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.
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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).
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.