Very interesting read regarding streaming services.

[toneknob]

Here's Anil's follow-up article suggesting a new streaming model: [url="https://medium.com/@Innerviews/a-fair-music-streaming-model-is-possible-453d4a9b34c2"]https://medium.com/@...le-453d4a9b34c2[/url]

The first listen is free, then... "Rent the track for one play for 10 cents, much like putting a dime in a jukebox. Or buy the track for $1, which then makes it possible to both download it, as well as stream it forever at no additional cost. Or, stream the entire service’s catalog for a subscription fee, but at a much higher price point than Big Music — potentially $40–60 a month."

(Big Music = Spotify, Apple Music, Google Play etc)

Edited July 16, 2015 by toneknob

[Lw.]

Who is Anil Prasad? Both articles read like they're written by someone that doesn't understand either the flow of finances through the music industry or general consumer spending habits.

The streaming services are lead by the rights holders not the other way round as suggested - nothing happens without the rights holders consent & many of the things that do happen are directly requested by them (yes this includes the independents).

Suggesting a huge monthly fee is sheer madness - streaming services came about as a way for the rights holders to monetise internet music consumption after years of fighting against it. They were originally seen as a way to ween people off illegal downloads, hoping that they would first stream then move on to purchasing downloads. The 9.99 a month premium generally came about from the thinking that people are willing to pay the same as 1 album per month.

In the years that followed streaming services spent (and still are spending) millions of dollars trying to get listeners into the services - for every free trial you see given out for 1/3/6/12 months etc... the rights holders are getting paid, what the artists are getting paid obviously depends on contracts (as with the rest of the industry) some will be getting paid a decent amount, others won't with most somewhere in the middle.

Though saying all that (now going slightly off topic), what I think is being missed is that recorded music sales is not the future earnings for musicians - those times are long gone. The money should be coming from performance & artist partnerships - in an age where everything is available instantly & often free a bigger premium should be being put on the magic of being in the room when music is being created, space is limited so cost can go up - recorded music is really just a marketing tool to get people interested.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Lw.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Lw.' timestamp='1437043196' post='2823009']
Though saying all that (now going slightly off topic), what I think is being missed is that recorded music sales is not the future earnings for musicians - those times are long gone. The money should be coming from performance & artist partnerships - in an age where everything is available instantly & often free a bigger premium should be being put on the magic of being in the room when music is being created, space is limited so cost can go up - recorded music is really just a marketing tool to get people interested.
[/quote]

This is quite true, but it's a shame for those musicians who aren't - for whatever reason - creatures of the road. Especially in the current climate of dwindling live audiences.

[ambient]

[quote name='Lw.' timestamp='1437043196' post='2823009']
Who is Anil Prasad? Both articles read like they're written by someone that doesn't understand either the flow of finances through the music industry or general consumer spending habits.

The streaming services are lead by the rights holders not the other way round as suggested - nothing happens without the rights holders consent & many of the things that do happen are directly requested by them (yes this includes the independents).

Suggesting a huge monthly fee is sheer madness - streaming services came about as a way for the rights holders to monetise internet music consumption after years of fighting against it. They were originally seen as a way to ween people off illegal downloads, hoping that they would first stream then move on to purchasing downloads. The 9.99 a month premium generally came about from the thinking that people are willing to pay the same as 1 album per month.

In the years that followed streaming services spent (and still are spending) millions of dollars trying to get listeners into the services - for every free trial you see given out for 1/3/6/12 months etc... the rights holders are getting paid, what the artists are getting paid obviously depends on contracts (as with the rest of the industry) some will be getting paid a decent amount, others won't with most somewhere in the middle.

Though saying all that (now going slightly off topic), what I think is being missed is that recorded music sales is not the future earnings for musicians - those times are long gone. The money should be coming from performance & artist partnerships - in an age where everything is available instantly & often free a bigger premium should be being put on the magic of being in the room when music is being created, space is limited so cost can go up - recorded music is really just a marketing tool to get people interested.
[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Prasad

[KevB]

[quote name='Lw.' timestamp='1437043196' post='2823009']
The money should be coming from performance & artist partnerships - in an age where everything is available instantly & often free a bigger premium should be being put on the magic of being in the room when music is being created, space is limited so cost can go up - recorded music is really just a marketing tool to get people interested.
[/quote]

The way ticket prices have shot up over the last 10 years or so I'd say that is exactly what's going on.

[toneknob]

[quote name='Lw.' timestamp='1437043196' post='2823009']
Who is Anil Prasad? Both articles read like they're written by someone that doesn't understand either the flow of finances through the music industry or general consumer spending habits.
[/quote]

http://www.innerviews.org/about.html - he's on facebook if you want to join in the debate there as well

[ras52]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1437043464' post='2823018']
This is quite true, but it's a shame for those musicians who aren't - for whatever reason - creatures of the road. Especially in the current climate of dwindling live audiences.
[/quote]

In the case of non-performing songwriters, it's a serious problem. No shares of ticket and T-shirt sales for them.

[Lw.]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1437044405' post='2823036']
[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Prasad"]https://en.wikipedia...iki/Anil_Prasad[/url]
[/quote]
[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1437047425' post='2823087']
[url="http://www.innerviews.org/about.html"]http://www.innerviews.org/about.html[/url] - he's on facebook if you want to join in the debate there as well
[/quote]

As expected then, though I think I'll be giving facebook a miss.

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1437046799' post='2823072']
The way ticket prices have shot up over the last 10 years or so I'd say that is exactly what's going on.
[/quote]

You can say that again; I found a box of random old tat in my house the other day & it had my first Ozzfest ticket in it - £37.50. I vaguely remember thinking that was extortionate at the time though!

[spongebob]

I've been streaming for over a year, and have no problem paying the £10 a month. As a music fan, it's an absolute dream.

I've discovered a good few artists and albums through it - stuff that's recommended and similar.

Our band has stuff available, and the royalty rate is small - but at least we can be heard!

Fair for the established artists? I've spent 30 years paying out a tenner a time for records, that on quite a few occasions, should have been used as landfill. At least now they're only getting paid for what I actually listen to.

The music industry/business, IMHO, is in decline. Mainly to do with the lack of decent new music - especially in the face of 'the past'. Even 20 years ago, so many old albums were out of print - now they're available at the click of a mouse, where everyone has access to the world's record collection. It's just things moving on.

I've just read that Neil Young has pulled his output from streaming services - it's still on Google All Access at the moment. Like any format, if you get the right gear it sounds fab. My Bluetooth speaker was around £600. A lot? Not compared to a lot of other hi-fi gear. One speaker does it all!

[Lw.]

I agree with you on almost all points, other than:

[quote name='spongebob' timestamp='1437063224' post='2823319']
Fair for the established artists? I've spent 30 years paying out a tenner a time for records, that on quite a few occasions, should have been used as landfill. At least now they're only getting paid for what I actually listen to.
[/quote]

Technically the really big artists will be getting some of your money even if you haven't listened to them. Whether that's fair or not I don't know but the thought of having to calculate the royalties actually earned per track is giving me a bit of a headache!

[tauzero]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1436385310' post='2817808'] I know it's controversial here, but that's my point of view ... [/quote]

Dad, you say that we wouldn't pay multiple times for a painting, but that's not comparing like with like. If you use that analogy, what you're buying is a photocopy of the painting, and artists can sell as many photocopies of paintings as they like. It's the difference between depriving someone else of ownership in order to have it yourself and, er, not depriving someone else of ownership in order to own it yourself.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1437381438' post='2825354']
Dad, you say that we wouldn't pay multiple times for a painting, but that's not comparing like with like...
[/quote]

That's not quite what I was referring to in the (admittedly weak...) analogy. The basic point is that, if and while work is being done, then the work should be paid, no quibbles. Once it's done, though, it's done, and shouldn't generate revenue simply for the fact of being 'wanted'. I was comparing the listening to a song to someone coming to look at (not own, nor take away; just to look at...) a painting I'd acquired. The original artist is not paid 'per look', and doesn't get to know whether his work generates a lot of lookers or not. His work is finished, and has been paid for. An actor in a film has been paid for his role, whether the film is a success or a flop. On the other hand, every time anyone strikes up 'Happy Birthday', the owners of the rights to that song are due some money. I don't see why, as no further work has been done once it's been composed. Paying for it once, on a [i]pro rata[/i] for the time taken to compose it, seems fair enough to me. Having a milk cow just because it's popular is what I take to be wrong. It's not a question of ownership; simply having one's time paid for, but only once. I am all for musicians (indeed, all folks working...) being paid for their diligence and talent, but not to the point of becoming mega rich once the work is finished. How to achieve this could be debated, but the basic principle of having cash roll in whilst doing nothing more rankles with me.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437383523' post='2825386']
That's not quite what I was referring to in the (admittedly weak...) analogy. The basic point is that, if and while work is being done, then the work should be paid, no quibbles. Once it's done, though, it's done, and shouldn't generate revenue simply for the fact of being 'wanted'. I was comparing the listening to a song to someone coming to look at (not own, nor take away; just to look at...) a painting I'd acquired. The original artist is not paid 'per look', and doesn't get to know whether his work generates a lot of lookers or not. His work is finished, and has been paid for.
[/quote]

Paid for by one person (who possibly commissioned it), who then owns it.

What's the parallel with an artist investing their own time & money into creating an album?

I honestly don't subscribe to this 'music is worth nothing' school of thought. It brings pleasure. Someone paid to make it. They should be rewarded.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1437383742' post='2825389']
Paid for by one person (who possibly commissioned it), who then owns it.

What's the parallel with an artist investing their own time & money into creating an album?

I honestly don't subscribe to this 'music is worth nothing' school of thought. It brings pleasure. Someone paid to make it. They should be rewarded.
[/quote]

I make no such suggestion; quite the opposite. The rewards should, indeed, be for making music, not for past glories. Music has a value (a high value, in my book...), but no more nor less than any other task on this earth. Being honestly paid for one's labour is fine, right and proper. Being paid for lounging by the pool with a long drink has no place in my scheme of things. Investing his own time and money is what an author does whilst writing his novel, and should, indeed, be rewarded. A songster should equally get paid for creating songs. That does not extend to having money roll in for the rest of his or her life, and then some. The work should be paid for, not the coincidental popularity. Yes, music has a value, no question.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Dad3353

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437384403' post='2825399']
Being honestly paid for one's labour is fine, right and proper. Being paid for lounging by the pool with a long drink has no place in my scheme of things.
[/quote]

...what % of recording artists enjoy this sort of lifestyle, do you think?

[ras52]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437384403' post='2825399']
A songster should equally get paid for creating songs.
[/quote]

So would Paul McCartney earn the same for writing "Yesterday" as I would for writing my current work-in-progress?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1437384616' post='2825403']
...what % of recording artists enjoy this sort of lifestyle, do you think?
[/quote]

It matters little to me, it's firstly the principle of the thing. I don't believe in royalties and intellectual property as being revenue sources, that's all, either for one or for all.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1437385389' post='2825412']
So would Paul McCartney earn the same for writing "Yesterday" as I would for writing my current work-in-progress?
[/quote]

I don't see why not. I think the earnings should be in proportion to the effort employed, not for the success or otherwise of the finished work.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Dad3353

[ras52]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437385697' post='2825421']
I don't see why not. I think the earnings should be in proportion to the effort employed, not for the success or otherwise of the finished work.
[/quote]

But who pays?

(And Macca says he dreamt the melody, so he should probably get paid less - or even dismissed - for sleeping on the job )

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437385594' post='2825418']
It matters little to me, it's firstly the principle of the thing. I don't believe in royalties and intellectual property as being revenue sources, that's all, either for one or for all.
[/quote]

Ah, that's where we fundamentally differ.

I see recording music as an investment. if there's no way of recouping it, what's the point?

Musicians aren't paid a decent hourly rate for recording, like they would be if they were fitting a kitchen..

[tauzero]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437383523' post='2825386']
That's not quite what I was referring to in the (admittedly weak...) analogy. The basic point is that, if and while work is being done, then the work should be paid, no quibbles. Once it's done, though, it's done, and shouldn't generate revenue simply for the fact of being 'wanted'. I was comparing the listening to a song to someone coming to look at (not own, nor take away; just to look at...) a painting I'd acquired. The original artist is not paid 'per look', and doesn't get to know whether his work generates a lot of lookers or not. His work is finished, and has been paid for. An actor in a film has been paid for his role, whether the film is a success or a flop. On the other hand, every time anyone strikes up 'Happy Birthday', the owners of the rights to that song are due some money. I don't see why, as no further work has been done once it's been composed. Paying for it once, on a [i]pro rata[/i] for the time taken to compose it, seems fair enough to me. Having a milk cow just because it's popular is what I take to be wrong. It's not a question of ownership; simply having one's time paid for, but only once. I am all for musicians (indeed, all folks working...) being paid for their diligence and talent, but not to the point of becoming mega rich once the work is finished. How to achieve this could be debated, but the basic principle of having cash roll in whilst doing nothing more rankles with me.
[/quote]

But then you take away the link between supply and demand which establishes value in other areas of commerce. Your model means that everything of the same type would either have to have the same price or would have to have a price established at the point of sale with no movement allowed.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1437385842' post='2825423']
But who pays?

(And Macca says he dreamt the melody, so he should probably get paid less - or even dismissed - for sleeping on the job )
[/quote]
[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1437385870' post='2825424']
Ah, that's where we fundamentally differ.

I see recording music as an investment. if there's no way of recouping it, what's the point?

Musicians aren't paid a decent hourly rate for recording, like they would be if they were fitting a kitchen..
[/quote]

Ah..! Progress, maybe. These are better questions and merit reflection and ideas. Once the principle is established, one can go through a whole host of possibilities and options. This could entail further mind-set changes, as it's not so simple to just reply glibly; that's too easy. Nevertheless, are we agreed that, as long as the work is paid for, that, in itself, is then sufficient..? I'm all for someone paying, each and every time that work is done, but my thinking would put an end to the notion of becoming rich by penning a 'hit' song. If one spends a day composing, one gets paid for that day (how..? We'll have to see...). If one take a year to compose, one should be paid for that year. The simplest manner would be to have an employer (an organisation, such as the MU, or the Arts Council, or a private mecene..? Who paid Mozart..?). That debate is, to me, more interesting than squabbling over the royalties of a dead relative.
Why should musicians [i]not [/i]be paid a decent hourly rate, like fitting a kitchen..?

Edited July 20, 2015 by Dad3353

[Dad3353]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1437386297' post='2825428']
But then you take away the link between supply and demand which establishes value in other areas of commerce. Your model means that everything of the same type would either have to have the same price or would have to have a price established at the point of sale with no movement allowed.
[/quote]

I would consider that, too, to be progress. I see nothing sacrosanct in this 'supply and demand' link. Wordsworth did not write poems with that as a 'driver'. Other examples are available. There are other 'models', once one chooses to look for them.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Dad3353

[funkgod]

[quote name='Subbeh' timestamp='1436369354' post='2817598'] Not interested in any of the streaming services until they start paying the artists a fair share. Until that happens I'll keep buying the old fashioned way. [/quote]

bang on,
very intresting read, cheers,
It said very clearly what i already had in my head, and have long supported this.

Edited July 20, 2015 by funkgod

[Marvin]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437386420' post='2825430']
Ah..! Progress, maybe. These are better questions and merit reflection and ideas. Once the principle is established, one can go through a whole host of possibilities and options. This could entail further mind-set changes, as it's not so simple to just reply glibly; that's too easy. Nevertheless, are we agreed that, as long as the work is paid for, that, in itself, is then sufficient..? I'm all for someone paying, each and every time that work is done, but my thinking would put an end to the notion of becoming rich by penning a 'hit' song. If one spends a day composing, one gets paid for that day (how..? We'll have to see...). If one take a year to compose, one should be paid for that year. The simplest manner would be to have an employer (an organisation, such as the MU, or the Arts Council, or a private mecene..? Who paid Mozart..?). That debate is, to me, more interesting than squabbling over the royalties of a dead relative.
Why should musicians [i]not [/i]be paid a decent hourly rate, like fitting a kitchen..?
[/quote]

So musicians become the employees of wealthy benefactors...and churn out elitist nonsense for the musical equivalents of Charles Saatchi. OR, they have to work for a closed shop run by the taste police. How would a body like the MU or Arts Council decided whether they should 'employ' a musician or no? Would it be if a board of knowledgable muso journalists like their music? Or would they just employ everyone who decided they wanted to be a musician?

How many people have become 'rich' by penning a hit song? Really, how many? And in what way is that much different than someone coming up with a business idea, say like an internet 'business', and cashing out as soon as it became popular?


[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437386527' post='2825432']
I would consider that, too, to be progress. I see nothing sacrosanct in this 'supply and demand' link. Wordsworth did not write poems with that as a 'driver'. Other examples are available. There are other 'models', once one chooses to look for them.
[/quote]

Other models have all failed.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Marvin