1. User centric payment. 2. Paying and treating independent musicians and labels the same way as they treat the majors. Both is not very likely to happen. More competion between the DSPs could also help. The fact that one company dominates the market is not a good sign. On the other hand, I believe that "we" don't use "their" tools way better in our interest than we do. If a group of labels and artitsts would join forces in order to build, develop and promote well curated and strong playlists it could help artists and push good music.
Artists taking control is ultimately the game changer, you're right. Where would the labels and artists host these playlists? If it was on their own sites etc, the reach would be tiny compared to what Spotify etc could offer. It's a tricky one.
This is complicated...there are many different agendas involved. But more musicians are earning something from streaming than they ever did via record company royalties. There are just so many artists competing for the same pie, that the slices they receive are tiny, unless they're generating streams in the millions. But a first step would be for record companies to amend their deals with artists, and also make more income available to publishers and songwriters. But getting them to give up their cheese will not be easy.
A great deal, I'd say. But it's worth noting that some among the major players are not convinced that streaming will be the main source of recorded music income in five years' time, so they will want to maximise their income now and keep things as they are.
Would highly recommend checking out Resonate! It's a stream to own platform that Mat Dryhurst is involved in, he has a lot of excellent criticisms of streaming platforms and this model is a much better approach - https://resonate.is/stream2own/
Got to leave this - but today being the final #BandcampFriday of 2020 (possibly no more next year?) they must have a mention in this thread. Bandcamp at least give artists a decent rate and anyone that streams more than two or three times gets a 'gentle reminder' to pay. It's a small thing but frankly better than the vast majority of people using Spotify, etc, with not one jot of awareness that the artist gets next to zero (and I DO think many more people would pay if they did realise). The streaming companies won't tell the public for obvious reasons, but the Govt enquiry needs to address this gap in the publicity more widely than just us "specialist" consumers (and the 'vocal' musicians who run the risk of being accused of 'crying wolf') can do!
One of the main changes I've read that people want is to make it more user centric. So that what they have paid goes to the artists they've listened to but I think there's an argument for the idea that people who listen to smaller artists tend to listen to a lot more music. I'd rather see subscription models based on the number of streams
So it's always felt like one of the biggest problems with spotify is that it doesnt empower artists to know and reach the audience they build on there - artists cant even notify their spotify listeners that they have a show coming up. I think empowering artists to monetise the fans they build on spotify through touring, merch, etc. feels like an obvious one
very! having 100,000 spotify followers is barely useful. You might pop up in their release radar and lucky you if they happen to listen the week it does but that's about it. It's an obvious way to monetise for them also so not sure why the haven't tried
Ref the enquiry - if the majority of artists cannot afford to ply their trade, available music will in the longer term become 'homogenised' and diversity will inevitably disappear
My point here is that there's a likely scenario of eventually "killing the goose that lays the golden egg" - I realise that Spotify, Amazon, Apple et al won't care by the time that happens - their billion dollar making execs and shareholders will have long disappeared off to their fortified/alarmed mansions. The longer term 'model' however that the major record companies (Sony, CBS, etc) need to preserve if they are to continue beyond the next five to ten years, requires the consumer base to 'progress' - every business model tells you that you cannot afford to rest on your laurels. I don't believe the streaming Cos care, but I'd hope the parent (record) comanies ultimately do!
Hi there - I'm not a musician, just a major 'consumer'. My issue (apart from the fact that musicians don't earn anywhere near enough from streaming), is that people, especially young people are being more manipulated more than record companies used to do, by streaming playlists and "recommended for you". I get that has improved some awareness of 'jazz', but it doesn't really help expand anyone's horizons, unlike decent radio programmes used to do, or of course live music (temporarily unavailable at the moment of course).
I hear where you're coming from. I'm wondering; is it manipulation, or are we simply receiving the service (music recommendations, playlists etc) that we're paying them for? Either way, the artists are still being totally screwed by it.
May not be manipulation ref specific genres/artists per se (the streaming companies don't really care about the artists themselves - they just want the largest audience to stream more tracks for purely "business" reasons), but it manipulates via algorithms that by their very nature only show something similar to what you've already been listening to.
What would you like to see come out of the Economics of Music Streaming inquiry here in the UK? In other words, how can streaming giants cut a better deal for artists?
Hi, I think Spotify (and co) does a good job in providing exposure for artists. What they could do better are two things: moving towards a model which is sustainable for the musicians and recognising artistic value.
These online tools need to come up with a model or format in which music is not a valueless commodity. Right now artists bear the costs of making and promoting music, they are encouraged (forced) to drive audience to these platforms, but it doesn’t (or rarely) translate to income or career. If the algorhythms pick up your song you can have millions of plays without anybody knowing that is was your song or anybody showing up on your concert.
The other thing is recognising artistic value. Right now a 25-minute movement of a symphony and a 1:35 song on a “study beats piano chill” playlist are valued the same. As long as they hit 30 seconds of play they both get the play count and the 0,00031 fee, while they clearly very different in terms of artistic value. I think this difference needs to translate to some metrics or form of compensation, so artists are actually encouraged to make efforts to create value and quality instead of quantity and cheap, easy to consume fast food. Spotify needs to recognise and promote art which contribute to our cultural heritage.
Getting into some dangerous territory on the value of different music. I don’t see how they have different artistic values. They might do to you personally but you can’t then extend your perception out to everyone else. If someone wants study beats then that is valuable to them (also lots of great instrumental jazz/hip hop music ends up on study beats playlists). The issue of putting any monetary value to the music is fraught with difficulties. I don’t have an answer
If you don’t see the difference between a Wagner opera or a Miles Davis track and a study beat track, maybe you should look a bit harder. I don’t suggest to value the tracks of today, but value those pieces of music that have been around for decades or centuries. There are pieces, composers, artists who laid down the the basis of music today. Whos work (re)defined music. I’m suggesting to promote these against simple commercial mass-produced playlist-fillers.
And yes human curation has a big role in shaping people’s taste. People don’t study the entire history of music and then choose to play Drake and study beats playlists. They choose whatever is front of them, whatever is the easiest to digest. If Spotify says artists have to publish something monthly to keep engagement high that suggest that it doesn’t make sense to work on a material for 3-4 years. You can’t write an opera every month. You can write only a few per lifetime. You can put out a study beat track 7 days a week outside your full-time job. Which one has the chance to convey more value? Which one has the chance to fill concert halls 300 years from now?
1. User centric payment. 2. Paying and treating independent musicians and labels the same way as they treat the majors. Both is not very likely to happen. More competion between the DSPs could also help. The fact that one company dominates the market is not a good sign. On the other hand, I believe that "we" don't use "their" tools way better in our interest than we do. If a group of labels and artitsts would join forces in order to build, develop and promote well curated and strong playlists it could help artists and push good music.
Artists taking control is ultimately the game changer, you're right. Where would the labels and artists host these playlists? If it was on their own sites etc, the reach would be tiny compared to what Spotify etc could offer. It's a tricky one.
This is complicated...there are many different agendas involved. But more musicians are earning something from streaming than they ever did via record company royalties. There are just so many artists competing for the same pie, that the slices they receive are tiny, unless they're generating streams in the millions. But a first step would be for record companies to amend their deals with artists, and also make more income available to publishers and songwriters. But getting them to give up their cheese will not be easy.
I hear that. The whole infrastructure needs to be amended; I wonder how much of the responsibility is directly with the three majors.
A great deal, I'd say. But it's worth noting that some among the major players are not convinced that streaming will be the main source of recorded music income in five years' time, so they will want to maximise their income now and keep things as they are.
Would highly recommend checking out Resonate! It's a stream to own platform that Mat Dryhurst is involved in, he has a lot of excellent criticisms of streaming platforms and this model is a much better approach - https://resonate.is/stream2own/
Intriguing model. Have you used it?
Got to leave this - but today being the final #BandcampFriday of 2020 (possibly no more next year?) they must have a mention in this thread. Bandcamp at least give artists a decent rate and anyone that streams more than two or three times gets a 'gentle reminder' to pay. It's a small thing but frankly better than the vast majority of people using Spotify, etc, with not one jot of awareness that the artist gets next to zero (and I DO think many more people would pay if they did realise). The streaming companies won't tell the public for obvious reasons, but the Govt enquiry needs to address this gap in the publicity more widely than just us "specialist" consumers (and the 'vocal' musicians who run the risk of being accused of 'crying wolf') can do!
Thank you for the debate Tina!
One of the main changes I've read that people want is to make it more user centric. So that what they have paid goes to the artists they've listened to but I think there's an argument for the idea that people who listen to smaller artists tend to listen to a lot more music. I'd rather see subscription models based on the number of streams
So it's always felt like one of the biggest problems with spotify is that it doesnt empower artists to know and reach the audience they build on there - artists cant even notify their spotify listeners that they have a show coming up. I think empowering artists to monetise the fans they build on spotify through touring, merch, etc. feels like an obvious one
I never clicked that before; it's very single use, isn't it?
very! having 100,000 spotify followers is barely useful. You might pop up in their release radar and lucky you if they happen to listen the week it does but that's about it. It's an obvious way to monetise for them also so not sure why the haven't tried
Less money for the record companies, maybe?
Ref the enquiry - if the majority of artists cannot afford to ply their trade, available music will in the longer term become 'homogenised' and diversity will inevitably disappear
My point here is that there's a likely scenario of eventually "killing the goose that lays the golden egg" - I realise that Spotify, Amazon, Apple et al won't care by the time that happens - their billion dollar making execs and shareholders will have long disappeared off to their fortified/alarmed mansions. The longer term 'model' however that the major record companies (Sony, CBS, etc) need to preserve if they are to continue beyond the next five to ten years, requires the consumer base to 'progress' - every business model tells you that you cannot afford to rest on your laurels. I don't believe the streaming Cos care, but I'd hope the parent (record) comanies ultimately do!
Hi there - I'm not a musician, just a major 'consumer'. My issue (apart from the fact that musicians don't earn anywhere near enough from streaming), is that people, especially young people are being more manipulated more than record companies used to do, by streaming playlists and "recommended for you". I get that has improved some awareness of 'jazz', but it doesn't really help expand anyone's horizons, unlike decent radio programmes used to do, or of course live music (temporarily unavailable at the moment of course).
I hear where you're coming from. I'm wondering; is it manipulation, or are we simply receiving the service (music recommendations, playlists etc) that we're paying them for? Either way, the artists are still being totally screwed by it.
May not be manipulation ref specific genres/artists per se (the streaming companies don't really care about the artists themselves - they just want the largest audience to stream more tracks for purely "business" reasons), but it manipulates via algorithms that by their very nature only show something similar to what you've already been listening to.
What would you like to see come out of the Economics of Music Streaming inquiry here in the UK? In other words, how can streaming giants cut a better deal for artists?
Hi, I think Spotify (and co) does a good job in providing exposure for artists. What they could do better are two things: moving towards a model which is sustainable for the musicians and recognising artistic value.
These online tools need to come up with a model or format in which music is not a valueless commodity. Right now artists bear the costs of making and promoting music, they are encouraged (forced) to drive audience to these platforms, but it doesn’t (or rarely) translate to income or career. If the algorhythms pick up your song you can have millions of plays without anybody knowing that is was your song or anybody showing up on your concert.
The other thing is recognising artistic value. Right now a 25-minute movement of a symphony and a 1:35 song on a “study beats piano chill” playlist are valued the same. As long as they hit 30 seconds of play they both get the play count and the 0,00031 fee, while they clearly very different in terms of artistic value. I think this difference needs to translate to some metrics or form of compensation, so artists are actually encouraged to make efforts to create value and quality instead of quantity and cheap, easy to consume fast food. Spotify needs to recognise and promote art which contribute to our cultural heritage.
Getting into some dangerous territory on the value of different music. I don’t see how they have different artistic values. They might do to you personally but you can’t then extend your perception out to everyone else. If someone wants study beats then that is valuable to them (also lots of great instrumental jazz/hip hop music ends up on study beats playlists). The issue of putting any monetary value to the music is fraught with difficulties. I don’t have an answer
If you don’t see the difference between a Wagner opera or a Miles Davis track and a study beat track, maybe you should look a bit harder. I don’t suggest to value the tracks of today, but value those pieces of music that have been around for decades or centuries. There are pieces, composers, artists who laid down the the basis of music today. Whos work (re)defined music. I’m suggesting to promote these against simple commercial mass-produced playlist-fillers.
And yes human curation has a big role in shaping people’s taste. People don’t study the entire history of music and then choose to play Drake and study beats playlists. They choose whatever is front of them, whatever is the easiest to digest. If Spotify says artists have to publish something monthly to keep engagement high that suggest that it doesn’t make sense to work on a material for 3-4 years. You can’t write an opera every month. You can write only a few per lifetime. You can put out a study beat track 7 days a week outside your full-time job. Which one has the chance to convey more value? Which one has the chance to fill concert halls 300 years from now?