Another reason to not stream

aKnyght said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Randy Myers said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
BlueFox said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
still-one said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mike said:
Buy a turntable. Not streaming. Not copying CD’s. Not copying files. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

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 :).
 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Randy Myers said:
I am simply encouraging people to purchase some music from the artist they enjoy.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BlueFox said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top