Why Rocks Biggest Stars Are Selling Away Their Publishing Rights

CPP said:
The payouts are a racket. Soundcharts | Market Intelligence for the Music Industry

By the time the artist gets his piece of the $0.00318 per stream (Spotify) not much left.
Click to expand...

Interesting article. Amazon Unlimited pays artists the most. Tidal (an artist’s owned company) pays less. There is no mention of Qobuz in the article.

So... if one is concerned about the payout to the artists, then Amazon Unlimited would be the best choice.

I bet that most folks here don’t use Amazon Unlimited. I am also wondering how many might be willing to switch to Amazon Unlimited from whatever they are using now.

But the major issue remains: most of the money is not going to the artists.
 
Randy Myers said:
... however what I do care about is artist I enjoy continue to make music.
I believe for me to continue enjoying new music these professionals need to be paid.
Click to expand...

That's my concern and my thought too.
It is not just a matter of money, but also.
The world follows its path, as different as it is inevitable but not necessarily the best. Today, we look back and are surrendered to the talent that triggered us in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and I believe that over the years, we will do it with even more homesickness.
We are witnessing a massification of the culture, a down leveling, which in fact is happening in all areas. The copy sells more than the original (because it is cheaper) and the original, which invested in the creation and development of the product goes bankrupt.
But above all, I see culture (where music is naturally included) starting to be treated as a kind of expensive accessory, and I see talent vulgarized and submerged in a sea of medium fueled and enhanced by the internet of course (and its derivatives). How many times do we see a beautiful face and a sensual dance sell more and outshine people of real talent?

Let me leave you this question: have you thought for how long will we be able to have the privilege of enjoying music made by a great orchestra? Yes, because the cost of a large orchestra is colossal. And it involves much more than one person, a guitar and a video on youtube. Who will be willing to support this way of making music in the (very) next years?
 
All of these previous articles are pretty much making the same point that I have been trying to make. The corporations are making a bundle while those that actually make the music, write the songs, are amazing musicians, etc., are not getting their fair share.

Yes it has always leaned very heavy in favor of the record companies but it has gotten increasingly worse with streaming. What is the incentive for these amazingly talented artist to continue making the music we all enjoy? I know times change and things evolve, always. But we have to evolve with it or we will one day have far less great new music available to us. What goes around comes around.

I prefer to buy what I listen to and I will not stream. If I cannot purchase 1000 albums a year, no worries, I can enjoy the 200-300-400 that I do purchase. I have a hard time picking out what to listen to anyway :).

At this point I do not have any interests in streaming, but even if I did I will not until those that make the music get a MUCH larger percentage. I understand if you enjoy the convenience of streaming, but I do not understand the F the rich artist attitudes that I see some people expounding on the Internet. Especially when examples of a few very rich pop stars, rap stars, C&W stars are mentioned. For every one of those there are hundreds who make as good or better music that can't make a living, especially now.
 
Randy Myers said:
All of these previous articles are pretty much making the same point that I have been trying to make. The corporations are making a bundle while those that actually make the music, write the songs, are amazing musicians, etc., are not getting their fair share.

Yes it has always leaned very heavy in favor of the record companies but it has gotten increasingly worse with streaming. What is the incentive for these amazingly talented artist to continue making the music we all enjoy? I know times change and things evolve, always. But we have to evolve with it or we will one day have far less great new music available to us. What goes around comes around.

I prefer to buy what I listen to and I will not stream. If I cannot purchase 1000 albums a year, no worries, I can enjoy the 200-300-400 that I do purchase. I have a hard time picking out what to listen to anyway :).

At this point I do not have any interests in streaming, but even if I did I will not until those that make the music get a MUCH larger percentage. I understand if you enjoy the convenience of streaming, but I do not understand the F the rich artist attitudes that I see some people expounding on the Internet. Especially when examples of a few very rich pop stars, rap stars, C&W stars are mentioned. For every one of those there are hundreds who make as good or better music that can't make a living, especially now.
Click to expand...

Randy, I may be mistaken, but when I first read your comment I thought that I saw something equaling 'streaming' with 'pirating'. Maybe I read it wrong. Let me just say, that 'streaming' has nothing to do with 'pirating'. In fact, streaming has eliminated most pirating because it is not worth the hassle. Not to mention that artist get ZERO money from those who pirate their music.
 
No no, not equating the two what so ever :). I had mentioning that I have always had an issue with pirating, way before there was streaming even. I understand that streaming is not stealing (although some artists might think it is :)), while pirating definitely is (I believe I removed the pirating reference also even though I have always had a huge issue with it, because it was more or less a tangent that is not involved with the current conversation).
 
The "piracy" began the moment a "copy" instrument was invented. People were duplicating 8 tracks, cassettes, LPs to cassettes, CDs, VHS, Betamax, Laserdisc to VHS... Remember NAPSTER?

People like to get stuff for free and that will not change anytime soon. In fact it seems to be only accelerating? Let the iTunes, youtube, Amazon and other streaming services figure out how to deal fairly with musicians. You do what you have to do. Go buy that CD or LP if you feel so strongly about it. Teenagers are not going to the Tower Records store anymore, they get on youtube to watch their video. Those that are able to are buying LPs because it is trendy but for the most part, music is expected to be a free entertainment these days. It wasn't the piracy that did it, it was MTV, youtube and streaming, none of which is piracy...
 
TheOctopus said:
The "piracy" began the moment a "copy" instrument was invented. People were duplicating 8 tracks, cassettes, LPs to cassettes, CDs, VHS, Betamax, Laserdisc to VHS... Remember NAPSTER?

People like to get stuff for free and that will not change anytime soon. In fact it seems to be only accelerating? Let the iTunes, youtube, Amazon and other streaming services figure out how to deal fairly with musicians. You do what you have to do. Go buy that CD or LP if you feel so strongly about it. Teenagers are not going to the Tower Records store anymore, they get on youtube to watch their video. Those that are able to are buying LPs because it is trendy but for the most part, music is expected to be a free entertainment these days. It wasn't the piracy that did it, it was MTV, youtube and streaming, none of which is piracy...
Click to expand...

When I go to the record store (we do have a couple very nice ones in San Luis Obispo) there always seem to be 2-3 groups of teenagers or low 20 somethings looking at records. It actually gives me hope :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top