Very interesting read regarding streaming services.

[ambient]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436436467' post='2818081']


It is all very speculative, but this could become the new model for the equivalent of radio payments. Radio 1 pays about £40 a play. This will go out to around 4 million listeners. Effectively this means you get 0.001p per listen.

The big difference is that radio gets to a wider audience who haven't chosen to listen to that track, whereas spotify will make suggestions. Long term this could become a viable model for musicians, and is certainly better than the blatant piracy that kicked the whole problem off in the first place.
[/quote]

I was actually only thinking that this morning. I wonder if radio program's as we know them will exist in 20 years ?

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1436437448' post='2818105']
I was actually only thinking that this morning. I wonder if radio program's as we know them will exist in 20 years ?
[/quote]

20 years, yes, as we have an increasingly ageing population, and people currently in 40s and 50s I would think would still be a strong market. I personally think the big change in listening habits is among the 20 and younger audience whose listening has been shaped differently than those in the older generation.

Listen to a local radio station - Heart, Capital etc., they are amazingly homogenised, and have built playlists around audience data and computer profiling. Those listeners are not likely to compile their own Spotify playlists.

Just read your signature, on second thoughts, don't listen to a local radio station

Edited July 9, 2015 by Mykesbass

[tedmanzie]

My mcps statement shows just under 400 plays for a track of mine (i think its quaterly) earning me 20p. It doesn't seem like much to me (seeing as I pay Spotify £10 a month), but maybe the reach of these services means it can work out in favour of the artist? If it led to direct downloads (eg from bandcamp) it might work, but why would you download it if you can stream it.

Edited July 9, 2015 by tedmanzie

[Weststarx]

I've never really understood why the streaming services get such negative coverage.

There has to be something in it for the artists because otherwise they would not bother being on there.

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1436440352' post='2818128']
My mcps statement shows just under 400 plays for a track of mine (i think its quaterly) earning me 20p. It doesn't seem like much to me (seeing as I pay Spotify £10 a month), but maybe the reach of these services means it can work out in favour of the artist? If it led to direct downloads (eg from bandcamp) it might work, but why would you download it if you can stream it.
[/quote]

And that's why I tried to put a financial comparison with Radio 1 - their cost per listen is 0.001p, so your 400 listens via streaming would have been worth 0.4p at Radio 1 rates, your getting 50 times that. When the listens do build up into the hundreds of thousands then musicians will be doing very nicely. It will take a long time to happen, but remember, in the 60s, artists were getting 0.75% royalty on physical sales.

[ambient]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436444954' post='2818189']
And that's why I tried to put a financial comparison with Radio 1 - their cost per listen is 0.001p, so your 400 listens via streaming would have been worth 0.4p at Radio 1 rates, your getting 50 times that. When the listens do build up into the hundreds of thousands then musicians will be doing very nicely. It will take a long time to happen, but remember, in the 60s, artists were getting 0.75% royalty on physical sales.
[/quote]

No, see my earlier post in the thread where Portishead got just $2500 for 34 million streams. [url="http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/04/portishead-made-just-2500-off-34-million-streams/"]http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/04/portishead-made-just-2500-off-34-million-streams/[/url]

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Weststarx' timestamp='1436443034' post='2818165']
There has to be something in it for the artists because otherwise they would not bother being on there.
[/quote]

Because it's 'the done thing'. But it appears opinions are changing.

[ras52]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436444954' post='2818189']
And that's why I tried to put a financial comparison with Radio 1 - their cost per listen is 0.001p, so your 400 listens via streaming would have been worth 0.4p at Radio 1 rates, your getting 50 times that.
[/quote]

The difference is that the streaming service is on-demand, just as if you'd bought a recording. So it's more correct to compare the economics of streaming with those of purchase, rather than those of airplay.

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1436445095' post='2818190']
No, see my earlier post in the thread where Portishead got just $2500 for 34 million streams. [url="http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/04/portishead-made-just-2500-off-34-million-streams/"]http://consequenceof...illion-streams/[/url]
[/quote]
OK, keeping with my comparing streaming to radio listening (yes, flawed I know, and will come back to that in a second), this is still way more than the equivalent payment for the same number of radio listens.

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1436446306' post='2818205']
The difference is that the streaming service is on-demand, just as if you'd bought a recording. So it's more correct to compare the economics of streaming with those of purchase, rather than those of airplay.
[/quote]
As above, the comparison of streaming and radio listening is flawed, but it looks like the streaming payment could be significantly higher than the radio performance payment per listen. I don't know if we're trying to put too much value on streaming, should it not be viewed as a new way of discovering artists that you then go on to support financially via gigs, merchandise, or, at arms length, by giving them the popularity so they can sell branding rights etc?

[ras52]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436447304' post='2818216']
I don't know if we're trying to put too much value on streaming, should it not be viewed as a new way of discovering artists that you then go on to support financially via gigs, merchandise, or, at arms length, by giving them the popularity so they can sell branding rights etc?
[/quote]

The discovery/sampler model sort of works for the free level of Spotify, or at least in the form it took when I signed up (I haven't used it for a while). There is/was a limit of five plays for any single track, so I couldn't play Justin Bieber's new track 10 times a day without paying for the privilege.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436447304' post='2818216']
I don't know if we're trying to put too much value on streaming, should it not be viewed as a new way of discovering artists that you then go on to support financially via gigs, merchandise, or, at arms length, by giving them the popularity so they can sell branding rights etc?
[/quote]

This sounds suspiciously like the age-old '...but you'll get great exposure!' justification when asked to do gigs for nothing.

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1436451117' post='2818259']
This sounds suspiciously like the age-old '...but you'll get great exposure!' justification when asked to do gigs for nothing.
[/quote]
No, at least that wasn't my intention. But we have always had a way of discovering new music. At the turn of the 20th century it was pianists popularising songs that pushed the sales of sheet music, in fact there were charts as such way back then, just reflecting sales of music, not recordings. Then we got the dance bands playing the hotels and dance halls, eventually moving on to radio. All of these things promoted the sale of music, and I just hope that streaming will eventually develop a model that will help artists develop a fan base who will support them, just as other techniques have done in the past.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436452121' post='2818263']
No, at least that wasn't my intention. But we have always had a way of discovering new music. At the turn of the 20th century it was pianists popularising songs that pushed the sales of sheet music, in fact there were charts as such way back then, just reflecting sales of music, not recordings. Then we got the dance bands playing the hotels and dance halls, eventually moving on to radio. All of these things promoted the sale of music, and I just hope that streaming will eventually develop a model that will help artists develop a fan base who will support them, just as other techniques have done in the past.
[/quote]

Absolutely. But the wandering troubadour got money for his sheet music. Dance bands got paid to play (usually popular covers).

Getting heard is one thing.. getting paid for it is a different kettle'o'fish.

[tedmanzie]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436444954' post='2818189']
And that's why I tried to put a financial comparison with Radio 1 - their cost per listen is 0.001p, so your 400 listens via streaming would have been worth 0.4p at Radio 1 rates, your getting 50 times that. When the listens do build up into the hundreds of thousands then musicians will be doing very nicely. It will take a long time to happen, but remember, in the 60s, artists were getting 0.75% royalty on physical sales.
[/quote]

I understand your point, but I'm not sure this way of looking at the figures stacks up, however I don't know enough about the actual mechanics of the system at this point to form a better argument

My gut feeling is that the artist loses out. I know we shouldn't base arguments on gut feeling, but let's take the latest Blur album as an example - I was quite looking forward to it and prepared to shell out £10 for the CD, (or similar for the download). So in that scenario I expect the band might have seen approx 20%, let's say £2. If Spotify pays 0.005p per play (not sure that is 100% correct but it seems to be what i got) then I would have to play the 10 tracks on the album [i]4000 times[/i] in order to 'give' the band £2? Doesn't seem right to me.

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1436452279' post='2818265']
Absolutely. But the wandering troubadour got money for his sheet music. Dance bands got paid to play (usually popular covers).

Getting heard is one thing.. getting paid for it is a different kettle'o'fish.
[/quote]

My example was of the music getting sold, so it wasn't the troubadour but the songwriter (or more likely, the publisher) getting paid. Likewise, with the dance bands, yes the bands got paid, but they in turn drove sales for the bandleader's records.

Another example would be the juke box. That really helped push rock & roll, but the artist would only get paid once for the sale of the record, and wouldn't make anything (apart from a minuscule payment through PPL) for repeat plays, and yet, being on a juke box was a great driver of sales.

I like your quote, but without the first you won't have a chance of getting the second.

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1436452915' post='2818272']
I understand your point, but I'm not sure this way of looking at the figures stacks up, however I don't know enough about the actual mechanics of the system at this point to form a better argument

My gut feeling is that the artist loses out. I know we shouldn't base arguments on gut feeling, but let's take the latest Blur album as an example - I was quite looking forward to it and prepared to shell out £10 for the CD, (or similar for the download). So in that scenario I expect the band might have seen approx 20%, let's say £2. If Spotify pays 0.005p per play (not sure that is 100% correct but it seems to be what i got) then I would have to play the 10 tracks on the album [i]4000 times[/i] in order to 'give' the band £2? Doesn't seem right to me.
[/quote]

It's probably me, because I like owning tangible thinks, therefore, to me, streaming doesn't equate to owning, so I don't see it as equating to earning when someone buys the album, I see it as equating to earning from the music being broadcast.

[ras52]

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1436453001' post='2818275']
My example was of the music getting sold, so it wasn't the troubadour but the songwriter (or more likely, the publisher) getting paid. Likewise, with the dance bands, yes the bands got paid, but they in turn drove sales for the bandleader's records.

Another example would be the juke box. That really helped push rock & roll, but the artist would only get paid once for the sale of the record, and wouldn't make anything (apart from a minuscule payment through PPL) for repeat plays, and yet, being on a juke box was a great driver of sales.

I like your quote, but without the first you won't have a chance of getting the second.
[/quote]

You mention the PPL (for the performers), but don't forget the PRS (for the writers) and the MCPS (for the owner of the recording, usually the record company with a chunk going to the "act"). Jukebox plays would generate PPL and PRS royalties.

And when it comes to the "but you'll make your money in merch sales", remember that writers and session musicians who aren't part of the signed "act" don't get any of that.

[bassist_lewis]

However you feel about streaming services, whatever the conclusion of monetising music, it will have a knock on affect on all intellectual property rights. If all recorded music becomes free (or by subscription) then it will set a precedent for all intangible, non-physical products like software (and books now). Effectively everything will become free or by subscription!
On the other hand, the last 60 years or so has been the only time in history when recorded music has been monetised - also the only time recorded music has existed! It would be a return to normality for the music industry to stop passive income.
I also disagree with dad3353353535whatever, using someone's song isn't like getting paid for doing nothing, it's like renting a car or power tools: you own something, someone else wants to use for a bit, they have to pay for it.

[KevB]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know what happens in public libraries? I assume some sort of artist payment occurs when people borrow an album, any idea what the royalty rates on those transactions are - similar to streaming?

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1436517187' post='2818704']
Just out of curiosity does anyone know what happens in public libraries? I assume some sort of artist payment occurs when people borrow an album, any idea what the royalty rates on those transactions are - similar to streaming?
[/quote]

Yep, there are services which collect royalties every time somebody checks out a book, CD, DVD, etc. I think it's the PLR for UK authors, and PPL for UK musicians. I don't know exactly what the rates are, but one certainly wouldn't rely on them to form the backbone of one's income!

[ambient]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1436370859' post='2817615']
I think musicians should be paid for playing music, not for people listening to it. One doesn't pay every time one looks at an artist's painting or sculpture. Live performance, fine; the audience pays. Recordings should be paid for on a 'one off' basis. To me, all this stuff about 'intellectual property' is a scam. Actors in films get paid for their performance, not for the folks going to the cinema. Yes, I was a professional musician for some years. It's become a cow for milking, imo, where folks get money even when sitting by the pool or doing their shopping. An unpopular view, I know, but there it is.
[/quote]

I'm just watching a program about hit singles through the years. They're interviewing the guy from Slade about their Christmas hit, he calls it the bands pension.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1437000116' post='2822811']
I'm just watching a program about hit singles through the years. They're interviewing the guy from Slade about their Christmas hit, he calls it the bands pension.


[/quote]

I wonder just how many orchestra-pit players have an equivalent pension..? Hmm...

Edited July 15, 2015 by Dad3353

[ambient]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437000866' post='2822820']
I wonder just how many orchestra-pit players have an equivalent pension..? Hmm...
[/quote]

True, but how many orchestral players write a number 1 christmas record ? (As bad as it is )

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1437001268' post='2822823']
True, but how many orchestral players write a number 1 christmas record ? (As bad as it is )
[/quote]

Exactly; hence my questioning the 'worth' of royalties and all. I realise that the world is presently made up this way, but that doesn't make it any more 'right', imo. Now, if I was Ultimate Dictator, things will be different...

[ras52]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437000866' post='2822820']


I wonder just how many orchestra-pit players have an equivalent pension..? Hmm...
[/quote]

Perhaps not equivalent in monetary value, but those who have played on recordings will get income from PPL royalties.