Amazon High Definition Music Streaming Service

[PAR]

5 hours ago, PAP said:

wonder who will pay the musicians and the composers.....

This is pretty much sorted out. The USA will now have what is common in the rest of the developed world, a collecting society to do this. Up until now America has had several such societies ( ASCAP, BIEM etc.). However these only functioned for the composers. Outside of the USA various such societies in combination  representing all copyright owners have existed for many years ( often meaning up to at least a century). Insofar as artists are concerned their interests are normally part of their contractual arrangements with their record company and/or are individually represented via a collecting society depending upon local copyright legislation.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/11/17963804/music-modernization-act-mma-copyright-law-bill-labels-congress

[PAR]

3 hours ago, PAP said:

Think of the old days when you can be a one hit wonder and still make a million.😗 

''Music Streaming Royalties Calculator

Yes, well now you can be a one hit wonder and make several million.

 

I am assuming that your point is that you  think the sums are low?

 

You seem not to appreciate how those small figures accumulate in streaming. In the days of physical sales a fairly successful album may sell, what, 50,000 copies in a year. A hugely successful one from a world class act 1,000,000. Let's say that they earned $2 per copy ( not unreasonable for a big act). So in one year that hugely successful act earned $2M from that album.

 

Now understand that streaming means huge numbers. Last year from Spotify only Beyoncé  alone had over a BILLION streams for  a single new album. Now take your rate per stream for Spotify and multiply it by 1,000.000,000. That's what Beyoncé  earned from a single  service for one  album. She also got sums from all of the other services, plus world sales, plus radio play, plus her back catalogue  , plus , plus.

 

Now , of course an unsuccessful artist will earn significantly less. And these figures hide a major problem for minority interest music genres like classical or jazz where the annual streams per album may be  in single or double figures.

 

But if you consider that the rates that you cite are for streaming services currently in their formative days such rates per stream are generally likely to remain in the same area although the yield will be even higher . If you imagine that they should be significantly increased then , as the streaming service would have to pay them  and that they get their income from their subscribers ,  expect a monthly subscription to be not $9.99 but, what,  $99.90 or $999 or more ? I trust that you can appreciate the existential problem.

 

 

 

[PAR]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Sounds like the lottery

Eh? A lottery is a game of chance. Royalty payments are defined and, failing payment, legal action may be taken. I don't think any lawyer will take up my action for not winning the Euromillions this weekend 😭

 

Yes, over here in the UK too there is a lottery game where instead of a lump you can be paid a sum monthly for thirty years. At my age I ain't going to be here in thirty years!

 

Anyway my main point is that for very popular artists streaming is an Aladdin's cave. There are, however,  huge problems with specialist genres. I was in conversation with the the chief executive of one of the best known independent classical labels last year. I know some of his costs in producing a single, simple, album ( a piano recital). There is no way that he can recoup his recording costs alone from streaming currently. The outcome is that he currently refuses to licence streaming. However he may not have the option in the USA under the new legislation. This could ultimately mean his company closing as streaming is a direct substitution for sales given the superb quality from e.g. Qobuz.

 

[PAR]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Fortunately no label is forced to offer music for streaming

Unfortunately as far as I can see you are wrong on this. In the USA the new Music Modernization Act provides a compulsory licence i.e. no refusal, no negotiation.

[PAR]

There are tons of links about his out there. most are written  for lawyers I guess and it is hard to find a clear one for a layman. For example here is one from the US government :

 

https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/faq.html

 

And see this link too:

 

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b9456015-b34e-4e7d-9e6e-7a785439c03b

 

You should see from the first couple of paragraphs that they are talking about a compulsory licence. However reading further I may be wrong as it appears that the compulsory licence applies to mechanical rights ( musical compositions) and not to sound recordings. It looks like I may have been  misled earlier by an article written by a non-specialist journalist .

 

However it is not entirely clear as many articles on this matter also incorporate reference to The Classics Protection and Access Act . Which concerns sound recordings and not musical works.

 

This is why lawyers can earn big bucks!

 

 

[PAR]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

I think the compulsory licensing may set the compensation for reproduction in formats a label makes available, but not necessarily require availability in all formats.

Yes. I hope that I covered this point in my last posting. The compulsory licence turns out to relate to mechanical reproduction rights  and not to the separate rights in the sound recording. That is the right to make a recording ( mechanical copy - the term originated with piano rolls) of a musical composition. That would include making a copy on the streaming services ' servers and may extend to ephemeral copies ( e.g. those made ephemerally in the technology used to provide streaming) if US judges adopt a similar view when  interpreting the law as has happened here in the UK a few years ago.  However I have been away from the music business for some years now so there may well be updates that I am unaware of.

 

 So it looks like there will still need to be an agreement with the record label but not with the music publishers.

[PAR]

The income streams for  music rights holders have always had to be split between various parties. These splits are by agreement or otherwise are usually imposed by a decision from a legal body  such as a tribunal or court. Streaming does not change this fundamentally. There will , of course, always be disputes. No matter what structure is adopted each contributor will consider their input superior to any other. Fortunately, on the other hand,  the music business is ego free 😉 .

 

I haven't a great deal of knowledge about current pop music but if Ms. Taylor earned < $390K for a single song from one medium of distribution only then that seems a fair shake to me. And when you say her song,then as an ex-music business copyright professional I take what you say as indicating that as well as royalties from the song that she wrote then she also got even more from her recorded performance of it including broadcast royalties ( outside the USA), possibly synchronisation etc. And , of course actual SALES!

 

Basically successful musical artists have little to complain about earning more than most countries' presidents or prime ministers and certainly greater than e.g. cancer treatment specialists or others to whom society owes a great deal . However in regard to those working in specialist genres there is a case to be made.

 

Fundamentally the distribution of rewards in the entertainment industry in general has always been skewed.  It is not a symptom unique to streaming services . Try looking online to articles about salaries at the BBC and gender, for example. I am not defending the situation  but , having no ready solution and not being in a position to influence anyone , I just  have to accept that his is currently how it is .

 

[PAR]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It seems opposite of normal where labels pay a nominal percentage to have the artist create history 😁

I expect that you will see more of this kind of thing in the future. It relates strongly to your observation earlier that :

 

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Musicians need to stop signing away their rights to make more money

 The role of the record company has been fundamentally changed by the digitisation of music . This ranges from artists  no longer requiring professional studios by being able to create their recordings in a converted spare bedroom to undertaking their own publicity /marketing routes via the interweb.

 

What has therefore been happening is that many artists now produce and own their own recordings and licence them to a record company. The relationship between artist and record company is then inverted. Artists can now effectively hire the record company for the skills they can offer in a similar way to how other businesses hire/buy external skills.

 

Actually this is not fundamentally all that new but modern technology is making it more common. Many of the mega artists over the past four decades have  been in this position, hence you can find them moving from record company to record company over the years, not because the last record company dropped them but because they dump the record company finding a better deal elsewhere. But even less stratospherically placed artists with good business knowledge have been able to own and exploit their own creations even since the 1960s. I don't know if she means much in the USA but the English pop singer of that era Sandie Shaw has always owned her own copyrights.

 

There is also the fact that in some cases the artist is more the creation of their management and the record company than being a natural outcome of any significant innate talent. I am thinking of certain successful boy bands of a few decades ago where the very existence of the band and virtually every aspect thereof was created by the management with the band members ( who had been  selected by the management) being paid a weekly wage. IMO in some cases any other decent looking lad could have been substituted for any one of them.

 

So, many artists made bad business decisions in the past. No doubt some still do.  I know that here in the UK both the record industry and artists' representative organisations have used a lot of resources to upskill artists in understanding how the business rather than just the musical aspects of their career works ( e.g. The Brit School and several music business courses at universities/ colleges plus shorter seminar type events).  There are even books they can read ( am I assuming too much?) on how everything in the business works , like Passmore's "All You Need to Know...." ( now in 8th edition I note - so someone has been upskilling).

 

So artists should now stop signing their rights away and be aware that they are in a real business. Record companies will IMO function more as "one stop shops" for marketing , career development, specialist legal skills and catalogue management expertise. After all many of them have already jettisoned ( in whole or in part) those expensive parts of their business which were once integral to their existence ; manufacturing and distribution, which are now often outsourced.

 

As for streaming per se, which artist was it who recently received a cheque for $15K for streaming an album that he made 40 years ago then, instead of treating it as a nice unexpected windfall, complains that it wasn't enough?  Talk about greed.  How many reading this still get paid for a job they did 40 years ago?

 

 

 

 

[PAR]

Yes, it's appalling. Each band member in your example only made 4 million this summer from touring . Plus , of course, their other income streams. A  hand to mouth existence. And remember that just like you or me they have to pay their chauffeur, valet, personal cook and flower arranger out of this.

[PAR]

Looks like it has a 90 day free trial period. Rather generous.

 

So far I can't find anything about it on Amazon.co.uk . So is it USA launch only or even just USA only?

 

Anyway it is called Amazon HD and HD  according to their own information means 16/44.1.  However they seem to also be saying that they are offering Ultra HD which is up to 24/192. That is interested considering some of the rumours that had it limited to 24/48 at one point.

 

If it ever turns up over this side of the pond I will certainly try it. 

 

Given the pricing I would suspect a blow to Tidal and Qobuz. And the fact they are doing it without MQA I would guess as an even more serious blow to Mr.Stuart.

[PAR]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Cleasby said:

If you set it to 24-192 (or higher) you lose that icon and everything goes out at tha

Does that mean that it is just upsampling?

[PAR]

Thanks Patrick. Between  my last post and your response I found it and signed on. However as it only appears to offer pop music from the home page  I will cancel shortly. As you are using it right now and have , oh, minutes more experience then me with it do you agree that it is pop only - no jazz, no classical?

 

For me to listen to it properly BTW means getting my music PC out of "storage"  and rigging it up my USB connection.

[PAR]

1 minute ago, Patrick Cleasby said:

But I can see my son's new record i

Does that mean he is a performer or is it the new record that he just bought?

[PAR]

I bow in admiration. Kansas Smitty's are bloody amazing!!!

[PAR]

Just found that you need to install a desktop app. It took about ten minutes for a balloon to show instructing me. Hopefully I will find the repertoire that I want .

[PAR]

Well, very disappointed with the classical offering. Like Tidal they don't really seem to know what classical music actually is so a huge proportion seems to be crossover stuff; stage musicals, movie soundtracks etc. Of the rest nearly all currently seems to be from UMG or Naxos.  I love the classical playlist " Music for your Pets". At least we know now this is a serious place to go for high art 😉

 

 Well, it is only day one so let's see. But my Qobuz subscription doesn't seem to be in danger.

[PAR]

21 minutes ago, Patrick Cleasby said:

Have you seen them?

No, sadly, but I have heard them on Clare Teals' Sunday show though and I did see one member ( clarinet) at last year's Guy Barker's Christmas Show at the RAH.

21 minutes ago, Patrick Cleasby said:

Old School gig Oct 13 at Kansas Smittys. Bokk now. Come down. And come tomorrow!

I would love to go but unfortunately not possible for me 😭. Canonbury isn't it?

[PAR]

Just a further update for classical fans. There is a good catalogue on Amazon HD but it takes finding as they don't have anything currently to match e.g. the Qobuz new release home page ( Discovery). So it isn't too friendly to navigate and I found that  rather than selecting Genre, just entering a term in the search bar produced the best results. I am sure that it will suit many people though.

[PAR]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Get real

Not my figures. I am just reacting to those proposed by Computer Audiophile.

 

Are they real? I think he may have been referring to the Rolling Stones.

 

Yes a few artists are paid exceptional, I would say unjustifiable, sums.  However , recording and royalties derived from it is not what music is exclusively about and musicians can, and do, make a decent or even good living without going near any of this.

 

My next door neighbour is a professional oboist. When single she was able to  buy a place like mine in London ( check property prices here) but has never made a commercial record. So she was and is living a decent lower middle class life on the back of her music making. Good on her.  After all people have been paid for making music for thousands of years. Recording is only 150 odd years old and perhaps that brief period when it became a leading light of cultural life ( mid 1960s to mid 1980s?) may now be over.

[PAR]

32 minutes ago, firedog said:

Again, you are cherry picking the small minority that doesn't reflect the majority. 
There are probably another 50 or 100  or 200 highly qualified oboists around the UK that can't get a job at all

Yes, and that will always will be the case. All artists in whatever medium are fundamentally self appointed. Society does not create a job for someone just because they decide that they would be good at that job (whether they are or not). Just because there may be 200 qualified oboists does not mean that 200 orchestral positions have to be created to accommodate them.

 

Most artists, again in whatever medium, do manage to make ends meet even though it may not be exclusively from their artistic pursuits.  At the end of the day those artists that are popular will make money and possibly a lot. Those that are not popular will not. The latter do not "deserve" a living from their choice of career path.  If they cannot make a living from it, for whatever reason which may be as vague as current fashion or taste, then they are not economically viable and need to find an alternative, just like most people. I had to change my career  four times over my working life.

[PAR]

4 hours ago, One and a half said:

BTW, the hires logo on Amazon is not the same adopted by Japan, ah must be faux hires. No doubting the audio industry, if there’s a way to confuse the public, their job will never end, very good at going in all directions.

Yes, I mentioned this over on AA earlier.  Amazon does not use hi-res or high-resolution anywhere. They are calling it HD ( CD resolution) and Ultra HD ( up to 24/192). Those phrases are familiar to the majority of people as they are also used for television resolutions.  I actually think that Amazon are clarifying rather than confusing things for the great majority of ordinary people . Of course it strikes at the Hi-Res campaign with its logo etc. However , outside of audiophiles, how many people do you know who have any idea what Hi-Res is all about? Do they care?

 

 

[PAR]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

But the system is setup (especially recording marketing and royalties) for 99% to make slave wages while the one percent make extremely high wages

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. 

 

Streaming is only one component making up a musicians' income. Right now , at what is the beginning of this new way of distributing music, the sums may be realtively small compared to other sources. As subscriber numbers grow and  new territories are added ( so far streaming is effectively limited  to Europe and the USA) income will expand. China is just about to start its first streaming service. Imagine how many subscribers that might attract and consequently what potential sums may be generated for internationally popular artists.

 

As an ex-recording industry professional who spent nearly thirty years dealing with this kind of issue I would point out that the reported sums of rate/stream etc. are not very illuminating. The important thing is the formula by which the payments have been calculated and the definitions used to describe its components. And that (or, rather, they) is unknown.

[PAR]

3 minutes ago, Patrick Cleasby said:

The Hi-Res logo is intended for hardware

Thanks Patrick. That is, of course, doubly confusing. Imagine that you are in 1983 and all CD players carry the well known CD logo but none of the discs do! Then things would have become doubly confusing were SACD in a similar situation given two silver disc formats that look the same but have different specifications.

 

BTW some vendors certainly use the Hi-Res logo associated with their downloads e.g. Presto Classical.

 

Mind you if I had a pound for every person who asks what SACD is when I mention it then I would have several pounds 😊

 

Importantly Amazon are not even using the phrase Hi-Res.

[PAR]

I don't want to sound discouraging but you get paid when you get streamed. A couple of years ago Spotify ( I think) revealed that something like 80 % of the titles held on their servers are never accessed.

 

BTW, remember that you won't be paid the day after your title is streamed. It will be done at a distribution point. Depending on the licensing arrangements that might only be once or twice a year .