[Go to page: 1,...15,16,17]

[BaronVonAbelDong]

^

"Swift's music remains on Pandora, which reportedly pays on the order of 0.009 cents per stream of a song."

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/11 ... o-pandora/

[TomViolenz]

^

"Swift's music remains on Pandora, which reportedly pays on the order of 0.009 cents per stream of a song."

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/11 ... o-pandora/

I don't think she could take it off Pandora, if she wanted to. Just as you can't take things from the radio.

That was pointed out in the comments to that ars post.

In any case that's still many times the amount she gets from Spotify per stream, according to the graphic from a few pages ago!

[BaronVonAbelDong]

So you're ok with 0.009 and Pandora? Problem solved then.

[Stromkraft]

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... y-20141108

the actual sublink i took it from related to rollingstone: http://www.beautyworldnews.com/articles ... potify.htm

Great, thanks!

[TomViolenz]

So you're ok with 0.009 and Pandora? Problem solved then.

I don't know how you would come to that conclusion, I just pointed out the facts.

But yes, I certainly have less of a problem with Pandora and don't find it surprising that they pay the going radio rate, because that's what they are, radio.

If people want to hear an artist on demand, they still have to get the record. So in this case the argument for it being advertisement for the artist is much easier to make.

But we are moving in circles. I feel I have made that same argument now plenty of times already in this thread.

[MrCravon]

I think the focus is a bit unfairly on spotify and streaming as the root of evil. I think that what used to be a source of great opportunity for musicians in the music industry has turned in to it's biggest problem. Namely the big record labels.

Why?

Well, they sit on a huge amount of rights. Rights to thousands all time classics and the most popular artists. No streaming service would survive without being able to stream this catalogue of music! And thus, they have immense power they can leverage when making a deal with said streaming service.

What is the result?

Take spotify as an example. They are based on selling ads and subscriptions. So every month there is a fixed pool of money that is divided among recipient parties.

1. The record labels uses the above mentioned leverage to get ownership: Sony BMG (5,8 percent), Universal Music (4,8 percent), Warner Music (3,8 percent) and EMI (1,9 percent).
This effectively gives them a fixed amount the available money pool regardless of who's music is being played.

2. The record labels then uses this leverage to get a better deal on royalties. Since this is taken form the same pool of money it effectively means less money left for whomever they do not represent.

3. The record labels then further uses this leverage to get a percentage of everyone else's royalties as well.

So this kinda makes me think of Spotify as a victim of the music industry's strong-arming. And that the very companies who many people on this forum has wet dreams about being signed by really are the root of the problem. Taylor Swift is represented by Big Machine Records which is an independent record label. This means that the big companies has taken there cut and then some long before Taylor Swift sees anything to the money.

The problem isn't streaming, the problem is the big record labels. (But who am I kidding, if I where offered a deal from one of them I'd probably take it and screw every one else over anyway...)

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Another way to see it?

"And when will artists realize getting paid forever is better than getting paid once?"

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/ ... omer-king/

It's been interesting and helpful gents. I'm done. Thanks ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends, Tom etc... Have fun!

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[TomViolenz]

“We’re giving every artist the ability to create a subscription service of their own on the site,” Bandcamp chief executive Ethan Diamond told the Guardian, ahead of announcing the new feature at the SF MusicTech Summit conference today.

More here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... n-services

This could be the answer to what we were debating
Major kudos to Bandcamp!

Any thoughts?!

[TomViolenz]

But I have to really say, the whole debate over Taylor Swifts pull out from Spotify in the mainstream media and specifically in the comment sections there, gives a picture of a disgustingly selfentitled (to our work) audience we apparently want to make music for.


How do you cope with that?!

[regretfullySaid]

Really?

[BaronVonAbelDong]

But I have to really say, the whole debate over Taylor Swifts pull out from Spotify in the mainstream media and specifically in the comment sections there, gives a picture of a disgustingly selfentitled (to our work) audience we apparently want to make music for.

How do you cope with that?!

Maybe you were being rhetoric? But speaking for myself, I do it by not feeling self-entitled to compensation for playing about with sounds. Not a real job is it.

Can't likely convince the new generation they need to go in reverse and start using physical media.

...I don't want to make music for other people either. That's a bonus. I need to make it for me, it's an affliction no?

If you're talking about making music primarily for money and not the act in and of itself, then that puts a different spin on it, but I don't do that so can't respond.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... n-services

This could be the answer to what we were debating
Major kudos to Bandcamp!

Any thoughts?!

Subscriptions and repeat pay services are the holy grail of any business. Ask Spotify.

I have helped run subscription/membership sites for several years.

I wrote on the 5th:

"The subscription model is definitely one to be explored. 1000 people x $20 a year for whatever you release. Is that a trade off? Selling yourself short? Could you keep up with enough quality music and interest? No idea, but it doesn't sound too hard to reach 1000 if you can add value and a reason to stick around."

I wasn't aware of the $20 service from Band camp at that point, is just a logical price point.

...you don't need band camp anyway. Just do it yourself. It's not hard to set up. Stay independent and free on all fronts no? Not just by boycotting Spotify.

The retention rate wouldn't be so high though I doubt. You'd have to become an entertainer for your members and keep in touch, pander to the subscribers etc. Make sure that they didn't let the subscription lapse because they were smothered and bored with you and your music. (When I say you I mean us and our). It's quite likely worse than selling T-shirts unless you can make the 'media-shy artist' angle work in your favour...

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Tom (in particular) do you know of a service that showed you how to get set up, and retain as much control over your music, whilst maximising the income and not paying out %'s here and there to 3rd parties? Doing it all yourself. All the info you need to choose your preferred navigation of the business side of things? With test case examples and real life data testing it all so you didn't need to? It doesn't exist does it? Is it of any genuine real world worth to musicians?

If the answer is yes, how much would you call fair for that service, on a monthly basis? Because I know you wouldn't expect it to be free. That's why I'm asking you in particular mate. I hope you don't mind. PM me if you want.

Anyone else found something similar out there? Not sleazy internet marketing stuff, genuine 'in the trenches' material. Would like to see it and their charges.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

"It’s like our entire nation needs a reset. To get away from this money culture. Taylor Swift wasn’t bitching that Spotify wasn’t getting her music to more fans, but that it was making her less cash. And her label head Scott Borchetta emphasized this point. And their voices are so loud and powerful that they pulled the ignorant into their net, creating chaos where none existed before."

yes... another Lefsetz link... he doesn't sugar coat though: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/ ... lor-swift/

Daniel Ek > https://news.spotify.com/us/2014/11/11/ ... -counting/ - Sincere?

+++++

ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends > I know... don't say it... but at least it's not page 14... yet!

[TomViolenz]

But I have to really say, the whole debate over Taylor Swifts pull out from Spotify in the mainstream media and specifically in the comment sections there, gives a picture of a disgustingly selfentitled (to our work) audience we apparently want to make music for.

How do you cope with that?!

Maybe you were being rhetoric? But speaking for myself, I do it by not feeling self-entitled to compensation for playing about with sounds. Not a real job is it.

Can't likely convince the new generation they need to go in reverse and start using physical media.

So you prefer to be a good little doggy and lay down, making their argument yours?!

Answer me this then: When does anything become a real job that you deserve to get payed for?!
Does it have to stop being fun for this to happen?!

Face it we live in a capitalist world, and no matter if you're independently wealthy and don't need the money from your artistic endevour, nobody paying for it, is still the only value statement that capitalism can give. It's worthless.
I understand when one says: No, uh! I fight that judgement and try to get by with tending bar and I'll play my music for people who are willing to listen to it, but are not willing to pay.

But to go so far as to accept their point of view and to say: My work has no value, and it's right for the audience to demand for me to work for free, is just beyond submissive.

I'm not submissive...AT ALL