Comments on: "...have your lawyer call our lawyer & we might answer some questions."

"...have your lawyer call our lawyer & we might answer some questions."

Fizz — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:53 -0800

Open the Music Industry's Black Box by David Byrne [New York Times]

"Everyone should be celebrating — but many of us who create, perform and record music are not. Tales of popular artists (as popular as Pharrell Williams) who received paltry royalty checks for songs that streamed thousands or even millions of times (like "Happy") on Pandora or Spotify are common. Obviously, the situation for less-well-known artists is much more dire. For them, making a living in this new musical landscape seems impossible. I myself am doing O.K., but my concern is for the artists coming up: How will they make a life in music?"

By: ThatCanadianGirl

ThatCanadianGirl — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:53:36 -0800

That was interesting. So AM and FM stations don't pay royalties to artists when their music is played? I thought they did. I didn't understand that comment. Can anyone expand on that?

By: mikewebkist

mikewebkist — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:57:17 -0800

The buried lede is right there in the pull quote: Tales of popular artists ... who received paltry royalty checks for songs that streamed thousands or even millions of times. Millions of listens on Spotify is a huge success -- or about one play on a major urban radio station. The paltry payouts from streaming are right in line with the paltry listener numbers.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:10:06 -0800

That's interesting. Do you have numbers on average urban radio audiences? I thought radio wasn't anywhere near what it used to be.

By: JeremiahBritt

JeremiahBritt — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:33:18 -0800

That was interesting. So AM and FM stations don't pay royalties to artists when their music is played? I thought they did. I didn't understand that comment. Can anyone expand on that? American radio stations pay ASCAP, BMI and SESAC blanket fees for the rights to play music from their respective catalogs. The money goes to the publishers (labels) and songwriters, but not performers (if they didn't write their own song). Historically, radio airplay has been viewed as "promotional" for the artists; music for the station and advertising for the artist. The payola scandals that started in the 60s were a result of DJs and stations getting money from labels to promote/play certain albums. Whether or not you agree with the current licensing model terrestrial radio has, almost everyone agrees that music labels collect too much for how little they distribute back to the artist, especially given their history of price fixing and oppressive contracts.

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:40:19 -0800

That's interesting. Do you have numbers on average urban radio audiences? I thought radio wasn't anywhere near what it used to be. From journalism.org (Pew Research): Radio Listenership Online Radio Listenership Spotify & Pandora Active Users (2014) also: Sirius/XM Subscribers (Annual, 2009 - 2014)

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:40:28 -0800

One way that rights holders seem to be fighting back against paltry streaming revenues is to upload entire albums on youtube with ads enabled. Youtube ad revenues are orders of magnitude greater than streaming royalties.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:41:26 -0800

I have a very limited amount of experience in the music business but for a time in the mid-00's I did a lot of work with hip-hop artists and I heard time again from them that album sales and radio play were a small part of how they made a living. The biggest revenue generator was live shows and if they were smart they made a killing. One artist I worked with frequently told me he could make $10k-$20k a night off shows at small to medium size venues. He would tour all over the southeast and make a killing. He approached downloads and radio play as a way to market his product to get people to the live shows. As a content creator myself, I've justified my Spotifiy subscription by assuming live shows are the predominant model for musicians to make a living. To Byrne's point, transparency is obviously one of the answers but at what point do artists run the risk of collusion when everyone is able to discuss what their deal is with the streaming services and use that information as leverage when negotiating? As a photographer who participates in plenty of FB groups, email lists and artist advocacy groups I frequently hear that we can't get too comfortable discussing rates with one another or run the risk of being accused of collusion (which for the record I believe is bull shit). Furthermore, transparency only works when you are dealing with others negotiating in good faith. In my 20+ years as a content creator I've seen plenty of evidence of others flat out lying about what they're being paid while undercutting the market. Currently, it's the freelance content creators - musicians, photographers, illustrators, writers, etc dealing with being nickel-and-dimed by the distributors of the content. In my experience, very few people in other fields/ industries that include full-time employment, health benefits and a steady paycheck are concerned about those of us in the creative trades. One result is organized labor has largely taken it on the chin. My hope is things will change as more and more people find themselves having to work outside of the traditional full-time employee model and find themselves as freelancers, contractors and small-business owners having to negotiate for every dime they make. I'm not sure if that wishing everyone has it as bad as me or wishing everyone has it as good as me. Time will tell.

By: Jinsai

Jinsai — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:05:22 -0800

Looks like Mr. Byrne has finally done his homework, and is looking for where the problems really are. Radio is still popular, though not as big as it used to be (for obvious reasons). In the USA, radio pays far less than any of the internet services, and operates with far fewer restrictions on what it can play, and has far less accurate reporting. Most of the "reform terrestrial radio" stuff feels a little "closing the barn door after the horse is gone" or too little, too late to it, but it's better than nothing. "Millions of listens on Spotify is a huge success -- or about one play on a major urban radio station. The paltry payouts from streaming are right in line with the paltry listener numbers." This is EXACTLY right, and a point I wish more people understood. Streaming plays are not 1:1 comparisons with any other format, for all kinds of reasons (including friction, cost, value, etc.) And in the case of streaming services, you know EXACTLY how many people listened, as opposed to radio stations, which make guesses. It's tough to be a musician, and it always has been. Touring isn't the answer for everyone. Not all music translates that way. But touring is something that cannot be digitally duplicated and is fundamentally scarce. There's a finite number of venues, hours, etc.

By: metaphorever

metaphorever — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:31:52 -0800

This has sent me down the rabbit hole of reading about the Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015 and wondering what it will mean for our local community radio station. The over the air fees seem like they should be manageable since as a not for profit the station should get the low $100 fixed rate. What I wonder is if this could help solve our internet streaming problem—we recently shut down our online broadcast primarily because of the increasing cost of paying licensing to various rights holding groups. In defining a single standard for both terrestrial and digital radio would this solve our problem by consolidating our royalty payments into a single, manageable amount or would this somehow be tacked on in addition to the other fees we already pay? It's a complicated situation. I fully support artist getting compensation for the use of their works but I have my doubts about whether the money we were paying in royalties (for online streaming) ever actually made it back to the artist I play, many of whom are on small labels or no label at all. I want us to pay royalties if it means that the money really is going to the recording artists and music creators but I also am acutely aware that if those royalties exceed what we can drum up in pledges and underwriting that we might not be able to have a community radio station at all. I really hope that this bill can do some balancing to both make sure that artists are being paid while also carving out room for college/community radio to keep playing weird and new stuff.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:15:45 -0800

More on the Fair Play Fair Pay Act. "Broadcasters say they favor fairness concerning payments, but instead support two other measures, the Local Radio Freedom Act (H. Con. Res. 17) in Congress and a companion Senate bill, S. Con. Res. 4."

By: VTX

VTX — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:33:26 -0800

The biggest revenue generator was live shows and if they were smart they made a killing. I've heard this over and over again from all kinds of sources. And I think it's fine if you're an artist who likes performing live and your music lends itself to a live format. The nice thing is that the value the artist brings is impossible to replicate and rare. So, the kinds of people who really like live music will be willing to pay a lot more for it than they would to a song. The problem is that not every kind of music works live (or is even really possible live), not every artist cares about performing on stage and I don't think they should have to do live shoes if they don't want to, and not every music listener really cares about live shows. I don't know if I can articulate why, but I just don't care about seeing music live. This is an area where having a basic income is really nice because then musician's who are currently just making a living on their music and like it enough that they eschew other more lucrative jobs to keep being a poor musician can have a much easier time of it and keep doing what they love. They still have to option to have a better standard of living but that basic income means that they have a lot more choices and more people would probably be able to make a fine living playing music. More people would make the attempt and more people would be able to afford to give it more effort. Then, just playing the odds, we'd probably end up with more great music (and more shitty music).

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:40:51 -0800

I pay $10/month for a streaming service (not Spotify). Except for when I was in high school and college, that ends up being more than I used to pay for CDs and albums before streaming existed. So I pay out more now that I stream, yet the artists are getting paid much less. Album sales were pretty easy to track, making it harder to hide where the money goes. Streaming makes it easier to cook the books. It is the same old story of the artists getting ripped off. Who's ripping off the artists? Three groups, working together: 1. The music labels 2. The streaming services 3. The customers We are a key part of this. There's a reason that Spotify is known as the most popular streaming service and as one of the streaming services which results in the lowest payouts to artists. There's a reason that artists who speak out about this get attacked by music fans. No one goes out of their way to find services that try to make deals that result in artists getting paid more. We want our cheap music, and if we get more music that's the best of all even if it means the artists get almost nothing. I wish more people would pay attention to what people like David Byrne are saying, but I doubt anyone will.

By: nickrussell

nickrussell — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:48:26 -0800

There's a great book for anyone who wants to read on this topic – How Music Got Free [powells.com]. I see all of the points about allocation of profits and capital within the industry – and will not pretend to know enough to speak to that. However, I came away from the book thinking about the fundamental point that it is increasingly difficult to make money from music as a product. There are simply too many substitutes for people's time available. Combine the efficiency of digital distribution, with a catalogue that never ages, and there are too many songs. That point is made in the book about the kid looking to collect high quality versions of every song ever recorded. Once that repository is built, the scarce resource is the time to listen to all of that music. And I think this is a fundamental facet of supply-side economics that a rising world of demand-side economics is hungrily chewing through. There is simply not enough time or interest in music. What people ARE interested in is concerts – and cost of shows continues rising. Music is no longer an individual good to be consumed, but a social experience to be consumed. From the Byrne article: Even as the musical audience has grown, ways have been found to siphon off a greater percentage than ever of the money that customers and music fans pay for recorded music. Has the musical audience grown? Has it really grown? If we look at songs recorded per-person on Earth, which has increased faster – global population, or volume of recorded music? The inflection point would be when music distribution went from being delivered by atoms to being delivered by bits. And with it went the entire industry. I will make that argument that the musical audience hasn't grown, because I doubt there are as many hours per capita of music consumption globally as there were previously. Further, with the explosion of supply comes commoditisation. Do people seek out to listen to specific pieces of music, or are they generally happy with "music"? The barriers to entry for production have become so low – see "Trackd Music which launched last week. Instagram for music production. A social four-track recorder that can be used across distances. With an infinite volume of content, value has shifted from production, to curation. No longer are the artists the superstars, but the curators – whether they live in front of, or behind the curtain. The networks. The shows. The DJs. The channels. In terms of how to make a life in music, it will surely be possible to make a life in music, but it may not be a life of high income. Because artistry has become commodified, and therefore, is infinitely substitutable. The entire value chain ahead of selection has been commodified – that is to say, that there is no natural scarcity. The fundamental question for someone like Byrne is "what is the unique feature of music?" Artists will always say it was the artistry – but it's increasingly curation of infinite resources. I love music, and I think it's absolutely fundamental to the human experience. But then again, wheat and water are also fundamental to the human experience. I think David Byrne is asking the wrong question. The question is "How is David Byrne supposed to make a living in music." – how are people who made A LOT of money before supposed to live in a world where now their work has been devalued by technology and shifting demand. The rules of demand-driven markets are increasingly that the person who charges the customer, is the true beneficiary. The further you are away from the customer, the less likely you are to get paid. Hence the end of the rockstar life. Now for most, it's going to be a job like any other. And I don't know how David Byrne is meant to live like that.

By: mikewebkist

mikewebkist — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:50:28 -0800

I pay $10/month for a streaming service (not Spotify). Except for when I was in high school and college, that ends up being more than I used to pay for CDs and albums before streaming existed. So I pay out more now that I stream, yet the artists are getting payed much less. For $10/month you're getting access to every album ever (minus Taylor Swift, I guess.) The marginal cost of an additional album is $0, but you stop paying you stop getting access. For the same $120/year, you end up with 10 CDs you own forever. These are not comparable situations.

By: tunewell

tunewell — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:06:03 -0800

"You're a musician, not a recording artist. It's 2015 and not only have recording revenues declined, the whole world of music has gone topsy-turvy. Yes, there are a few superstars who base their careers on successful recordings, but everybody else is now a player, destined to a life on stage. This ain't gonna change, this is the new reality. You can make an album, have fun, but don't expect people to buy it or listen to it. The audience wants an experience. You're better off honing your presentation than getting a good drum sound on hard drive. Your patter is more important than the vocal effects achieved in the studio. You're back to where you once belonged, a performer. Be ready for a life on the road. Look for places to play. People love a good time. If you deliver one, you'll get more work. Agitate for better streaming payments but don't focus on it. Streaming is just one source of income. And for everybody who performs live, it's de minimis. Most of the money is made elsewhere. To focus on streaming revenues is to get hung up on your tire brand as opposed to your car. Streaming won, it's the public's music consumption mode of choice, your goal is to get people to stream/hear your music so they're curious enough to see you live, or check you out when you're on the undercard at the festival." -Bob Lefsetz from the Lefsetz Letter.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:10:36 -0800

I think nickrussell has it. Music is a necessity, but also something that many people like to make, and that can be made, recorded and distributed more cheaply than ever before. To a consumer, it's bewildering, and many people will settle for whatever's easiest to find or already familiar. If they want something else, it's out there by the truckload, but what are the odds that consumer will like a particular new/aspiring artist and then pay them for their music? Low. They might buy something from someone they like at a show, or who is recommended by a friend, or on a movie soundtrack. But that's about as much effort as 99% of people will make to find something they like. Otherwise, they'll settle for the same stuff they have already. I think musicians should give up on trying to capture the market through scarcity and instead agitate for the guaranteed basic income. Then they can stay alive, make music, and only concentrate on getting famous if that's what they really want, not because it's the only way to survive. It would mean most music staying local and provincial with a few breakthroughs, but what's so bad about that, really?

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:19:20 -0800

nickrussell, I haven't read the book--maybe I'll give it a look, but I fundamentally disagree. There is money to be made in music. Lots of money. Many millions of people are paying $10 every month. That is a heck of a lot of money! There are executives working for both music labels and the streaming services who are very happy to make deals with each other to make sure that money goes to them. Even David Byrne can't find out what these deals are for his own music, and for good reason. There is no reason for them to let anyone know how they are taking all the money. Certainly it is harder for musicians to make money, but don't let that confuse the issue--there is definitely lots of money being made! And to mikeweblkist, buying 12 CDs a year is exactly comparable to paying $10 a month for a streaming service, from the point of view of money being paid out. Same money being paid out, yet artists, as a whole, get a lot less money from one of these. The whole point is where is this money going, if not to the artists?

By: weston

weston — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:19:32 -0800

Streaming is just one source of income. And for everybody who performs live, it's de minimis. Most of the money is made elsewhere. To focus on streaming revenues is to get hung up on your tire brand as opposed to your car. Streaming won, it's the public's music consumption mode of choice, your goal is to get people to stream/hear your music so they're curious enough to see you live, or check you out when you're on the undercard at the festival." Someone mistook a normative description of reality for a static one. By the same logic, one might well argue that the printing press made revenue from book sales irrelevant -- a technology makes access abundant and copies cheap, how can you make money from that? -- and authors should focus on their personal brand so you want to pay to hear them read live. We didn't do that, of course, we responded with some laws regarding copy rights. We could do the same with streaming. Particularly this new rent-arbitrary-access-to-cloud-record-collection thing that we're sometimes glossing over issues with by labeling it "streaming" just like Pandora (which is much more like terrestrial radio).

By: tunewell

tunewell — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:21:42 -0800

We didn't do that, of course, we responded with some laws regarding copy rights. We could do the same with streaming. Then watch piracy skyrocket again.

By: uncleozzy

uncleozzy — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:24:10 -0800

The whole master rights royalties situation is so fucked to begin with--labels own masters and pay artists royalties based on ... well, based on something--it's almost a wonder artists are still willing to cut tracks that they don't own at least some of the writing or publishing of. I write and produce production music for broadcast, where one of the traditional models is that a publisher buys the master and publishing and the composer keeps the writing royalties. Depending on the quality of the syncs and the amount the publisher pays, this can be a perfectly fine deal. But there are plenty of publishers now who want the master and publishing for free, and others who, because they're giving in to TV producers who want them to sign over part of the publishing, want to take part of the writing. Messed up in a completely different way. There is a trade group working to protect revenue streams, to make sure that publishers and composers are both fairly compensated, but it's an uphill battle, and I'm really not sure where the increased streaming (and decreased revenue) is going to end up.

By: agregoli

agregoli — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:24:14 -0800

We can't.

By: nickrussell

nickrussell — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:27:22 -0800

there is definitely lots of money being made! Yes, there's a lot of money being made. For luxury goods, the profits go to the manufacturer. For commodities, the profits go to the distributor. This is the issue with music. The industry has changed so fast, that everyone assumes there's some degree of foul play going on. There's not foul play going on, it's gone from luxury to commodity in less than a generation.

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:35:07 -0800

Hah! There is plenty of foul play going on. Streaming has created a new way to hide where the money goes. David Byrne is calling for transparency, but it will never happen. Why should it unless the customers demand it?

By: eclectist

eclectist — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:37:00 -0800

I can get a tip jar Gas up the car Try to make a little change Down at the bar Or I can get a straight job I've done it before Never minded working hard It's who I'm working for And everything is free now That's what they say Everything I ever done Gotta give it away Someone hit the big score They figured it out That we're gonna do it anyway Even if it doesn't pay -Gillian Welch, from 'Time (the Revelator)', released 2001.

By: Devonian

Devonian — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:37:17 -0800

The day the music died? No, of course not, but it was the death of the music industry as we know it, Jim. See also news publishing on paper and many others - the digital age taking over from the atomic. As Mr Rotten sang the year before - Unlimted edition With an unlimited supply That was the only reason We all had to say goodbye Unlimited supply There is no reason why I tell you it was all a frame They only did it 'cos of fame I do not need the pressure I can't stand those useless fools Unlimited supply EMI (Pause for a second to enjoy the image of Vint Cerf in bondage trousers and a mohican) So: what now? Performance, yes. It doesn't have to be you on stage: there may be others wanting to put on a show around your music, adding their art to it. Commerce: yes. If people want to use your music to sell their stuff, you have the option to take their money. Music was sponsored before the age of the gramophone, look how Tallis and Bach and a thousand other composers and performers made their scratch, often from horrible people. Adornment: yes. the moving image thirsts for music, and while it has its own transition to live through it's still going strong. New ways: yes. Videogames, of course, but now we can build music into anything. What can you make, what can your friends make, that has physicality and symbiotic possibilities? A crystal sculpture that hums with quiet pleasure when the sunlight caresses it? An honest-to-god made-of-paper novel that has a soundtrack which plays when you run your finger along the lines? A songbook that plays along at your speed, your pitch when you sing from it, and helps you learn to sing better? I don't know if any of these things would make money, but I can imagine worlds where they might. Imagine your own world, and make that happen. What can you touch with your creativity that can't be teleported over the Net? It used to be vinyl and polycarbonate, but everything changes. Making a life from music has always been hard, and it always will be. Some jackpots are no longer available, but you'd have a hard time in the music hall these days too. (That had its own death knell sixty years before the music industry's.) And spare a thought for the poor old journalist. It's really much harder to fill a medium-sized venue with readings from your blog.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:57:33 -0800

For them, making a living in this new musical landscape seems impossible. There was never a time when it was possible for 99.9% of musicians. Only the famous, a serendipitously appended descriptor, ever make a decent living selling their recorded music. Sic semper transit.

By: persona au gratin

persona au gratin — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:07:15 -0800

I spend more on music today than I ever have. I pay for streaming services. I wish that there were a way to be sure some of that money makes it back to the artists.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:20:37 -0800

Most musicians have websites where you can give them money in various ways. But most people won't take that step away from streaming/free to go do it. And here we are. I've mostly given up on guilting people into paying for art(though I do like the Patreon setup some visual artists have going). And there are plenty of artists, like those poor souls in the post earlier about the Mask Dancers, who don't want to compromise their art by engaging with commerce at all, and end up badly. At the same time, they have a point; when you need money to eat, and have to target your art to make money, you make compromises. Doesn't mean the art's not good, but that dynamic is there, if only in the fact that you have to spend some of your time marketing yourself that you might spend creating. And also fighting off the vultures, in this case, a bloated and powerful rights industry that gobbles up music and never ever lets it go again, laws be damned, while the creator sees only a small fraction of the profit, if that much. Even those artists that love performing live can get exhausted and burnt-out. Or like Dick Dale, not be able to stop playing despite crippling illness, because he needs money to pay for that illness. Like I said, I think a GBI or something similar would do a lot more to help all artists than trying to reform the actions of wealthy rights companies or keep coming up with technical ways to monetize your art. The internet is full of people trying to monetize their art. Almost none of them are doing well with it.

By: VTX

VTX — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:23:40 -0800

Curating has definitely become the big value-add for music consumers and that has been something radio has been good at for a long time and streaming services are even better at. I do think that the audience has gotten larger. It's SO EASY to have music everywhere. We (Mrs. VTX and I) have an iPod that lives in the car, we can stream to our phones, I'm at work (though home-based) playing music right now while I'm working. The problem isn't just in finding music that Like. A while back I discovered that I like the Black Keys a lot so I started downloading a couple of their albums. Now, I don't like every one of their songs (though nearly so) so I had to spend some time putting together a playlist that is only the songs of theirs that I like. That doesn't even include the playlist I like to play while driving, playing video games, cleaning the house, or working out, etc. What I really want is to always have a playlist on hand that has music that I like, fits with what I'm doing (slow, sad ballads aren't great for running) and has a mix of both songs that I already know and like and new songs that I wouldn't have necessarily found on my own. And I want all of this to happen for me without much effort. I can work really hard at managing my music collection and putting together a bunch of playlists but that takes HOURS or even DAYS for me to do and I'd need to put more time into it whenever I buy new music. Spotify gets pretty close without a lot of effort from me. I can see future versions of iTunes or MediaMonkey that listen to natural voice commands. "Cortanna, I like this song, play more songs like it." The player then records your preference and plays it more often and is smart enough to figure out what similar songs might be without having to crowd-source it (the people who like this also like...sort of thing). But until then, Spotify is probably the best service and no matter how much I wish artists would get paid more, I just don't have the time to devote to curating all that music myself.

By: weston

weston — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:23:43 -0800

We didn't do that, of course, we responded with some laws regarding copy rights. We could do the same with streaming.
Then watch piracy skyrocket again. This doesn't seem to be supported by the facts or narratives I'm familiar with: * even admitted piraters used to say that they would/did buy when vendors made it convenient to do so and the price was reasonable *we actually had a growing digital recording sales market until the buffet-recording-collection services started getting prominence in the last 2-3 years (IIRC revenues were approaching early 90s levels from pressed recordings). If we made laws which recognize that the buffet services are a competing replacement for recordings (and *not* any kind of broadcasting services), I'm not sure why that would somehow leave piracy as the likely alternative.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:46:37 -0800

Here's a fascinating memo from Sony on moving to all digital subscription, released by Wikileaks. A sample: With catalog providing the base profits, new releases need to be cut back dramatically to the point where the new business either breaks even or loses a small amount of money (justified by the long term catalog income stream of those songs). Thus, if the new release business is oriented towards building new deep catalog, it changes the entire process from trying to pick big hits to safely getting some good music out that has longevity. This will bias new releases to genres like rock and country that typically have had strong catalog.

By: jammy

jammy — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:48:13 -0800

Have You Ever Dreamed of Getting Signed to a Record Label?

By: VTX

VTX — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:05:11 -0800

So, my take away from that memo is that Sony's goal is that the music from today that we still want to hear 30 years from now should be ALL of today's music.

By: ChurchHatesTucker

ChurchHatesTucker — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:29:36 -0800

The payola scandals that started in the 60s were a result of DJs and stations getting money from labels to promote/play certain albums. Think about this. Despite laws to the contrary, the money wants to flow in that direction. Absent the legacy B.S., we'd be talking about how much money Sony should be paying Spotify.

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:40:35 -0800

There's not foul play going on, it's gone from luxury to commodity in less than a generation.--nickrussell Music hasn't been a luxury since the days of Bach and Mozart (when they were alive). Things really changed when Edison invented the phonograph and Marconi sent wireless tranmissions. The Internet made music free with torrenting and services like Napster. The music labels and streaming services have really turned that around by creating streaming services, so many of us are paying again. Spotify has 10 million paid subscribers. Assume they all have discounted accounts of $5/month--that is $6 billion a year going to Spotify alone (not counting advertising dollars). And this is for music that no one gets to own. So what's all this again about there being no money for artists? That it is all the fault of the Internet and commoditization? That artists should be making their money from concerts? Total bullcrap. Someone is making barrowfulls of dollars and it isn't the artists. What really gets me is that Metafilter is a more thoughtful, educated crowd, and I'm seeing most people here, who presumably read the article, repeat this nonsense again and again. They really pulled it off. They are keeping ownership of the content, taking all the money, and everyone is saying "that's just the way world works. Artists are going to have to adjust to the new reality"

By: phearlez

phearlez — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:04:36 -0800

and I'm seeing most people here, who presumably read the article, Really?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:08:29 -0800

Fair Play Fair Pay Act also known as the talk radio expansion act

By: Existential Dread

Existential Dread — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:15:29 -0800

I wish that there were a way to be sure some of that money makes it back to the artists. If you can, buy directly. Tip the artists, buy merch, download from the artist's bandcamp or (hopefully) their own website. I'm a fan of smaller artists like Kowloon Walled City and Dogcatcher. I've been in a small local band. We don't make enough money to tour, we all have day jobs, but money (even small amounts) helps us create more music, by booking studio time, getting better gear, paying for our rehearsal space, paying to produce the products that we sell. Spotify and other streaming services are a joke to small, independent musicians. They make and keep all the money, users get the service (and the convenience) for a pittance, and musicians are expected to what, appreciate the exposure? There's a sizable volume of posts around here for which the consensus has been fuck you, pay me. Yes, music is not a scarcity, but that doesn't mean that even small amounts of money don't make a huge difference in getting more music that you might love. So pay the artists. Support the smaller labels, too; they do the work of facilitating the production of the music you love, even if the artists often don't see royalties from the sales.

By: weston

weston — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:16:01 -0800

The music labels and streaming services have really turned that around by creating streaming services, so many of us are paying again. Digital sales for iTunes were on the order of 10 billion yearly back in the mid-2000s. In addition to being places where it gets murky about who is getting the money, Spotify and similar services did not in any way herald in the era of "paying again," and it seems likely they *can't* present a sustainable solution at their current pricing and payout structure. Piracy might be more honest.

By: phearlez

phearlez — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:26:20 -0800

also known as the talk radio expansion act I think it's also viewable as the "we don't want to acknowledge who is really screwing us act." I guess it's not surprising. The players behind it seem to be working with the David Byrnes of the world who seem like they have pretty well forgotten what it's like not to be David Byrne.

Musicians are entrepreneurs. We are essentially partners with the labels, and should be treated that way.

I mean, he wrote that with a straight face and had it published as a serious statement? I guess people at his level are entrepreneurs but most every musician I have met is more accurately described as a hustler. Which isn't something I say or mean as a slur, but a recognition of the way they have to work to have even a modicum of success in performing music - constantly on the watch for the connections and opportunities to do what they want to do: make music and not starve. I would not describe them as entrepreneurs, who I think of as people looking to generate financial success. If musicians were entrepreneurs who were seeking business success the first act of 95% of them would to be to quit music. 100% of them would certainly never sign label contracts. Have they changed even slightly since Courtney Love wrote this fifteen years ago? I don't think they have, which is what makes Byrne's statement about being partners with the labels just batshit insane. You are perhaps a partner, Mr Byrne, and I guess after thirty years you have forgotten what working with them is like for the rest of humanity. But the labels don't treat artists as partners because they don't see them as partners and don't want partners. They want property and they have all the lawyers and the money and the leverage. I don't see how transparency helps that any. That seems like labels for cigarettes. The nature of label contracts isn't a secret to anyone and yet people keep signing them. Maybe if there was some sort of legal requirement to put a little HUD-1-esque box at the top making it clear that their payments are going to be entirely arbitrary and secret some people might walk on by. But it seems doubtful. The industry loves that musicians have a hustler mindset, not an entrepreneur mindset, and they bait their trap specifically to catch them. And to get people blaming Joe Schmoe and the people doing last mile delivery of the music instead of them, I guess. Look at all this strum und drang about the streaming services supposedly cheating musicians when they're the ones paying the legally mandated fee per play but labels - per TFA linked above - don't necessarily pass that on with any consistency to the artist.

By: Potomac Avenue

Potomac Avenue — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:50:21 -0800

People who say that buckets of money are being made, are you aware of the concept of net profit? The music industry spends a lot of money in order to make less, and less, every year. Yes, record labels are greedily stealing most of the streaming money. But there is a lot less money coming out of that industry (outside of live shows) all-together. Here is a chart. Live music is more and more of the only commodity musicians have. And if we're smart, we'll organize and demand that we be paid commensurately for that. In fact, I'd love to see that call for transparency into LiveNation and Ticketmaster. What are their secrets? How much are they stealing from artists? Someone get me Julian Assange!

By: tunewell

tunewell — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:51:16 -0800

Then watch piracy skyrocket again. This doesn't seem to be supported by the facts or narratives I'm familiar with: * even admitted piraters used to say that they would/did buy when vendors made it convenient to do so and the price was reasonable *we actually had a growing digital recording sales market until the buffet-recording-collection services started getting prominence in the last 2-3 years (IIRC revenues were approaching early 90s levels from pressed recordings). I've ready just the opposite. That Spotify has helped to kill piracy by a fairly notable margin. Choice of entire catalogues at your fingertips, not having to own anything, has been a real boon for killing piracy from what I've read.

By: NoxAeternum

NoxAeternum — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:23:38 -0800

And to get people blaming Joe Schmoe and the people doing last mile delivery of the music instead of them, I guess. Look at all this strum und drang about the streaming services supposedly cheating musicians when they're the ones paying the legally mandated fee per play but labels - per TFA linked above - don't necessarily pass that on with any consistency to the artist. As David Lowrey best put it, meet the new boss, worse than the old boss. Yes, we know all of the ways labels are shitty. What these people are saying is that these new services are just as if not more shitty. And frankly this is an argument that I see get repeated any time you start talking about how a lot of these "disruptive" firms are really just being innovative in screwing workers over. There was a wonderful point I saw made in a discussion about how Uber was screwing over its drivers - that whenever you see people defending Uber, it's never a positive defense, but always "but the incumbents suck!" The existing guys sucking is not a license to suck. We know that the labels are shitty to artists. Tell me why Spotify et al. aren't.

By: phearlez

phearlez — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:49:44 -0800

But even TFA acknowledges that the place the problem happens is not when the money moves from the streaming services to the labels but from the label to the artist. This whole post is predicated on an assertion that there is a problem farther down the chain than the streaming payment. It's in the quote I used. And the problem location is exactly where it's always been: the labels. So if you want a defense of the streamers, okay - the streamers are working within the deal the law drives them down and, along the way, looking to make the best deal for their own businesses. If they were really such thieves the labels could just tell them to pound sand and they'd have to pay the statute rate and only offer non-interactive services. But the labels are cool with cutting a deal because they can do it without fucking up their own bottom lines - they're just making the artists suffer. I mean, not the Artists with a capital A, the big names. Because David Byrne and Taylor Swift aren't going to get fucked since they have leverage to demand their shit be taken out of the streaming libraries. But that little band who still hadn't paid back their advance almost certainly doesn't have the ability to make that demand. They're the ones, the specific people, getting shafted by the labels on this. Not because the streamers aren't paying the rate being demanded of them, which they as a business would like to make as small as possible. Because the people who are supposed to collect that money on behalf of those artists are making a decision to screw those artists specifically. The streamers in this situation are no different than a retail store seeking a bigger discount rate on their bulk purchases of physical media. The problem isn't their asking for it. The problem is the labels giving it to them and making the artists eat the entire cost. Or more briefly: because the relationship asymmetry isn't the streamers lording over the publishers. In a handful of years the streaming service selection has already surpassed the number of megacorps that control all the music licenses. They aren't the ones dictating the terms.

By: NoxAeternum

NoxAeternum — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:10:36 -0800

But even TFA acknowledges that the place the problem happens is not when the money moves from the streaming services to the labels but from the label to the artist. Which is why it's good that other people are pointing out why the problem is there.

By: kozad

kozad — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:04:42 -0800

This is a thread derail, but shouldn't be. Musicians' unions used to be big. No longer. As with all unions, they ensured fair deals for workers...in this case, musicians, especially performing musicians. These days, making fifty bucks a night is not a bad deal for a working club musician. But back in the 70's, even in the small Midwestern towns where I worked in a soul/rock/top 40 cover band, fifty bucks was pretty standard. Of course, back then, two $50 nights would pay a month's rent. If you played music back then, the union made sure you got paid a living wage. Not a great living, but enough to have a car, a place to stay, food, and extras. No longer. As it is now, you have to be willing to sleep in tour buses or on couches playing venues around the country. Fun, while young, I'm sure. But as you mature in your artistry, as most of us do, what happens? Get a day job and hope for the best. The best would be to get your music heard. The best is no longer to get real money for your work as a musician. Other art forms have similar problems. Unsurprisingly enough, it is the 99% vs. the 1% all over again. But the 80th percentile among the general population might be able to afford a trip or two abroad in their lifetimes. The 80th percentile of musicians can possibly meet their rent payments regularly, but their lifestyles are pretty spartan. The intersection between art and commerce has been historically fraught, but never so much as now, I think.

By: ugly

ugly — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 03:06:40 -0800

Notably, Spotify is not profitable and the vast majority of their expenditures are royalty payments: "The financial results reveal that the 25% of Spotify users who pay for the service account for 91% of its income: the company made €982.9m (£709m) from subscriptions in 2014 and €98.8m (£71m) from advertising. Of that overall €1.08bn of revenues, €882.5m (£636m) was spent on royalties and distribution costs. Spotify's average headcount increased from 958 in 2013 to 1,354 in 2014, with its personnel costs rising from €114m to €180.9m in that period." http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/11/spotify-financial-results-streaming-music-profitable

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 07:33:39 -0800

That sounds like Hollywood accounting. As I mentioned earlier, they also claim 10 million paid subscribers, which would mean a minimum of $6 billion a year. Sounds like there's a lie in there somewhere--what do you think the odds are that they hiding revenue? Also, it has been exposed in the past that they have made secret deals with the music labels where they make lots of payout that doesn't get recorded so it doesn't have to get paid out in royalties.

By: getao

getao — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 07:56:11 -0800

point of order: ten million times five times twelve is 600 million, not 6 billion. Order of magnitude makes a big difference here.

By: phearlez

phearlez — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 08:12:02 -0800

Also, it has been exposed in the past that they have made secret deals with the music labels where they make lots of payout that doesn't get recorded so it doesn't have to get paid out in royalties. That won't set them up as paragons of virtue but again, that's them negotiating with the rights controller for the best deal for their company. They're not the ones supposed to be acting as representatives - "partners" in Byrne's mind - of the artists. It's effectively impossible for them to do, given the scope, unless congress were to implement a statutory payment amount for interactive services. That's the labels cheating the artists and something they would do whatever the ascendant medium was.