It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The problem is business related, it's simply in the label's interests to run a "superstar economy" rather than the much, much fairer method artists and songwriters are pushing for.
I think streaming is a fantastic deal for the consumer in a world that offers few fantastic deals, so I'm a strong supporter. Also the "discovery" options of having all the world's music a key press away is for me, ideologically, a wonderful thing.
The simple change I outlined would also make streaming much fairer for artists.
Yes, because your example didn't take into account how many streams are made by each user.
This link explains it quite well.
https://blog.anotemusic.com/how-do-streaming-platforms-distribute-royalties-to-music-rights-holders
There are amazing bands but they will not get played there.
You asked for a clarification, I gave one, you are going "I think you said something else", so I get the feeling whatever I say you might have an issue with, so at least I know I'm still on the internet.
To put it simply... what's in the article is what artists are asking for, I support it, the end.
You then linked to an article that you implied supported your proposition.
Even if you believe the existing model fails to direct some users’ subscription money in a way that is fair to the artists - and I think that’s debatable - those users are not characterised by their taste they are characterised by being light users.
This would only support your claim if you also have evidence that people who listen to independent artists are overwhelmingly very light users. This seems pretty unlikely to me but I’d be interested in the evidence if you have it.
It's a myth that Spotify operate at a loss, if this is anything to go by: https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/spotify-stats
It seems to me at least possible that the reverse is true, namely that people who seek out less well known artists are more likely to be heavy users, which would mean that less well known artists would do worse under a different arrangement.
That isn't what the artists are saying though, they want the "user-centric" model. I'm not trying to SUPPORT a position I'm trying to DISCUSS it, openly and honestly. If you think that the current model is better for artists, great, however generally the associations supporting the artists, especially the songwriters, don't.
What might be a fairer statement is that a user-centric model will help bands with smaller but hardcore or obsessive fanbases over and above casual listenerships, this therefore tends to support independent artists, who build and develop a fanbase rather than people with playlists on at work listening to aural wallpaper.
It's a fair clarification to make that somebody who is "discovering new music" by listening to thousands of songs ONCE will not be by this model giving more to independents. It's likely they will be a mixed bag, but the majors have a lot of power over what goes on playlists as well.
So if Mr A sits streaming indie playlists all month long, and listens to thousands of different songs, but not any individual artist more than once, those artists might be worse off under the "user centric" model, but won't be doing that well without a hardcore fanbase anyhow.
For example, I'm in a Suede fan group and a lot of them listen to Suede about 70% of the time, so it could be argued a user-centric model will benefit them, but they also get picked up on lots of the "90s guitar rock" or "90s indie" playlists - so get a lot of drive-by streams. Ultimately, as a band with a big hardcore fanbase and also a history that gets them onto playlists, they probably do OK with either model.
This is an interesting article on a jazz website talking about the pros and cons - https://jazzfuel.com/user-centric-streaming-for-jazz for niche genres (like Jazz)
and of course Deezer (the only streamers to use user-centric, apart from Tidal Hifi) have their own article saying it's fairer
https://www.deezer-blog.com/how-much-does-deezer-pay-artists/
In a nutshell, the old model was because of technical limitations, and the major label's natural tendency to favour their old superstar-economy business practices. They made megabucks from the people who bought one or two CDs a year, and those big artists still drive streaming revenues, as far as they are concerned. They don't care which artists they receive revenue for, just that they receive revenue.
The "user-centric" model is far more focussed on the "new industry" - through gigging and social media, build your "1000 true fans" and grow from there. If your 1000 true fans stream your stuff 30% of the time, and £7 goes to artists, that's guaranteed monthly revenue of £2100... not going to make anyone rich, but a chunk of the way to paying the singer's mortgage.
The report on the outcome of the last enquiry is the most interesting summary going, and the government found little to blame the streaming services themselves for - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/music-and-streaming-market-study-final-report/executive-summary
Ironically, now they are having ANOTHER government enquiry because artists were not happy with those conclusions, but at least it gives the government something to do...
Sorry but I don't know how to get the accents in the correct places on my shitty laptop keyboard, I pasted the large font thing from Wiki and was in a rush so didn't have the time to make it acceptable to you.