously opposed to existing streaming payout structures AND the valuation consumers ascribe to streaming?

(Plus, don't forget that we don't live in a truly open bartering system.  We allow suppliers to set prices that they calculate as optimal for revenue generation.  Swift's people must feel that the revenue they LOSE from allowing streaming rates to apply < they revenue they GAIN from maintaining the purchase price point....Signaling is also at play.  Spotify didn't exist as a service a few years ago, and if you were to tell me I could not only stream but cache nearly every song in the world for $10/month, I would have called you crazy.  Now, I wouldn't pay more because I know that's the going rate)

[imbondz]

I didn't know Taylor Swift complained. Then I feel the same way about her. She should bitch at the labels who negotiated the streaming contract she is mad about.

[Deleted]

I generally can't muster up much sympathy for artists who decide to sign with the majors and become part of a corporate machine and then bitch and moan about corporate greed. 99.9% of artists make so little money that they need a second, third, or fourth job to make ends meet. Aloe Blacc is part of that tiny minority that is making enough money through his music that it can be his only career (for now), and he can live comfortably off that. In an economy where so many people are still struggling, and at a time where the big corporate middle man is becoming less important to launch and sustain music careers, I just can't sit here and feel bad.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Is it a fair market though? Because prior to streaming, when you paid for music, you paid for a certain quantity of it. It was always $X for 1 album, or $Y for 1 single. If you wanted more music, you paid $X*#. With streaming, it's one price for all. Now every song and every artist has the same value and artists no longer have the ability to set their own prices. Everything is in the hands of the streaming service and it's all available for practically nothing, which diminishes the value of all music, which I have a feeling is the whole focus of these discussions.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2014 17:38:12 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Is it a fair market though? Because prior to streaming, when you paid for music, you paid for a certain quantity of it. It was always $X for 1 album, or $Y for 1 single. If you wanted more music, you paid $X*#. With streaming, it's one price for all. Now every song and every artist has the same value and artists no longer have the ability to set their own prices. Everything is in the hands of the streaming service and it's all available for practically nothing, which diminishes the value of all music, which I have a feeling is the whole focus of these discussions.

The subscription music clubs that disappeared around the turn of the Millennium were similar in that you paid a flat rate for bulk amounts.

[newpower]

Don't forget that when you subscribe to a streaming service you don't own the music. If you stop paying, you have nothing.
If the streaming model succeed, 30 years from now, the artists complaining now will still be making money out of the streaming services.

[imbondz]

It's a rental service. you're renting the music. the question isn't how much an artist should get paid through streaming, it's how much are you willing to pay for renting his/her song? I'm willing to bet it lines up pretty close with current fees or even less.

[imbondz]

Nov 11, 2014 17:38:12 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Is it a fair market though? Because prior to streaming, when you paid for music, you paid for a certain quantity of it. It was always $X for 1 album, or $Y for 1 single. If you wanted more music, you paid $X*#. With streaming, it's one price for all. Now every song and every artist has the same value and artists no longer have the ability to set their own prices. Everything is in the hands of the streaming service and it's all available for practically nothing, which diminishes the value of all music, which I have a feeling is the whole focus of these discussions.

but a CD was a fixed price. it was usually $17.98 suggested retail, then stores charged around $12.99 - $14.99. So in that case every song has the same value too. around a $1.29 or so per CD. So I had to pay for the crap music on a CD equally with the hit songs. Spotify / Streaming allows me to only listen to what I want. So in that sense, I am actually only listening to the good material out there, and bypassing the crap, which seems to increase the value of the good music.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Nov 11, 2014 17:48:32 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

Nov 11, 2014 17:38:12 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Is it a fair market though? Because prior to streaming, when you paid for music, you paid for a certain quantity of it. It was always $X for 1 album, or $Y for 1 single. If you wanted more music, you paid $X*#. With streaming, it's one price for all. Now every song and every artist has the same value and artists no longer have the ability to set their own prices. Everything is in the hands of the streaming service and it's all available for practically nothing, which diminishes the value of all music, which I have a feeling is the whole focus of these discussions.

The subscription music clubs that disappeared around the turn of the Millennium were similar in that you paid a flat rate for bulk amounts.

Good point. Although I seem to remember something about artists not receiving much money through those purchases either, even though the CDs themselves were always priced $18.98 (unless you got the free ones, or discounted ones from buying multiples).

Either way, it seems that it isn't so much the music but the medium that controls the value so the artist has little to no say in determining the value of what they create other than controlling the medium of availability for their work. I would almost say it would be wiser for artists to pull out of streaming services like Spotify before it gets too big.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

That is never going to happen. The labels will be sure of that.

And the artist has a right to set whatever price they want for their art. The market doesn't have to appease an overvaluation though. Just because I think my painting is worth $10k doesn't mean I'll find a market for selling it.

[Wolfy]

The top artists are hitting a billion streams. Those are making money. On VEVO the payout is $0.0025 per stream.

Below are the 2014 payouts for the top VEVO queens:

Katy Perry: (US$ 0.0025) x 2.5 billion views= 6.25 million US$
Shakira: (US$ 0.0025) x 2 billion views = 5 million US$*
Rihanna: (US$ 0.0025) x 1 billion views = 2.5 million US$*

*I do not know if Rihanna gets part of the streaming from CRTFY's 435M streams.

How many streams in total did Rihanna get on Spotify in 2014? I bet its a very high number. She likely made millions in 2014 from Spotify. Let's guess and say she had 1B streams on Spotify, that's: (US$ .0084) x 1 billion = 8.4 million US$.

Also worth noting is that streaming #'s are increasing per year, the top acts are hitting the 1B yearly streams mark, which gives them a big payout.

When you buy a CD, you pay one time. The artist gets paid once when you buy the CD. After that you can listen to it all you want. But, with streaming, the song is making money as long as its getting streamed. Someone that likes a song might stream a song hundreds of times over various years. In the long run, streaming is going to make artists plenty of money, at least the ones that are bringing in high streaming numbers.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Give it a rest Wolfy

[Wolfy]

Nov 12, 2014 19:00:04 GMT -5 YourFaveIsAFlop said:

Give it a rest Wolfy

VEVO is part of the streaming world, it fits in with what's being talked about here. Its additional income the artists are making from streaming that most people overlook.

I'm familiar with VEVO's numbers, but I'm guessing Spotify also has huge yearly numbers. When you take that into account, the yearly payout for the top acts is pretty high.

It would be interesting to calculate how much the top acts are making on Spotify per year. Everyone is talking about how low the pay is, yet no one is calculating how much they are making per year. I bet its a high number.

I'm genuinely interested in streaming numbers. I talk about VEVO's streaming numbers all the time. If anyone needs to give something a rest, its you.

[Wolfy]

Nov 11, 2014 18:11:17 GMT -5 newpower said:

If the streaming model succeed, 30 years from now, the artists complaining now will still be making money out of the streaming services.

That's what a lot of people are not seeing. In the long run, they will be making lots of money off streaming of their old music. Since I pay close attention to Shakira, I'll use her as an example. On my last.fm she has 15,433 plays (my last.fm goes back to 2005). Those are from her CD's I purchased. If I had streamed all those plays on Spotify, Shakira would have made from me: $.0084 x 15,433 streams = $129.64 US. I don't think I paid $130 for all my Shakira CD's. In the longrun, artists will likely make plenty off streaming.

By the way, I'm currently subscribed to Google Play. Google Play pays $0.04573 per stream. Using that number, Shakira would have made from me: 0.04573 x 15,433 streams = $705.44 US Google Play is the #3 most used app in the world. The #2 app is youtube, which is tied in with Vevo.

[mluv]

What I didn't like about Aloe Blacc's letter was that he didn't include all the payout he receives.

He complained about Spotify but did not give the amount they paid him. Instead he gave an amount for Pandora. Since Pandora is passive play of course he's going to get less for that service. They're similar to radio but with less of an audience. Each radio play could have several hundred thousand listeners while a single play on Pandora equals to one listener. That's why millions of play on Pandora is not super impressive and you're not going to get the payout of radio.

I also noticed Blacc didn't include the amount he got for international play.

The fact that he excludes this amount and the amount from Spotify makes him appear deceptive. He also doesn't reveal the amount of money he got from play of his other songs. I'm pretty sure that because he had a big hit with Wake Me Up, that meant the play on his other songs also increased. I bet he won't include those figures as the extra payout that they are though as it wouldn't make his point.

Some of Blacc's problems are also due to the kind of contract he signed. He's probably not getting any kind of performance royalties because Avicii did not credit him as the singer. He also doesn't have control of the song and whether it appears on sites or not as he doesn't own the song. According to the Spotify model I think it's 70 -30 in favor of the label. But you'll notice most of these artists aren't going after the labels who've never given any artist a fair deal. Instead they go after the easy target like Spotify and Pandora.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

He has a songwriting credit and if I remember correctly, that's what his point is. It's for songwriters, not credited artists on the song itself.

[Deleted]

"You want people to f**king listen to your music? Give them your music. And then go play a show. They like hearing your music? They'll go see a show. To me it's that simple, and I think it used to work that way"

- Dave Grohl

Agree with him. This is the where we're headed, like it or not. Artists will have to adapt.

[kanimal]

Nov 13, 2014 2:08:49 GMT -5 mluv said:

What I didn't like about Aloe Blacc's letter was that he didn't include all the payout he receives.

He complained about Spotify but did not give the amount they paid him. Instead he gave an amount for Pandora. Since Pandora is passive play of course he's going to get less for that service. They're similar to radio but with less of an audience. Each radio play could have several hundred thousand listeners while a single play on Pandora equals to one listener. That's why millions of play on Pandora is not super impressive and you're not going to get the payout of radio.

I also noticed Blacc didn't include the amount he got for international play.

The fact that he excludes this amount and the amount from Spotify makes him appear deceptive. He also doesn't reveal the amount of money he got from play of his other songs. I'm pretty sure that because he had a big hit with Wake Me Up, that meant the play on his other songs also increased. I bet he won't include those figures as the extra payout that they are though as it wouldn't make his point.

Some of Blacc's problems are also due to the kind of contract he signed. He's probably not getting any kind of performance royalties because Avicii did not credit him as the singer. He also doesn't have control of the song and whether it appears on sites or not as he doesn't own the song. According to the Spotify model I think it's 70 -30 in favor of the label. But you'll notice most of these artists aren't going after the labels who've never given any artist a fair deal. Instead they go after the easy target like Spotify and Pandora.

I don't disagree that leaving out the hundreds of thousands--if not millions--he made from other sources is a ploy to seem more sympathetic, but I still ultimately don't think he had to (he also posted a Facebook link to a site that criticized the awful payouts from Spotify, so he's not only hiding behind Pandora).  At the end of the day, an artist/songwriter has a right to expect fair compensation from every single channel that distributes his music.  No, the fact that Pandora pays poorly doesn't mean streaming is inherently bad, but the fact that he makes tons of money overall doesn't mean Pandora's pay structure is acceptable.

But I feel like everyone here has gone back and forth on that argument too much anyway.  Everyone knows where they stand.

I do find the talk about who they pick as a target interesting; as I've said before, "fans" themselves are to blame (but no artist would ever say that).  Let's say Spotify got into the charity business and paid out 100% of proceeds - that, still, wouldn't amount to THAT MUCH money for the label, artists, songwriters, producers, etc.  As long as the market values music at $0+ads or $9.99=every song, there is no way everyone in the music business will be paid the way they want from streaming.

[Arabella21]

Borchetta says Spotify is overstating how much Taylor made from the service:

Taylor Swift has been paid less than $500,000 in the past 12 months for domestic streaming of her songs, Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Taylor Swift’s record label, the independent Nashville-based Big Machine, told TIME Wednesday.

According to Borchetta, the actual amount his label has received in return for domestic streams of Swift’s music—$496,044—is drastically smaller than the amount Spotify has suggested the artist receives. That sum represents only a portion of the amount paid out by the streaming service. Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said Tuesday that the label for an artist of Swift’s popularity could expect to receive $6 million in the next year from the streaming service as the site’s audience grows. Borchetta said his label had made more from streaming Taylor Swift’s videos on the video site Vevo than it has from putting her music on Spotify.

Swift and Borchetta both say that removing her music from Spotify is meant to make a larger point.

“The facts show that the music industry was much better off before Spotify hit these shores,” Borchetta said. “Don’t forget this is for the most successful artist in music today. What about the rest of the artists out there struggling to make a career? Over the last year, what Spotify has paid is the equivalent of less than 50,000 albums sold.”

It's a nice idea to say that people will be streaming a song thirty years from now, so that will present a long-term revenue stream, but who says streaming will still be a thing by then?