Billboard Hot 100: 06/22/19

[Naos]

Jun 10, 2019 13:34:28 GMT -5 Gary said:

Financially speaking the music industry has enjoyed more growth than it has seen in years thanks to streaming revenue

But have artists seen more money out of that?

[Gary]

Revenue in the industry has experienced year over year growth since 2015.

That would not suggest to me the industry is not dying.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jun 10, 2019 13:00:14 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

Jun 10, 2019 12:11:03 GMT -5 @benson said:

Rihanna's new Fenty clothing line with LVMH is the reason she's been doing press and magazine interviews.  Of course interviewers will probably ask her about upcoming music every chance they get, but that's not what she's promoting, nor is there probably much to talk about yet.

My thing is, how many interviews does she have to do about that exactly? She's done several already. I doubt her latest profile with Interview Magazine was about Fenty. She isn't revealing anything that isn't already out there. Countless publications profiles Fenty when it came out and wrote extensive pieces.

Right now, she's just doing interviews for the photoshoots or at least, that's how it seems. The only thing about that is that she isn't revealing anything new about ANYTHING, which is meant to be the point about profiles/interviews, right? That's all I'm saying.

You seem to not understand how interviews work. It isn’t up to the person being interviewed (in this case Rihanna) to reveal something new every time someone interviews her. If we get something new, it’ll be because the journalist asked a question with a new angle that no one else touched on before. Rihanna’s job is to go into an interview with her key messages prepared so in theory, every interview could very well have the same points. What’s the purpose? Each publication that interviews her has a different audience. The more interviews she does, the wider her reach. It’s not her fault fans are going to look up each and every interview only to read the same things over and over again.

[Xander]

We can expect nro to have a bit of a fall and press to have at least a -20 drop.

[iHype.]

Jun 10, 2019 13:38:30 GMT -5 Naos said:

Jun 10, 2019 13:34:28 GMT -5 Gary said:

Financially speaking the music industry has enjoyed more growth than it has seen in years thanks to streaming revenue

But have artists seen more money out of that?

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

[thegreatdivine]

Jun 10, 2019 14:07:17 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Jun 10, 2019 13:00:14 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

My thing is, how many interviews does she have to do about that exactly? She's done several already. I doubt her latest profile with Interview Magazine was about Fenty. She isn't revealing anything that isn't already out there. Countless publications profiles Fenty when it came out and wrote extensive pieces.

Right now, she's just doing interviews for the photoshoots or at least, that's how it seems. The only thing about that is that she isn't revealing anything new about ANYTHING, which is meant to be the point about profiles/interviews, right? That's all I'm saying.

You seem to not understand how interviews work. It isn’t up to the person being interviewed (in this case Rihanna) to reveal something new every time someone interviews her. If we get something new, it’ll be because the journalist asked a question with a new angle that no one else touched on before. Rihanna’s job is to go into an interview with her key messages prepared so in theory, every interview could very well have the same points. What’s the purpose? Each publication that interviews her has a different audience. The more interviews she does, the wider her reach. It’s not her fault fans are going to look up each and every interview only to read the same things over and over again.

I understand how interviews work and so does Rihanna. She's being asked the only questions she can be asked.

Since I'm concerned about her forthcoming music, she's been asked about that several times and it's the same answer over and over. I get her press is for her brand, but the only things she's revealed is that she's working on a reggae album, something she's said in several interviews. I guess I'm just ready for her to divulge more information about the music she's working on, forgive me.

[thegreatdivine]

Jun 10, 2019 13:30:37 GMT -5 kierz7 said:

Jun 10, 2019 13:00:14 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

My thing is, how many interviews does she have to do about that exactly? She's done several already. I doubt her latest profile with Interview Magazine was about Fenty. She isn't revealing anything that isn't already out there. Countless publications profiles Fenty when it came out and wrote extensive pieces.

Right now, she's just doing interviews for the photoshoots or at least, that's how it seems. The only thing about that is that she isn't revealing anything new about ANYTHING, which is meant to be the point about profiles/interviews, right? That's all I'm saying.

She can do as many interviews as she wants and if it’s focused on “FENTY” then so be it. She’s literally the Richest Female Musician in the World as of now and that’s mostly due to the success of her external ventures. Let’s face it, financially speaking, the music industry is a dying market. I GUARANTEE that we’re only going to get one or two more albums from Rihanna in the 2020’s, and that applies to Beyoncé and the likes. They’re moving on, as sad as it is to say.

P.S. The majority of these interviews with her that are only now being released took place between February and April. The ‘Interview’ spread took place back in April also. She’s been in the studio for the majority of May finalising the album. Trust me... I think she’s releasing in July/August. Perhaps even later this month.

All I said was I wanted more info on the album she's apparently been working on for months now or I want new music. That's all I really care about when it comes to Rihanna.

[Naos]

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Jun 10, 2019 13:38:30 GMT -5 Naos said:

But have artists seen more money out of that?

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

Well, considering how pathetic streaming royalties are, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of artists do make less. The only ones who make any sort of money in this system are artists at the top, and only the ones really mainstream accessible. If you make longer songs, that people will listen to less often, you will make less. You can have more listeners than someone else, and still make less.

[thegreatdivine]

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Jun 10, 2019 13:38:30 GMT -5 Naos said:

But have artists seen more money out of that?

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

This. People are acting like the artists have always gotten the lionshare of the profits in the music business. That's NEVER been the case.

The best thing for artists to do is to work out great label situations for themselves. The biggest streaming acts are pulling in several millions of dollars from streams every year. You'll never see them complain. Owning your masters and being responsible for as much of the production of your own music also helps. It means you'll see more of the profits from your handwork. That's really all it is. Most artists suffering put themselves into those situations by signing shitty deals or signing to shitty labels.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Jun 10, 2019 13:38:30 GMT -5 Naos said:

But have artists seen more money out of that?

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

It’s a fair question to ask I think. The industry as a whole could be growing but that doesn’t necessarily mean that money is going to the artists behind the music.

[thegreatdivine]

Jun 10, 2019 14:38:52 GMT -5 Naos said:

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

Well, considering how pathetic streaming royalties are, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of artists do make less. The only ones who make any sort of money in this system are artists at the top, and only the ones really mainstream accessible. If you make longer songs, that people will listen to less often, you will make less. You can have more listeners than someone else, and still make less.

You make a valid point. The other thing is that artists have always made the bulk of their money from touring. That's always been the case.

Yes, when it was easier to sell millions of hard copy records, artists made more money more quickly, but it was nothing compared to the money they'd make when they'd hit the road.

I think we keep forgetting that streaming hasn't even been here for up to 5 full years. Pure sales records had DECADES to work itself out into being a viable source of income for both artists and labels. I believe streaming is the future and it is here to stay. A lot of the kinks we're complaining about now will eventually work themselves out. There are already people fighting for artists to get paid more from their streams and it's a fight that is being won.

It's unfortunate that only massive streaming acts stand to gain any real income from streams, but wasn't that the case with pure, hard copy album sales? If you didn't sell records, you didn't make any real money, especially compared to the artists who sold millions of records. It's the same thing, just different units of measurement.

[thegreatdivine]

Another huge reason why labels are making more money than the artists is because labels own over 80% of all working artists' masters. It also doesn't help that a lot of these artists sign shitty deals or flat out make and release music that just doesn't generate enough money.

I don't think you can name up to 100 mainstream artists who can consistently pull in decent streams on songs and albums. Those who can do it aren't even up to 50. It's a very small number.

Smaller artists put out songs that don't generate enough streams. Low streams = low income generated. It's simple math.

[iHype.]

Jun 10, 2019 14:41:49 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

It’s a fair question to ask I think. The industry as a whole could be growing but that doesn’t necessarily mean that money is going to the artists behind the music.

If streaming is driving overall income for labels heavily upwards, but artists are individually getting less, then that would mean their contracts/negotiations with labels are bad, not streaming's payments to artists. 

Streaming itself paying bad would indicate weak money overall even for labels. In short: that's a label/contract issue, not a streaming issue.

Spotify cannot control how much a label decides to give to an artist when Spotify gives them the revenue.

[Gary]

We can dig and dig and find examples of artists getting paid less during the streaming era but overall this is not the case.

As with everything for artists, to each according to their contract.


This was the case before streaming existed too.

[Naos]

Jun 10, 2019 14:44:43 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

Jun 10, 2019 14:38:52 GMT -5 Naos said:

Well, considering how pathetic streaming royalties are, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of artists do make less. The only ones who make any sort of money in this system are artists at the top, and only the ones really mainstream accessible. If you make longer songs, that people will listen to less often, you will make less. You can have more listeners than someone else, and still make less.

It's unfortunate that only massive streaming acts stand to gain any real income from streams, but wasn't that the case with pure, hard copy album sales? If you didn't sell records, you didn't make any real money, especially compared to the artists who sold millions of records. It's the same thing, just different units of measurement.

Not exactly. Because let's assume you used to sell 35,000-60,000 copies first week (so not exactly top tier). That'd be enough to make the Top 10 of the Billboard 200. However, you don't do much in the way of singles. And let's say a portion of those fans moved to streaming (we'll say 10,000+). What will happen is that your income will take massive drops after streaming took over, compared to before. Streaming is very much reliant of songs rather than albums. It benefits only mainstream artists, and not rock artists that still sell enough to make the Top 10 of album sales.

What I'm going to bet is rock and country artists took a big loss in income as streaming gets more popular. You need to be on the top to make money in streaming. In album sales, B-list and maybe even C-list acts could earn a living, due to having a fanbase that will buy their albums. This is no longer the case. As those 10,000 people won't be able to make up the losses in album sales at all.

The only genre of artists that truly benefit are from hip-hop.

[thegreatdivine]

Jun 10, 2019 15:01:49 GMT -5 Naos said:

Jun 10, 2019 14:44:43 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

It's unfortunate that only massive streaming acts stand to gain any real income from streams, but wasn't that the case with pure, hard copy album sales? If you didn't sell records, you didn't make any real money, especially compared to the artists who sold millions of records. It's the same thing, just different units of measurement.

Not exactly. Because let's assume you used to sell 35,000-60,000 copies first week (so not exactly top tier). That'd be enough to make the Top 10 of the Billboard 200. However, you don't do much in the way of singles. And let's say a portion of those fans moved to streaming (we'll say 10,000+). What will happen is that your income will take massive drops after streaming took over, compared to before. Streaming is very much reliant of songs rather than albums. It benefits only mainstream artists, and not rock artists that still sell enough to make the Top 10 of album sales.

What I'm going to bet is rock and country artists took a big loss in income as streaming gets more popular. You need to be on the top to make money in streaming. In album sales, B-list and maybe even C-list acts could earn a living, due to having a fanbase that will buy their albums. This is no longer the case. As those 10,000 people won't be able to make up the losses in album sales at all.

The only genre of artists that truly benefit are from hip-hop.

I agree with your point, but hip-hop is benefitting from streaming the most right now because hip-hop fans made the transition more quickly than fans of other genres have. Fans of other genres need to do the same. We've already seen that pop songs can do well on streaming. The same can happen for rock. Their listeners just need to stream their songs more. That's really all it'll take to make the change. I agree with your point, though.

[Naos]

Jun 10, 2019 15:12:18 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

Jun 10, 2019 15:01:49 GMT -5 Naos said:

Not exactly. Because let's assume you used to sell 35,000-60,000 copies first week (so not exactly top tier). That'd be enough to make the Top 10 of the Billboard 200. However, you don't do much in the way of singles. And let's say a portion of those fans moved to streaming (we'll say 10,000+). What will happen is that your income will take massive drops after streaming took over, compared to before. Streaming is very much reliant of songs rather than albums. It benefits only mainstream artists, and not rock artists that still sell enough to make the Top 10 of album sales.

What I'm going to bet is rock and country artists took a big loss in income as streaming gets more popular. You need to be on the top to make money in streaming. In album sales, B-list and maybe even C-list acts could earn a living, due to having a fanbase that will buy their albums. This is no longer the case. As those 10,000 people won't be able to make up the losses in album sales at all.

The only genre of artists that truly benefit are from hip-hop.

I agree with your point, but hip-hop is benefitting from streaming the most right now because hip-hop fans made the transition more quickly than fans of other genres have. Fans of other genres need to do the same. We've already seen that pop songs can do well on streaming. The same can happen for rock. Their listeners just need to stream their songs more. That's really all it'll take to make the change. I agree with your point, though.

Except rock songs aren't going to get on top playlists, and their fans are older, and likely have less time to stream. Know, it's not about how many fans you have. It's how much you can get on playlists, get big singles, and get the fans to stream again and again. Which rock doesn't have. So selling albums is a lot more profitable than streaming. 120,000 fans willing to buy your album first week will make you more money than 60,000 purchases and the other 60,000 only being able to listen to music once a week. 

[Gary]

An album sale is an instant 10 bucks in revenue for the industry based on the sale to one person. As we all know an artist will not receive the whole 10 bucks.

Streaming units are based on revenue as well for the industry of which an artist gets a percentage. An artist will still get that revenue related to that one album sale, it will just take more people to get it there.

[Naos]

Jun 10, 2019 15:25:59 GMT -5 Gary said:

An album sale is an instant 10 bucks in revenue for the industry based on the sale to one person. As we all know an artist will not receive the whole 10 bucks.

Streaming units are based on revenue as well for the industry of which an artist gets a percentage. An artist will still get that revenue related to that one album sale, it will just take more people to get it there.

It's not about more people. It's about people willing to stream your songs en masse. You could have the same amount of streaming audience as someone else, and still make less. If you make longer songs, you will make less by default.

[thegreatdivine]

Jun 10, 2019 15:21:31 GMT -5 Naos said:

Jun 10, 2019 15:12:18 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

I agree with your point, but hip-hop is benefitting from streaming the most right now because hip-hop fans made the transition more quickly than fans of other genres have. Fans of other genres need to do the same. We've already seen that pop songs can do well on streaming. The same can happen for rock. Their listeners just need to stream their songs more. That's really all it'll take to make the change. I agree with your point, though.

Except rock songs aren't going to get on top playlists, and their fans are older, and likely have less time to stream. Know, it's not about how many fans you have. It's how much you can get on playlists, get big singles, and get the fans to stream again and again. Which rock doesn't have. So selling albums is a lot more profitable than streaming. 120,000 fans willing to buy your album first week will make you more money than 60,000 purchases and the other 60,000 only being able to listen to music once a week. 

Hmm. In that case, it's really not the fault of streaming. Pure sales were dying out whether or not streaming came to take it's place, that was a fact.

People were becoming less and less incentivized to buy albums. Yes, rock artists could still move album units, but not like before and that spreads across all genres.

Once upon a time, successful R&B artists could sell millions of copies of a single album. That isn't the case now. Most R&B songs/albums, perform poorly on streaming platforms. It is what it is.

I'll maintain that it all boils down to you being able to get your audience engaged. Everyone has a different audience and it's the job of the artist to figure out what works for them. If you're a rock artist who knows your fanbase won't spend as much time streaming your songs the way they would streaming hip-hop songs, you find other ways to engage them in other things. It sounds harsh, but that's the reality of the situation.

The main problem here is people just don't believe in spending as much money on music as they used to. That's what prompted everything we're dealing with right now.

I also don't completely agree that your song has to be super short to be successful. It just has to be a song people want to keep revisiting. Same way long albums don't automatically equal massive streams for all artists. Meanwhile some albums with less than 14 songs have billions upon billions of streams.

Make music that's engaging, music that people wanna keep listening to and it'll stick. Of course, the shorter the better, but it's not an exact science either.

[Gary]

Although in general, I agree pockets of artists are not getting a fair share of revenue but that has always been the case, streaming or not.

It comes down to the type of artist that you are, how popular your music is at the moment and the type of contract you have.

Nothing new

In general back to the original point, the industry is in 'growth mode' which means there is more money to go around. That does not mean an equal spread, never has before and probably not now either. In any case, The industry is far from dying.

A bigger question for the future, once streaming revenue flattens out where do they go next?

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Jun 10, 2019 13:38:30 GMT -5 Naos said:

But have artists seen more money out of that?

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

Spotify pays about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. That is not a lot of money. My friend is a local musician, and she made more on iTunes in a month what she made from Spotify over two years. Streaming does not pay well at all. It’s the way of the future, yes, and I like the concept of it, but to say that it supports artists is a lie. Why do you think they’re doing everything they can to advertise rising artists except pay them more per stream? Spotify’s model is choking the independent musician. Major label musicians have enough going on & enough streams that they’ll be fine, but smaller artists are not having a great time (though streaming makes it much easier to boost your profile).

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

I mean, it’s all fine and dandy but artists have and are still having issues with streaming and streaming companies not paying fairly. You can have issues with labels being the middleman but independent artists don’t have to go through that and they still get minimal returns.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jun 10, 2019 16:16:52 GMT -5 𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤 said:

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

Spotify pays about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. That is not a lot of money. My friend is a local musician, and she made more on iTunes in a month what she made from Spotify over two years. Streaming does not pay well at all. It’s the way of the future, yes, and I like the concept of it, but to say that it supports artists is a lie. Why do you think they’re doing everything they can to advertise rising artists except pay them more per stream? Spotify’s model is choking the independent musician. Major label musicians have enough going on & enough streams that they’ll be fine, but smaller artists are not having a great time (though streaming makes it much easier to boost your profile).

And to add to that, I think the current model and changes in the industry will diminish the quality of the songs we’re getting - if it hasn’t already (and I believe it has). We’re seeing shorter songs that cram everything into two and a half to three minute songs. There’s surprisingly little variation in a huge amount of songs coming out in the last few years. That’s always been the case with current music trends but I think current models put less focus on developing artists and sounds because there’s more money in pushing out songs that lack much for the long term. Pop music has always had that disposable angle to it. It’s what makes high consumption items so accessible but the more music get devalued, the poorer the quality.

[iHype.]

Jun 10, 2019 16:16:52 GMT -5 𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤 said:

Jun 10, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Is there anything to suggest they haven't? Or do you just want to think of any way to discredit streaming no matter what lmao

Spotify pays about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. That is not a lot of money. My friend is a local musician, and she made more on iTunes in a month what she made from Spotify over two years. Streaming does not pay well at all. It’s the way of the future, yes, and I like the concept of it, but to say that it supports artists is a lie. Why do you think they’re doing everything they can to advertise rising artists except pay them more per stream? Spotify’s model is choking the independent musician. Major label musicians have enough going on & enough streams that they’ll be fine, but smaller artists are not having a great time (though streaming makes it much easier to boost your profile).

There's plenty of angles to this that aren't looked at/explained.

One:
How many sales did she get on iTunes? And how many streams did she get on Spotify?

If she got something like 1,000 sales on iTunes but only 10 streams... well ofcourse she is going to get more money from iTunes. Your post doesn't specify whether her Spotify popularity is MUCH higher, but yet she is still receiving less revenue from Spotify. You just said she received less revenue from Spotify. There's no insight as to whether she was actually paid unfairly by comparison. 

And I don't exactly see what's wrong with advertising rising artists. Would you rather they not? I don't see how advertising rising artists just means they don't want to pay them more. I'm open to seeing statistics to show they're paying rising artists progressively less.

Jun 10, 2019 16:23:08 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I mean, it’s all fine and dandy but artists have and are still having issues with streaming and streaming companies not paying fairly. You can have issues with labels being the middleman but independent artists don’t have to go through that and they still get minimal returns.

And I've seen articles suggesting independent artists aren't receiving bad streaming revenues. Which definitely needs to be noted.

Artists Direct the big winners: MIDiA was the first to quantify the global revenue contribution of the Artists Direct (i.e. Independent Artists, DIY etc.) last year when we published our annual market shares report. Now we can report that the spectacular growth registered by this segment continued in 2018. Total Artist Direct revenue was $643 million, up an impressive 35% on 2017, i.e. more than three times faster than the market. Unlike the rest of the market, Artists Direct revenue growth is accelerating in both percentage and absolute terms, with market share up from 2.7% in 2017 to 3.4% in 2018.

Research showed that independent artist's share of global music revenue was actually growing due to streaming.

It seems it is more of an individual artist-by-artist case, not something you just paint off as a general 'well all artists are being paid worse by now',  'well all independent artists are being paid bad now', etc. 

[Naos]

Jun 10, 2019 16:29:29 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Jun 10, 2019 16:16:52 GMT -5 𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤 said:

Spotify pays about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. That is not a lot of money. My friend is a local musician, and she made more on iTunes in a month what she made from Spotify over two years. Streaming does not pay well at all. It’s the way of the future, yes, and I like the concept of it, but to say that it supports artists is a lie. Why do you think they’re doing everything they can to advertise rising artists except pay them more per stream? Spotify’s model is choking the independent musician. Major label musicians have enough going on & enough streams that they’ll be fine, but smaller artists are not having a great time (though streaming makes it much easier to boost your profile).

And to add to that, I think the current model and changes in the industry will diminish the quality of the songs we’re getting - if it hasn’t already (and I believe it has). We’re seeing shorter songs that cram everything into two and a half to three minute songs. There’s surprisingly little variation in a huge amount of songs coming out in the last few years. That’s always been the case with current music trends but I think current models put less focus on developing artists and sounds because there’s more money in pushing out songs that lack much for the long term. Pop music has always had that disposable angle to it. It’s what makes high consumption items so accessible but the more music get devalued, the poorer the quality.

I definitely see that music is getting more and more devalued. The attitude of "why purchase something that I can get for free?", is definitely something I'm not too big a fan of. As a gamer, I'm glad there hasn't really been an equivalent for the gaming industry yet. A lot of these artists just get picked up by labels, they milk out a few songs (or one huge song), maybe get one album out of them that does fine, and their career is done, then they'll move onto the next big thing, and the cycle continues.

[Au$tin]

iHype with the sources! I stan.

[pnobelysk]

In last weeks thread it was said i gotta feeling passed 9 million sales finally, down anyone have the article to go along with that?

[Bhad Bill]

Jun 10, 2019 17:44:14 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

iHype with the sources! I stan.

Seriously! That was awesome to read.

[Deleted]