Music Should we be paying more for streaming services such as Apple Music and Spotify?

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,618
Free market. Nobody "should" be paying more. People will pay if they think it's worth it.
 

GBBQ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
4,806
Location
Ireland
Is it that we’re not paying enough or that the platforms aren’t passing enough on to the artists? I would have thought that streaming is actually getting more people paying regularly for music but if you go over that tenner a month level you’ll lose more in the long run.
 

dumbo

Don't Just Fly…Soar!
Scout
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
9,362
Location
Thucydides nuts
No. We should be paying billionaire slave masters less and exploited, struggling artists more.
 
Last edited:

R77

Full Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
530
The streaming companies should be paying more, first.

There's a guy that occasionally appears on another forum I frequent, has done several Hollywood soundtracks and been a recording artist since the 80s. Can't remember the exact numbers, but he posted a screenshot of a payment he recieved. Many hundreds of thousands of hits/streams/whatever amounted to a less than two dollars.

In some ways I'm glad the old system's gone. Having a limited range of options rammed down your throat by corporate entities, but there's often little money in music these days without whoring yourself around the 'live' circuits. Some tribute acts make more cash than people doing good original stuff. There are names that are commonplace who are resorting to meet and greets and suchlike to pay the bills.

Some kind of middle ground would be workable for everyone.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
Three things are true:

1) For the access to music and convenience you get, £10 a month for Spotify is an absolute steal from the consumer's point of view.

2) The CEO of spotify is a cnut who has feck all empathy for the people who provide him with what I'm sure he describes as "content".

3) Artists don't get anywhere near as much money as they should from streaming.

I have no idea if point 1 or point 2 is more to blame for point 3 but I suspect it's a combination of both.

So yes, I would be happy to pay more for spotify if I knew the money would go to the artists whose music I'm enjoying and make a real difference for them. And ideally more would be given to the artists from the existing profit in addition to that. But if it's just more money for Daniel Elk than he can go feck himself, he's already claiming more than enough from me.
 

Hoof the ball

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
12,187
Location
San Antonio, Texas.
I'll pay more when Spotify and Apple Music start offering Dolby Atmos, Sony 360 Reality Audio, and Lossless album masters like TIDAL do. I'm not going to pay more than ten quid for compressed MP3's and no audiophile features.
 

jderbyshire

Has anybody seen my fleshlight?
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,175
Billy Corgan talked about it on Joe Rogan a couple of years ago and he blamed the record labels for not only giving in to the streaming services but jumping in bed with them and investing in them so that they also benefit from this new model.

It's basically a huge swindle that keeps making them lots of money while screwing over the artists even more than they already were.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,203
I'm curious. Is the reduced revenue per play offset by the increase in listeners from streaming services? It still looks to me like the most popular artists make millions, the average artists do ok and the shit ones are skint, much like it always was.


I think the main thing is people now dont place the same value on music and musicians as they used to, and artists haven't accepted that yet.
 

elmo

Can never have too many Eevees
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,270
Location
AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
I'm curious. Is the reduced revenue per play offset by the increase in listeners from streaming services? It still looks to me like the most popular artists make millions, the average artists do ok and the shit ones are skint, much like it always was.


I think the main thing is people now dont place the same value on music and musicians as they used to, and artists haven't accepted that yet.
Most smaller artists make their money from selling merchandise from touring.

Streaming makes them feck all.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,537
Location
Sydney
I'd actually be willing to pay more if their apps weren't so shite
 

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,659
Location
C-137
At some point one of the Spotify alternatives will pay a bunch of monies to get exclusive rights for nearly all the new big album releases one year. Then the others will follow suit to compete. Then all the prices will go up.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,203
Most smaller artists make their money from selling merchandise from touring.

Streaming makes them feck all.
Was it ever any different when they were flogging their records from the boot of their car after a gig?
 

Fingeredmouse

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Glasgow
I refuse to use streaming services, which is really quite annoying, simply because the commercial model just doesn't work for artists. The kind of bands I'm mostly listening really need the money and so I'll buy, directly from them if possible.
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,021
From the perspective of how music worked before MP3: sure, it's ridiculously cheap and convenient now. I do have two questions, though:

1. Is it unquestionably harder for artists with small/medium popularity to make a living now?
2. If 'yes': is the main reason for this the streaming services being cheap?

Unless the answer to both of the questions above is a resounding 'yes', then there's no way I'll ever be in favor paying more.
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
14,051
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
Most smaller artists make their money from selling merchandise from touring.

Streaming makes them feck all.
Got me interested in the breakdowns so I’ve had a look at the revenue of a select few for their last yearend pre covid

Mid size artist (~5m monthly listeners on Spotify)
Live touring - 73% of revenue
Royalties- 16%
Merch - 0%
Miscellaneous the rest like advances or other stuff.

Other midsize artist
Live touring - 75%
Royalties - 11%
Merch - 0.5%

Small artist (500k listeners on Spotify)
Live touring - 9%
Royalties - 35%
Merch - 12%
Other the rest.


That is just revenue so also have to consider that while live touring has most revenue it also by far has the most expenses in order to generate that revenue.
 

Ainu

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
10,130
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
I refuse to use streaming services, which is really quite annoying, simply because the commercial model just doesn't work for artists. The kind of bands I'm mostly listening really need the money and so I'll buy, directly from them if possible.
You're not wrong, but I just find it too convenient to use, especially when I'm using it in my car or something. I compensate it by going to concerts and often buying merch directly from their bandcamps or at the concerts. Or at least I used to, before fecking 2020 happened.
 

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
14,445
Don’t see them moaning about sky rocket vinyl and ‘anniversary’ edition prices.... rich just wanna be richer.
 

ha_rooney

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
38,759
Nope, the platforms should be making more of the existing cut available to the artists. If they start pushing the prices up or have exclusive deals so artists music is available on a single platform only, then I think it’ll push people back to illegal downloading.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
I'm curious. Is the reduced revenue per play offset by the increase in listeners from streaming services? It still looks to me like the most popular artists make millions, the average artists do ok and the shit ones are skint, much like it always was.


I think the main thing is people now dont place the same value on music and musicians as they used to, and artists haven't accepted that yet.
A few points there.

First, you're assuming that the artists who get the most streams are better while the ones who don't are shit. Which isn't typically how people assess art, isn't a good predictor of what art will become culturally important and ignores the impact business mechanics have in artificially boosting an artists' profile on a streaming service. In effect what you're actually saying is that artists on major labels get more, which is a different thing.

Beyond that, the actual royalties artists get per stream is so small that their income has inevitably been massively reduced. It's difficult to say how much exactly they get per stream but most estimates have it in approximately the 100ths of a cent range. The math simply doesn't come close to working in terms of increased listeners offseting reduced revenue per play.

Most importantly, the money doesn't necessarily go to the artist you've streamed either. Let's say we both pay £10 a month but you listen Taylor Swift while I listen to smaller indie acts. Our money gets pooled, the streaming service takes its cut, then the remaining money is split based on the total number of streams that month. That means that the vast majority of the artists' share of the money I've spent to listen to smaller acts instead gets siphoned off to Taylor Swift instead, who I may never have listened to even once. Which again goes back to the business aspect, as it effectively means the streaming market is rigged towards acts on major labels with more marketing budget, who siphon the majority of the money that people spend listening to smaller and medium sized acts in addition to the money people spend listening to them.
 

ArjenIsM3

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
5,633
Location
Netherlands
Honestly I only listen to Spotify a few hours a week so a tenner a month seems fair. My wife has her own subscription even though we often listen together so that's another tenner a month to Spotify. Other than that we listen to the radio a few hours a week too, though nowhere near as much now as pre-COVID since I now don't have to drive to work. The music industry is earning more from casual listeners like me now that I pay a tenner a month to Spotify than before since I never bought albums or anything like that.
 

LARulz

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
18,138
People would slowly start going back to illegal downloading if it becomes pricy. Factor in costs of TV, internet, Netflix, Amazon etc. on top. People will eventually just say feck it - can only stretch people so far
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
I’ve never actually seen patreon for any of my clients, so not sure if they just haven’t gone down that path or what.

Some of the smaller ones manage to get some government grants or do production work for other artists and the like.
Do any of them have OnlyFans?
 

Fingeredmouse

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Glasgow
Honestly I only listen to Spotify a few hours a week so a tenner a month seems fair. My wife has her own subscription even though we often listen together so that's another tenner a month to Spotify. Other than that we listen to the radio a few hours a week too, though nowhere near as much now as pre-COVID since I now don't have to drive to work. The music industry is earning more from casual listeners like me now that I pay a tenner a month to Spotify than before since I never bought albums or anything like that.
However, conversely people who did buy albums, or who may have become album purchasers, now don't so much.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,203
A few points there.

First, you're assuming that the artists who get the most streams are better while the ones who don't are shit. Which isn't typically how people assess art, isn't a good predictor of what art will become culturally important and ignores the impact business mechanics have in artificially boosting an artists' profile on a streaming service. In effect what you're actually saying is that artists on major labels get more, which is a different thing.

Beyond that, the actual royalties artists get per stream is so small that their income has inevitably been massively reduced. It's difficult to say how much exactly they get per stream but most estimates have it in approximately the 100ths of a cent range. The math simply doesn't come close to working in terms of increased listeners offseting reduced revenue per play.

Most importantly, the money doesn't necessarily go to the artist you've streamed either. Let's say we both pay £10 a month but you listen Taylor Swift while I listen to smaller indie acts. Our money gets pooled, the streaming service takes its cut, then the remaining money is split based on the total number of streams that month. That means that the vast majority of the artists' share of the money I've spent to listen to smaller acts instead gets siphoned off to Taylor Swift instead, who I may never have listened to even once. Which again goes back to the business aspect, as it effectively means the streaming market is rigged towards acts on major labels with more marketing budget, who siphon the majority of the money that people spend listening to smaller and medium sized acts in addition to the money people spend listening to them.
Then it moves on to my second point/question. Do people value music the way they once did? If you look back to the 60s, during Vietnam, or rap in the 90s, and so on. Music drove and defined cultures. Could you say that now? I don't think so.
 

Morpheus 7

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
3,686
Location
Ireland
It's a streaming service, the illusion of owning. It's like renting instead of stealing but the artists make little. If you like what you hear, buy the vinyl or physical media, better still seek the artist out live. I downloaded loads of music through dodgey sources, eventually bought what I enjoyed. Enough of the guilt and ethics, it's a rotten industry. It's about discovering and appreciating, give what you can along the way.
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,021
How much did albums cost back in the day? 10-15 pounds? Basically one month of Spotify? And then you'd be stuck with an album where you maybe just want 2 or 3 songs. There's no way that the average listener used to buy 10 albums per year. I don't think the fault lies with the consumer here. I definitely spend more money on music now than I ever would in a world where albums are the only option.

Also, most of the music I listen to are "open source" lofi-remixes and old music(jazz, soul, 80's, old school hip hop etc). I reckon that's true for a whole lot of listeners.
 

dumbo

Don't Just Fly…Soar!
Scout
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
9,362
Location
Thucydides nuts
If you enjoy the work of artists, that you know depend on fan support to survive day to day then you should probably be forking out something, be it for the album, show or merch.

For multi-millionaire acts I see no problem with outright piracy.

I personally dislike the slave stable nature of the streaming sites but If you stream but also support dependent artists when you can then that seems alright.

The aim should be to sustain the art and the artists. Not the systems that exploit them.
 

Acole9

Outstanding
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
12,503
I would be prepared to pay more if I knew it would hugely benefit the artists and not the streaming companies pockets.
 

Xeno

Full Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
4,618
Location
Manchester
I'd pay more for Spotify. I have it on more than 24/7 (blind cat + whenever we listen to it), it's incredible value. I am selfish in that I don't care how that money is dispersed.

I would go back to TPB if it wasn't so easy and cheap.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
According to a Yougov poll:

77% think artists aren't paid enough.
76% think songwriters aren't paid enough.
83% think most record labels are paid too much.
81% would like session musicians to get a share of streaming revenue.
68% think the streaming platforms are overpaid.

When asked if they would be happy to pay more for the existing streaming service, the majority said no. However of those who said no, half said they would be willing to pay more if their money went directly to the artists they listen to.