Another reason to not stream

[Randy Myers]

I have never been a fan of streaming. I always prefer to purchase my music, weather it be a high rez download or a physical CD/SACD. The streaming services are screwing the artists. The artist need to get paid if we want to continue enjoying the wonderful music they make.

I was just reading and article and decided to do a little research to verify what they were saying. While the recording industry enjoyed a record breaking year thanks to streaming services, among other things, the artist are making less... a lot less. The number one service, Spotify pays by far the lowest to the artist, followed by... surprise surprise, Apple. Tidal pays more then almost all of the other services, but an artist will starve counting on pay from these services. An artist would require at least a million plays a month to make even a decent living. On Spotify it would require ten million plays a month.

If you enjoy an artist they deserve you to actually purchase their music. It is the only way they can make a living. And Independent artist, who finance everything themselves have a really hard time making ends meet. So, besides preferring owning my music that I play I firmly believe that the artist need to be paid if you want to continue enjoying their music...

The bottom line until these streaming service stop being greedy assholes I have another reason to not subscribe to their services. Come on people, support your favorite musicians. Buy the dam music!

[apo1]

on your avatar it looks like your streaming

[BlueFox]

I basically agree, but can see a possible use for streaming in the future. Currently, I have so many CDs, and downloads from HDTracks there is no way I can listen to all of it in the foreseeable future.

[joeinid]

Welcome to the forum!

on your avatar it looks like your streaming

[apo1]

thank you !

[brodricj]

...The streaming services are screwing the artists...

The artists have all agreed to the terms of service of the streaming content providers. I'm not going to second judge that, so I'm happy to continue paying $11.99/mo for access to unlimited music.

[jdandy]

Randy.......Although I understand the point you are expressing, a musician's income is not my concern. It's up to the individuals or groups to negotiate profitable contracts that ensure equitable compensation for their work. As a consumer of music products I already pay for the CD's, SACD's, Hi-Res downloads, and streaming. If musicians can't figure out how to be fairly rewarded for what they do, I don't see that as my problem.

[Randy Myers]

on your avatar it looks like your streaming

No, I am playing local files on my server. That is not online streaming. I bought and paid for the albums (actually that one I bought twice... the SACD and the DSD512 download).

[Randy Myers]

The artists have all agreed to the terms of service of the streaming content providers. I'm not going to second judge that, so I'm happy to continue paying $11.99/mo for access to unlimited music.

Actually this is not always the case. There have been many lawsuits where various artist do not want their albums available for streaming yet Spotify, for example, has the album available cutting directly into the artists sales.

[Randy Myers]

The artists have all agreed to the terms of service of the streaming content providers. I'm not going to second judge that, so I'm happy to continue paying $11.99/mo for access to unlimited music.

Many times the artist have no choice in the matter. For example Spotify making a behind closed door deal with a distributor and the musician can't afford to fight them on it because again... record setting year, streaming companies flush with money and the artist are left with nothing....

The opinions of some I totally expected and believe there in lies the reason that much great music may not be available in the future. It is not my concern either what an artists income is, however if I want to incentive them to continue producing great music then I sure as heck should be concerned. Especially independent artist who finance and produce their own music.

I know one in particular who had 1/4 millions streams of her music and did not even make enough to pay for 2 hours of studio time. She is specifically asking her fans to purchase her music instead of only streaming it through Spotify and Apple especially, but even Tidal which does pay in the neighborhood of three times as much as Spotify.

The industry had a record setting year yet the ones who actually make the music are getting almost nothing. If you truly care for good music then you should be concerned that the ones who actually make the music are getting less and less incentives to continue making great music.

Many times, if at all possible, I purchase my new music directly from the artist. It is my little way of appreciating what they do.

[apo1]

No, I am playing local files on my server. That is not online streaming. I bought and paid for the albums (actually that one I bought twice... the SACD and the DSD512 download).

ah okay, sorry for the missunderstanding

[Randy Myers]

Randy.......Although I understand the point you are expressing ,a musician's income is not my concern. It's up to the individuals or groups to negotiate profitable contracts that ensure equitable compensation for their work. As a consumer of music products I already pay for the CD's, SACD's, Hi-Res downloads, and streaming. If musicians can't figure out how to be fairly rewarded for what they do, I don't see that as my problem.

Again Dan, someone like you is not the problem. As you stated you already pay for CD's. SACD's, and Hi-Res Downloads. It is the person who does nothing but streaming, and even worse, the person who copies CD's, etc., with no intent of ever purchasing anything, who steals music.

[Randy Myers]

ah okay, sorry for the missunderstanding

No worries. Many times people do confuse playing local music files versus streaming from online services.

[Dylan]

I want to give a different perspective on what is wrong with the way money is distributed in streaming that, I believe, causes a “winner take all” distribution and makes it hard for popular artists in non-pop genres to make a living from streaming. I read this in an article a few months back but I don’t recall where.
The way streaming works is as follows- the streaming company counts the total number of times a song is streamed per month, divides by the total number of all songs streamed for the month, and that is that song’s share of the total streaming income the streaming service pays. For example, say the latest Taylor Swift song is streamed a million times, and the total number of songs streamed over the month is 100 million, then Taylor Swift gets 1/100 of all the revenue that they distribute- a very big number. The problem is that a Jazz musician, or a Ska musician, who may be very popular in his genre, will only get such a small % of the total that he may only get a $10 payout.


What if they distributed the money based on an individual consumer’s streaming data? Take me for example - I don’t stream Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, rap, hip hop, country or pop music. I do stream a lot of 60’s music, Jazz, Zydeco and Ska. I pay Qobuz $25/ month. What if they took my $25, less expenses, and divided up my money based on what I streamed? This is much more equitable because I never intend to pay any money to be able to stream Taylor Swift. It would also have the result that less popular genres/musicians, who have a passionate following, could make more of a living from streaming. And it would be a simple software change to implement. Unfortunately it may not ever happen because established popular artists may balk at this change. Caveat- my examples are totally made up and it isn’t my intention to knock Taylor Swift or any other musician/genre.


Incidentally, if you are interested in a book about the economics of the music business I highly recommend “Rockonomics” by Alan Krueger, a famous economist, just published this year.

[nicoff]

Before Tidal and before Spotify, there was Slim Devices.

Slim Devices idea was that you could rip your CDs (the Fair Use doctrine allows that), and save them on your computer or a NAS and then STREAM your music to your Slim Device (your Squeezebox for example).

You could also download (buy) music online, save it in your computer and STREAM them to the same Slim Devices.

And you could also STREAM your favorite radio stations from anywhere in the world.

All of those functions were called streaming. There was STREAMING before there was a Spotify or Tidal.

Spotify and Tidal and other MUSIC SERVICES came later. And while today that method of streaming might be the most popular, it is not the only one.

So in my view, Randy's beef should be directed to using the music services (Tidal, Spotify, Qobuz, etc.) and not to STREAMING in general.

The great majority of the music I listen to on a regular basis is music that I already bought in one form or another (LPs, CDs, SACDs, and even cassettes(!)) So I personally don't feel bad by paying those artists EXTRA money when I listen (stream) that same music from a music service like Tidal. Put another way, I am paying those musicians money that they would have never have received from me if it were not for Tidal/Spotify.

And Tidal allows me to listen to new artists for which they get paid and that could entice me to pay to go to their concerts and see them live. So while in the past I could only listen to new artists on the radio and pay nothing, now they can get paid everytime I stream their music.

I just listened to an interview of Sheryl Crow where she announced that she was no longer going to record any more albums. The reason she gave is that nobody listens to albums anymore and therefore she only plans to release music for streaming.

Let's face it, the music business has changed.

[Randy Myers]

You are definitely correct. It is the music services. The term streaming has came to mean these services therefore I did not mean to make it seem all encompassing. It is the music streaming services such as Spotify, Tidal, Qobuz, etc., that are screwing artist and in my view will in the long run will hurt music in general.

The person that listens to various music on one of the music streaming services and when they find something they like they support the artist is a good thing. This is how, in my view, these services should be used. I do believe this is more of an exception then a rule. Statistic show that a vast majority of subscribers never support any of the artist in any way and further more many subscribers have a sense of entitlement, like they are owed to be able to listen to anything and everything without paying the artists (their small monthly fee does not go to the artist, it goes to the big companies that own these services). This is simply wrong and very short sighted.

Ms. Crow is releasing another album. She is also talking about other artist who "drop songs". That is a whole lot different then going through the music streaming services. What she is referring to is artist who release songs, and then albums independently, or through online selling services for downloads, not through Spotify, etc. Or so that is what was indicated in the article I just read. This is exactly what Patricia Barber recently did with her latest album. She is selling it online, and it is not being offered on the streaming music services; so far anyway.

[UltraFast69]

Mick Jagger doesn’t care about my problems and I don’t expect him or others to and frankly they never will but yet I purchase music, stream music, buy merchandise and they get a piece.

Artists chose to be artists,and certainly could of followed the traditional entrepreneur role and created internet streaming, but chose not to.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BlueFox]

The current situation with streaming reminds me of when Napster was started for file sharing. We shall see how it shakes out over the next few years.

[aKnyght]

interesting discussion... on the flip side, there quite a few indie-type artists that i never would have discovered let alone listen to without streaming.

one example: over on the classical music thread members recently posted a few recordings of baroque / ancient music. these seemed interesting and i wanted to hear what they sounded like when played on my system. turns out i really liked them and then began exploring the genre. now, i have bookmarked a number of albums from these and other artists on small europenan labels which i listen to regularly.

take away here is that in a world without streaming there is an exactly zero probability that i would have dropped $25 on a baroque music CD just to have a listen... even if my local music shop had those obscure CDs in stock. also, i probably listened to five recordings for every one that i liked and then bookmarked. again, zero probability that i would have done that at $25 per listen.

so, question is: are the smaller / indie artists better or worse off in a world with streaming? in my case, i would posit that there are quite a few of this type artist better off with streaming because their listener base is larger by one; they are receiving revenue from me; and i might even go to a live show. without streaming, that amount would be exactly $0.00 -- recorded or live.

given the number of artist who make their music available for streaming, it would seem that there is large agreement here.

as for the economics of streaming which is actually the real question here -- artists are free the charge what the market will bear. they are also free to adopt alternate business models.

[Randy Myers]

Mick Jagger doesn’t care about my problems and I don’t expect him or others to and frankly they never will but yet I purchase music, stream music, buy merchandise and they get a piece.

Artists chose to be artists,and certainly could of followed the traditional entrepreneur role and created internet streaming, but chose not to.

Mick Jagger is not the one that I am concerned for ...

[Randy Myers]

interesting discussion... on the flip side, there quite a few indie-type artists that i never would have discovered let alone listen to without streaming.

one example: over on the classical music thread members recently posted a few recordings of baroque / ancient music. these seemed interesting and i wanted to hear what they sounded like when played on my system. turns out i really liked them and then began exploring the genre. now, i have bookmarked a number of albums from these and other artists on small europenan labels which i listen to regularly.

take away here is that in a world without streaming there is an exactly zero probability that i would have dropped $25 on a baroque music CD just to have a listen... even if my local music shop had those obscure CDs in stock. also, i probably listened to five recordings for every one that i liked and then bookmarked. again, zero probability that i would have done that at $25 per listen.

so, question is: are the smaller / indie artists better or worse off in a world with streaming? in my case, i would posit that there are quite a few of this type artist that are better off with streaming because they are receiving revenue from me and i might even go to a live show. without streaming, that amount would be exactly $0.00 -- recorded or live.

as for the economics of streaming -- artists are free the charge what the market will bear.

I never said that streaming does not have its purposes. Discovering new artists certainly is one. My main point is that these streaming services, who currently are controlling the music industry are hurting future music development by being greedy.

On the same line, the methods of distributing music is still evolving with many indi artist finding other ways of distributing their music.

[aKnyght]

I never said that streaming does not have its purposes. Discovering new artists certainly is one. My main point is that these streaming services, who currently are controlling the music industry are hurting future music development by being greedy.

i think the opposite... my main point is that streaming provides such artists with the opportunity to gain exposure to a HUGE and worldwide audience and, thereby, build a fan base and garner revenue in the process... without this opportunity, many (most?) of these artists would still be busking it on the street corners of ashville, portland, austin, nyc, etc.

in terms of economics, unless there are anti-trust laws being violated then it would seem to be a matter of willing buyers and sellers arriving a price where a transaction can occur.

i get your point and am actually quite sympathetic. in other businesses/markets where there have been a small number of powerful buyers and large number of individual sellers the equalizing solution has historically been collective bargaining. in fact, this has actually been the case for performing artists for quite some time... SAG, AFTRA, etc.

anyway, this is a quite interesting discussion!

[nicoff]

The current situation with streaming reminds me of when Napster was started for file sharing. We shall see how it shakes out over the next few years.

I cannot see any similarities. Napster was taken to court and they lost because they were promoting the theft of copyrighted material.

Alternatively, The streaming music services of today pay royalties to the artists and the music companies. They are legit.

An artist may choose not to have their music available on any music service platform. For example, The Beatles for a while held their music from on-line services; the probably got preferred rates before they finally relented. I believe that they are now getting more money from streaming than from selling albums or CDs.

Streaming (in all forms) has won the war.

[Mike]

Buy a turntable. Not streaming. Not copying CD’s. Not copying files. Problem solved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[still-one]

Let's look at this from a different perspective. I think they have gone way to far with music copyright laws. I don't see why a songwriter or artist should be protected for the life of the artist plus 70 years. In all other lines of work you get paid for what you are doing while you are working . You do not get continue to get paid for what you did last year. If you do not continue to contribute you earn nothing or lose your job. Why should Elvis's or Michael Jackson's kids get rich off their parents work?

I know i'm being cynical and I realize there is no simple answer. It also looks like the owners of the content benefit much more from the content than do the authors/performers.

[Randy Myers]

Let's look at this from a different perspective. I think they have gone way to far with music copyright laws. I don't see why a songwriter or artist should be protected for the life of the artist plus 70 years. In all other lines of work you get paid for what you are doing while you are working . You do not get continue to get paid for what you did last year. If you do not continue to contribute you earn nothing or lose your job. Why should Elvis's or Michael Jackson's kids get rich off their parents work?

I know i'm being cynical and I realize there is no simple answer. It also looks like the owners of the content benefit much more from the content than do the authors/performers.

One short answer that comes immediately to mind is that a vast majority of what is made off an album, especially a new artists album, is years after the fact. Many times an album is released and no one hears of it. A couple years later it all of sudden becomes popular. Some of the top selling albums of all time were not popular until many years later.

[Randy Myers]

Buy a turntable. Not streaming. Not copying CD’s. Not copying files. Problem solved.

It is funny; I was actually thinking that the vinyl people are actually supporting the artist much more then many of the digital fans. I chalk that up to that it takes conscious thought to actually do the right in digital. It is far to easy to not think that there is an artists, many times struggling artist, behind that music you are listening to. You have to make a conscious decision to support the artist you are listening to while vinyl it does not. Then again vinyl is like purchasing an album, sometimes blind prior to listening to it, while with streaming people can sample the album. It takes a conscious effort afterwards to support the artist. I purchase my digital like vinyl people purchase their albums. I have discovered some amazing music in this way, the same as vinyl people have. Yes, I have also purchase some albums that I rarely listen to. This is one of the fun things with buying the music the old way in my view .

[Edward]

I find this very interesting. Technology has disrupted an entire industry and there are positives and negatives in my opinion. Just like every other industry out there. Yesterday i was walking my dog super early and only saw one newspaper in a driveway. Tons of people out of work because we consume content in a different way. We now consume music content in a different way too. We all have to adapt in our professions to the changing dynamics of our industries...no different for artists....

Mike, even better than vinyl, i like going to the live concerts and enjoying the performance and the company....

[bart]

Randy, are you shooting at the right targets?
As far as I know, streaming services hardly make any profit.
It's the big record companies who take the money, and leave most their musicians in a more difficult situation financially than a decade ago.

I observe a shift: musicians have to earn their money from concerts now, and these see rapidly rising entrance prices.
My daughter went to Beyonce and paid 150€.
Good for the big acts, but tough for the not so well known musicians.
When I attend a jazz concert, I always try their album when I had a good time.

[BlueFox]

Randy, are you shooting at the right targets?
As far as I know, streaming services hardly make any profit.

So far, they all lose money. They pay squat to the artists, and still lose big money. Appears to be business model built to fail.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...ices-pay-2019/

[Randy Myers]

The articles I read (a few of them and don't ask me to put links in because I don't have them handy) all said that the streaming services were actually making very good money and were "flush with cash". Maybe through their accounting methods they look like they are loosing money. The budget to make a certain amount and anything less then that is considered a loose. Playing games with the numbers.

Then again, I could be wrong ... just going by what I read in a few different articles.

Certainly not saying the records companies are not screwing the artist, because they always have. One of the reasons I try to purchase as close to coming from the artist as I can.

[nicoff]

In 2018, thanks to streaming, the music industry experiences its third consecutive years of growth after years of decline...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/music-r...?mod=flipboard

[Randy Myers]

That is pretty much my point. The industry is doing great, streaming companies are doing great, but the musicians are getting screwed. The ones who actually make the music we all love so much. I am simply encouraging people to purchase some music from the artist they enjoy.

[Jack]

Randy

There is a big difference between growth and showing a profit. Spotify has only made a profit for one quarter in their history and Tidal has never made a profit.

[Randy Myers]

Why would they stay in business year after year if all they did was loose money. I personally believe it is accounting tricks, otherwise they are stupid business people. I assure you, they are not in business to loose money. They are making money, but probably not what the bean counters budgeted for... therefore they can claim a loose on the books even though they actually made serious profits.

Think about it, Spotify has only shown a profit in one of over 50 quarters.... no business person would continue 13-14 years if all they were doing is loosing money.

[Jack]

If it was as you say "bean counter" accounting I suspect the lawyers of the groups that have sued them would have caught it. But carry on with your soapbox.

[Randy Myers]

It is not illegal to claim a lost when a company does not make what was budgeted. But simple common sense applies. How could any company stay in business for 14 years if they lost money in 55 quarters and made money in only 1.

[BlueFox]

I doubt these companies are making a profit. Look at Tesla. They made a very small profit in one quarter a few years ago, but other than that they lose money every quarter. As long as there are those who are optimistic about a companies potential, and are willing to invest, then the company can stay in business. Of course, at some point investors will get tired of losses, but it takes a while. These streaming companies are going to shake out over the next year or so, but it doesn't appear to be a durable model for success.

[Spock]

I am simply encouraging people to purchase some music from the artist they enjoy.

Correct!
I'm not so interested in what most people do, but what we "audiophiles" do. That teenage kids listen to music in the most practical and inexpensive way without major worries seems inevitable and age-appropriate. But we are a niche and our behaviors may even dictate the end of our hobby. It worries me that, as it is not profitable, we will no longer have good recordings in the near future. I've heard a publisher say that the best recordings are being made today and 30 years from now they'll be sought after as something precious.
In short, we who are looking for "gourmet" music have to be willing to pay a little more for it.

Our behavior as consumers may dictate the future of music and the quality with which it reaches us. As this editor was saying, if everyone is listening to music without quality concerns, why buy € 10,000 microphones?



I still buy CDs and get back to vinyl faster than streaming.

[Randy Myers]

I doubt these companies are making a profit. Look at Tesla. They made a very small profit in one quarter a few years ago, but other than that they lose money every quarter. As long as there are those who are optimistic about a companies potential, and are willing to invest, then the company can stay in business. Of course, at some point investors will get tired of losses, but it takes a while. These streaming companies are going to shake out over the next year or so, but it doesn't appear to be a durable model for success.

You may be correct, however I have a hard time believing that anyone would let it continue for almost 14 years (as Spotify has) if they loose money every single quarter, which is what is claimed by Spotify.

[aKnyght]

You may be correct, however I have a hard time believing that anyone would let it continue for almost 14 years (as Spotify has) if they loose money every single quarter, which is what is claimed by Spotify.

current investors (owners) and the market are well aware of the earnings history of spotify. they also have an educated opinion about future earnings. so, all this is reflected in the market price of spotify stock which is, essentially, the consensus view of the future prospects of the company.

also, investors receive a return on their investment from more than distributed profits such as dividends. capital appreciation is another way they earn money. in the case of spotify, management has decided to invest revenues as well as new capital in growing the business, thereby, generating losses but increasing franchise value which is reflected in a rising stock price.

i am sure investors, particularly the early ones, are quite happy with this strategy given their phenomenal capital gains. this is in fact the operating strategy of most growth companies. amazon, microsoft, apple, etc. are other good examples here... pets.com is a bad example. i guess we will see where on this spectrum spotify ends up!!

[Randy Myers]

current investors (owners) and the market are well aware of the earnings history of spotify. they also have an educated opinion about future earnings. so, all this is reflected in the market price of spotify stock which is, essentially, the consensus view of the future prospects of the company.

also, investors receive a return on their investment from more than distributed profits such as dividends. capital appreciation is another way they earn money. in the case of spotify, management has decided to invest revenues as well as new capital in growing the business, thereby, generating losses but increasing franchise value which is reflected in a rising stock price.

i am sure investors, particularly the early ones, are quite happy with this strategy given their phenomenal capital gains. this is in fact the operating strategy of most growth companies. amazon, microsoft, apple, etc. are other good examples here... pets.com is a bad example. i guess we will see where on this spectrum spotify ends up!!

This makes complete sense. The bottom line is they are actually making money/value for their business investment no matter what they have listed as their quarterly earnings.

[mep]

Why would they stay in business year after year if all they did was loose money.

You don't "loose" money, you lose money.

I personally believe it is accounting tricks, otherwise they are stupid business people. I assure you, they are not in business to loose money. They are making money, but probably not what the bean counters budgeted for... therefore they can claim a loose on the books even though they actually made serious profits.

Think about it, Spotify has only shown a profit in one of over 50 quarters.... no business person would continue 13-14 years if all they were doing is loosing money.

You don't know the difference between "loose," "loss," and "losing." Aside from that, what is the purpose of this thread besides your virtue signaling? Do you want everyone on AS to be like you and not stream music or do you want to make this a global campaign?

[RDSChicago]

Streaming is so convenient and where else does one gain access to virtually unlimited numbers of artists and songs? It’s here to stay.

[Randy Myers]

You don't "loose" money, you lose money.

No Mr. Grammar Professor.... by the way its called typing a quick reply getting a typo or two, big deal.

I want people to support Artist is the entire point... oh by the way, you once again prove you are a real jerk (something you seem to do over and over and over).

Don't bother replying because I will never again join in on any discussion that you get involved in because you very quickly start getting snarky and become an ass.

[Randy Myers]

Streaming is so convenient and where else does one gain access to virtually unlimited numbers of artists and songs? It’s here to stay.

I do not disagree... I just want to make sure people support the musicians also.

[joeinid]

I still purchase CDs from artists I discover from streaming. So I support my favorite artists.

[BlueFox]

Sort of like buying CDs from artists you heard on the radio.

[joeinid]

Sort of like buying CDs from artists you heard on the radio.

Exactly!

[Randy Myers]

Sort of like buying CDs from artists you heard on the radio.

Yup... or sometimes I have found some great stuff just by listening to samples on one of the high rez sites. A couple I grabbed just because they sounded interesting in the description. A great rock album just because it was the first rock album that I ever found that was recorded in DSD256. Excellent album! And a great SACD just because I noticed it was Harry Chapin's daughter...