Amazon High Definition Music Streaming Service

[mansr]

The problem with artist compensation is that the amount of money people are willing to spend on music isn't enough to support the current number of (would-be) musicians.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, PAR said:

But they are not "wages" . Earning a living just about anywhere in the arts involves receiving income from multiple sources. In this case  not only streaming. Some sources pay more than others.  Which pay the most or the least can change over time. Currently succesful musical artists make more money from touring than from recordings.  That is the reverse of the situation in the 1970s to 1990s. Go back before then to, say,  the 1930s, 40s and 50s and touring or other live engagements were again the honey pot. 

A band member I discussed this with a while ago said they made most of their money from commercial licensing. The revenue breakdown probably varies a lot depending on type of music, popularity level, and whatnot.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Not exactly. "The Market" only works as an efficient system when there are no sellers or buyers in a position to influence the market. The music market is clearly not one without market influence by some of the participants. A truly efficient market would probably reward recording artists and sonwriters with better pay relative to other participants.

It doesn't matter how you distribute the money. The $10 per month people are willing to pay is simply not enough for all the artists to make a living, even if a handful are getting rich in the current scheme.

[mansr]

59 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not everyone deserves to make a living from whatever they wish.

Of course not, but it doesn't stop them complaining.

[mansr]

58 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

The interplay of supply and demand in streaming is between the consumers on the one hand and the streaming services and record labels on the other. The economics of streaming are not a measure of artistic success or worthiness. And that's the problem.

It could also be seen as a problem that popularity is heavily skewed towards a handful of artists (and I'm using that term loosely). When a subscriber pays Spotify $10, some of that goes to covering operating costs while the rest is split between Beyonce and Taylor Swift regardless of what the subscriber actually streamed.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, left channel said:

Good luck! Oh and one of the links in your interesting signature requires a small update: digitalaudioreview.net is now darko.audio and apparently he's not paying to maintain and forward from the old domain.

Maybe he has no money left after getting a .audio domain. You have to pay an arm and a leg for those, through your nose.