HOME STREAMING IS KILLING MUSIC
Or saving it, depending who you ask.
One interesting statistic in the US and global music industry is that streaming is the fastest growing category of music sales these days, at the apparent expense of not only CD sales, but even digital downloads. The appeal isn’t hard to understand - why pay $9.00 per digital album when you can listen to ALL the albums for a monthly fee (or even for free if you don’t mind yr music collection being peppered with commercials every few songs)?
The idea has been around for awhile, and the pros and cons are pretty simple - the download model means you get to keep those albums forever unless you forget to back them up (or unless the online store you bought them from goes belly up and you lose yr DRM keys - imagine that). The streaming model means yr basically renting yr music collection and paying for it forever, but you do get more value for money in terms of sheer variety.
The other, less talked about angle is what does that mean for the actual music artists whose livelihood depends in large part on selling albums? The answer depends who you ask. Taylor Swift is not impressed, for one. And she’s one of the artists who actually made decent money from Spotify before she pulled all her music from it.
Here’s an article about Spotify, which explains their calculation system, and how it works great for artists like, say, Lorde and The Pixies, but not so much for, say, Marc Ribot and Rosanne Cash.
Here’s an article where Steve Albini says the new system is much better for artists than the old system.
Here’s an article from a guy making a documentary about the same topic saying no, Steve, it’s not.
Here’s an article from East Bay Ray saying YouTube is even worse when it comes to streaming-based business models.
The articles are worth reading. I don’t have any particular wisdom for you, but I will say I think Albini makes some good points in comparing the old economic model of the music business and the new model. The old model is undeniably corrupt and wasteful and not especially friendly to the artists, and the music industry overall is better off without it. And there’s no doubt the internet has made more and better music more accessible than ever before.
On the other hand, the new model does seem to be a much better deal for the Googles and Spotifys than it does for the artists. The math doesn’t make a lot of sense to me either (disclaimer: I suck at math), and certainly doesn’t seem to take into account the actual cost of recording music. Sure, it’s a lot cheaper and easier to record music in 2014. But there is an expense involved, and Spotify’s economic model isn’t designed to take that into account, as Marc Ribot has pointed out:
“Here’s the simple fact that no one wants to talk about. Spotify says it pays out seventy per cent of its revenues to rights holders. Well, that’s very nice, that’s lovely. But if I’m making a shoe, and it costs me a hundred dollars to make it, and the retailer is selling that shoe for ten dollars, then I don’t care if he gives me seventy per cent, I don’t care if he gives me one hundred per cent-I’m going out of business.”
Now granted, streaming is only one source of revenue. But if streaming flourishes at the expense of CD/digital sales, it’s difficult to see how things will improve for music artists in the longer term.
A lot of artists who dislike Spotify say they’re not against streaming itself, they just want a better compensation model - and they also argue that companies like Google and Spotify can afford to provide one. In that sense, Google and Spotify may have become the 21st Century version of Evil Corporate Record Labels, only not intentionally evil, and with no A&R expenses.
Or something.
Did I mention I have no wisdom here?
Anyway, I think it’s fair to say that for all the progress the music business has made, it’s still by definition a business - and it’s one designed to exploit both music artists and their fans for maximum gain. In that respect, all that's changed is who gets to do the exploiting.
Progress!
FULL DISCLOSURE: I don’t use Spotify much. And I use streaming mainly to preview music before I buy it. I also use Soundcloud mainly for my own music, but I don't have any expectations of making any money from it.
Stream on,
This is dF
This entry was originally posted at http://defrog.dreamwidth.org/1499862.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
One interesting statistic in the US and global music industry is that streaming is the fastest growing category of music sales these days, at the apparent expense of not only CD sales, but even digital downloads. The appeal isn’t hard to understand - why pay $9.00 per digital album when you can listen to ALL the albums for a monthly fee (or even for free if you don’t mind yr music collection being peppered with commercials every few songs)?
The idea has been around for awhile, and the pros and cons are pretty simple - the download model means you get to keep those albums forever unless you forget to back them up (or unless the online store you bought them from goes belly up and you lose yr DRM keys - imagine that). The streaming model means yr basically renting yr music collection and paying for it forever, but you do get more value for money in terms of sheer variety.
The other, less talked about angle is what does that mean for the actual music artists whose livelihood depends in large part on selling albums? The answer depends who you ask. Taylor Swift is not impressed, for one. And she’s one of the artists who actually made decent money from Spotify before she pulled all her music from it.
Here’s an article about Spotify, which explains their calculation system, and how it works great for artists like, say, Lorde and The Pixies, but not so much for, say, Marc Ribot and Rosanne Cash.
Here’s an article where Steve Albini says the new system is much better for artists than the old system.
Here’s an article from a guy making a documentary about the same topic saying no, Steve, it’s not.
Here’s an article from East Bay Ray saying YouTube is even worse when it comes to streaming-based business models.
The articles are worth reading. I don’t have any particular wisdom for you, but I will say I think Albini makes some good points in comparing the old economic model of the music business and the new model. The old model is undeniably corrupt and wasteful and not especially friendly to the artists, and the music industry overall is better off without it. And there’s no doubt the internet has made more and better music more accessible than ever before.
On the other hand, the new model does seem to be a much better deal for the Googles and Spotifys than it does for the artists. The math doesn’t make a lot of sense to me either (disclaimer: I suck at math), and certainly doesn’t seem to take into account the actual cost of recording music. Sure, it’s a lot cheaper and easier to record music in 2014. But there is an expense involved, and Spotify’s economic model isn’t designed to take that into account, as Marc Ribot has pointed out:
“Here’s the simple fact that no one wants to talk about. Spotify says it pays out seventy per cent of its revenues to rights holders. Well, that’s very nice, that’s lovely. But if I’m making a shoe, and it costs me a hundred dollars to make it, and the retailer is selling that shoe for ten dollars, then I don’t care if he gives me seventy per cent, I don’t care if he gives me one hundred per cent-I’m going out of business.”
Now granted, streaming is only one source of revenue. But if streaming flourishes at the expense of CD/digital sales, it’s difficult to see how things will improve for music artists in the longer term.
A lot of artists who dislike Spotify say they’re not against streaming itself, they just want a better compensation model - and they also argue that companies like Google and Spotify can afford to provide one. In that sense, Google and Spotify may have become the 21st Century version of Evil Corporate Record Labels, only not intentionally evil, and with no A&R expenses.
Or something.
Did I mention I have no wisdom here?
Anyway, I think it’s fair to say that for all the progress the music business has made, it’s still by definition a business - and it’s one designed to exploit both music artists and their fans for maximum gain. In that respect, all that's changed is who gets to do the exploiting.
Progress!
FULL DISCLOSURE: I don’t use Spotify much. And I use streaming mainly to preview music before I buy it. I also use Soundcloud mainly for my own music, but I don't have any expectations of making any money from it.
Stream on,
This is dF
This entry was originally posted at http://defrog.dreamwidth.org/1499862.html. Please comment there using OpenID.