AI music overtakes real band its modelled on

[Sté]

Streaming is just a real chance to discover some new artists on a larger basis than only local gigs around. Especially in comtemporary jazz music which is not the more played music around. I've found a mid-road between past and present: buying monthly some jazz dedicated newspaper (yeah, we still have two different ones surviving) in which i find a lot of albums reviews. And then, go to discover Artists that reviews inspired me on Deezer. And when i find something i really like, buy the CD. (no vinyl digger here); and go to see them live when i've the chance it's not to far. And then buy merch; and following them after, etc .. 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sté

[BigRedX]

2 hours ago, Supernaut said:

Does it benefit the artist? Are they given a fair payout? 

 

Streaming definitely benefits my band. It allows us to reach listeners all over the world. About 90% of our listeners are from outside of the UK. For better or worse it's where the majority of most artist's potential audience are. These days it costs next to nothing to be on streaming services, so why wouldn't you be there?

 

Does it give a fair payout? How do you even begin to quantify that?

 

Let's look at the "good old days" of record companies, albums and CDs... A new signed band might get 10% of the retail price of the record or CD, But that only came after they had paid off their advance, recording costs (often to a studio owned by the label), promotional costs like buying onto a major artist tour, making videos, paying photographers, record pluggers and all the publicity that a band with a record contract in the 20th century would have taken for granted. They would also have to sign with the record labels publishing company who would take one third of all their performance royalties. Most bands would never see any money other than what the label initially advanced them. And that was only for the very lucky few who actually got signed.

 

If you were going to put out your own record, in the late 70s if you cut every corner possible like The Desperate Bicycles you could record and press 500 copies of your single for just under £200. Back then it took at least 3 months to get your records after you had sent them off to be pressed. If you were lucky and John Peel liked it enough to play it more than once and Rough Trade gave you a distribution deal and you sold all the copies, you could probably afford to make a second single and not have to cut every corner this time. Or if you were unlucky like my friend's band it could take the best part of a year from making the initial recording to getting your 500 copies of the single and then your distributor would go bust taking all of your stock with them never to be seen again.

 

On the other hand streaming probably won't make any of the artists being streamed rich on its own, but if you do it right you should at the very least make back your aggregator's fees. Your music will be available for as long as the streaming service is running. Yes Bandcamp give you 90% of your download and physical product sales, but their reach is tiny compared with Spotify or Apple Music or Amazon.

 

IME the people who do badly out of streaming do so because either they have signed a deal that gives someone else (usually their record label) the majority of their streaming income, or because they don't do enough promotion. The conservative estimate is that 20,000 new songs are uploaded EVERY DAY. So when you release your next single not only do you have to compete with the other 19,999+ songs released that day but you also have to compete with almost every other song ever released in the history of popular music. The charts (for what they are worth these days) have to apply negative weighting to back catalogue otherwise new artist would barely get a look in. So if you can't/won't promote your music how can you ever expect to reach an audience of more than your close friends and family?

 

For me the short answer is that while I'm almost never going to make a living out of my music, at the moment my band breaks even overall in terms of what it cost us to be a band and what we make from playing gigs and having our music available to listen to or buy in various formats. And while it isn't a massive proportion of the band's overall income it makes an important contribution.

 

 

[Beedster]

2 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

Streaming definitely benefits my band. It allows us to reach listeners all over the world. About 90% of our listeners are from outside of the UK. For better or worse it's where the majority of most artist's potential audience are. These days it costs next to nothing to be on streaming services, so why wouldn't you be there?

 

Does it give a fair payout? How do you even begin to quantify that?

 

Let's look at the "good old days" of record companies, albums and CDs... A new signed band might get 10% of the retail price of the record or CD, But that only came after they had paid off their advance, recording costs (often to a studio owned by the label), promotional costs like buying onto a major artist tour, making videos, paying photographers, record pluggers and all the publicity that a band with a record contract in the 20th century would have taken for granted. They would also have to sign with the record labels publishing company who would take one third of all their performance royalties. Most bands would never see any money other than what the label initially advanced them. And that was only for the very lucky few who actually got signed.

 

If you were going to put out your own record, in the late 70s if you cut every corner possible like The Desperate Bicycles you could record and press 500 copies of your single for just under £200. Back then it took at least 3 months to get your records after you had sent them off to be pressed. If you were lucky and John Peel liked it enough to play it more than once and Rough Trade gave you a distribution deal and you sold all the copies, you could probably afford to make a second single and not have to cut every corner this time. Or if you were unlucky like my friend's band it could take the best part of a year from making the initial recording to getting your 500 copies of the single and then your distributor would go bust taking all of your stock with them never to be seen again.

 

On the other hand streaming probably won't make any of the artists being streamed rich on its own, but if you do it right you should at the very least make back your aggregator's fees. Your music will be available for as long as the streaming service is running. Yes Bandcamp give you 90% of your download and physical product sales, but their reach is tiny compared with Spotify or Apple Music or Amazon.

 

IME the people who do badly out of streaming do so because either they have signed a deal that gives someone else (usually their record label) the majority of their streaming income, or because they don't do enough promotion. The conservative estimate is that 20,000 new songs are uploaded EVERY DAY. So when you release your next single not only do you have to compete with the other 19,999+ songs released that day but you also have to compete with almost every other song ever released in the history of popular music. The charts (for what they are worth these days) have to apply negative weighting to back catalogue otherwise new artist would barely get a look in. So if you can't/won't promote your music how can you ever expect to reach an audience of more than your close friends and family?

 

For me the short answer is that while I'm almost never going to make a living out of my music, at the moment my band breaks even overall in terms of what it cost us to be a band and what we make from playing gigs and having our music available to listen to or buy in various formats. And while it isn't a massive proportion of the band's overall income it makes an important contribution.

 

 

 

Great post 👍