Thought Provoking Article: "The coming implosion of the record business…"

[PeterG]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

How does you math work when I listen to zero contemporary music acts? The lesser acts get no access to the "pot", so how do they get any of the money I pay to streaming services?

 

Sam--here's a service you'd like!  Deezer splits each person's subscription fees into artists.  So an old guy who listens less often than his kids sends his artists more $/stream.

 

https://www.deezer.com/us/ucps

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

Sam--here's a service you'd like!  Deezer splits each person's subscription fees into artists.  So an old guy who listens less often than his kids sends his artists more $/stream.

 

https://www.deezer.com/us/ucps

I don't think Deezer actually does this. The company wants to. Do you know if they've implemented this yet?

[The Computer Audiophile]

By the way, I love the payment model Deezer proposes. 

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, PeterG said:

The other thing that the article overlooks here is that musicians' plummeting incomes during covid are primarily driven by the dearth of live performance opportunities.  This is not a streaming issue

If me and my math are not completely mistaken, there is a dependency between income from stream and pandemic closures, indirectly.
As it is mentioned in the article, there has been sufficiently more artist's output in that period, but perhaps not so much more slots to distribute this art and money to distribute (or at least not as much as it would need to compensate their missing live performances). And even the services would have had suffiently more money to diffuse, their distribution key would leave most of it with the Taylor Swifts alike, anyway.
OTOH, If three hunderts artists play 20 people per performance  for 100$ each at one one evening (6000 listener/30k$),  while TS plays 30. 000 eyeballs for 300k bucks, she has five times the listeners for 10x the money. Which may be ok, because TS can take only one stage at the time and her tickets are clearly more expensive.
Thus,  the other artist may use another stage and have an income too.
Due to the possible omnipresence in streaming, these slots are overtaken by TS-alike and leave other artists apart, financially.
That system, if it doesn't integrate a basic support for the "independent artists" may canibalize creativity and artistry for profits. Especially in pandemic times.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Home entertainment has boomed during the pandemic. It logically follows that more music listening is being done. Shouldn't artist streaming revenue increase as well? Is that guy showing the artist income being down as a "look over here" move, when actually streaming should be paying more during the pandemic?

[DuckToller]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

It logically follows that more music listening is being done. Shouldn't artist streaming revenue increase as well?

how so with flat rates ? that would mean that the top earners would lose money ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, DuckToller said:

how so with flat rates ? that would mean that the top earners would lose money ?

There are no such things as flat rates. 

[DuckToller]

5 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

how so with flat rates ? that would mean that the top earners would lose money ?

given that people use their 15$ subscribtions for more streams, perhaps less TS.
I have understood that curated playlists and advertisements are focussing on the top 200 and emrging artists from the big labels, which means that stays within the family ...

[DuckToller]

a subscription service is not limited to 2h a day, in turn you can use it 24/7 the whole month. Your price is fix for all you can eat. In Europe this is called flatrate.

[The Computer Audiophile]

The home entertainment boom should equate to more subscribers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, DuckToller said:

a subscription service is not limited to 2h a day, in turn you can use it 24/7 the whole month. Your pice is fix for all you can eat. In Europe this is called flatrate.

Ah, I was looking at it as a flat rate per song paid to artists. Got ya Tom.

[PeterG]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't think Deezer actually does this. The company wants to. Do you know if they've implemented this yet?

 

Ooo--good question.  I assumed they did when I posted, but upon further checking I see they do not.  From their community page pasted below, I see that they are waiting for the record labels to approve.  I suppose we all expect this to be a long wait, for reasons discussed above, especially for a service with only 16MM subscribers

 

• Jaime. 
• Community Manager
• 2245 replies
• 4 months ago
• ANSWER

Hi @fasdork Deezer has everything needed to launch a UCPS pilot roll out but we need all the labels to approve it in order to proceed. We continue to provide labels with all the information necessary for their analysis and are working hard to get consensus so that UCPS can be implemented as soon as possible.
Thanks 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, PeterG said:

 

Ooo--good question.  I assumed they did when I posted, but upon further checking I see they do not.  From their community page pasted below, I see that they are waiting for the record labels to approve.  I suppose we all expect this to be a long wait, for reasons discussed above, especially for a service with only 16MM subscribers

 

• Jaime. 
• Community Manager
• 2245 replies
• 4 months ago
• ANSWER

Hi @fasdork Deezer has everything needed to launch a UCPS pilot roll out but we need all the labels to approve it in order to proceed. We continue to provide labels with all the information necessary for their analysis and are working hard to get consensus so that UCPS can be implemented as soon as possible.
Thanks 

 

 

I really wish they'd do this. It would at least make me feel better that my money only went to artists who's music I played. 

 

I wonder if the labels will use Deezer as a test platform for this. That 16MM subs may actually be beneficial in this case. There's no way Spotify will be the guinea pig. 

[PeterG]

1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

If me and my math are not completely mistaken, there is a dependency between income from stream and pandemic closures, indirectly.
As it is mentioned in the article, there has been sufficiently more artist's output in that period, but perhaps not so much more slots to distribute this art and money to distribute (or at least not as much as it would need to compensate their missing live performances). And even the services would have had suffiently more money to diffuse, their distribution key would leave most of it with the Taylor Swifts alike, anyway.
OTOH, If three hunderts artists play 20 people per performance  for 100$ each at one one evening (6000 listener/30k$),  while TS plays 30. 000 eyeballs for 300k bucks, she has five times the listeners for 10x the money. Which may be ok, because TS can take only one stage at the time and her tickets are clearly more expensive.
Thus,  the other artist may use another stage and have an income too.
Due to the possible omnipresence in streaming, these slots are overtaken by TS-alike and leave other artists apart, financially.
That system, if it doesn't integrate a basic support for the "independent artists" may canibalize creativity and artistry for profits. Especially in pandemic times.

 

I agree that live music is more egalitarian than recorded music.  As you say, Taylor cannot be everywhere at once.

 

But I also think, for all its flaws, Spotify is more egalitarian than the old system.  Pre-internet, the big labels were the only game in town.  It was sign a deal heavily favoring the label, or do not sell any prerecorded music.  Today the labels dominate the playlists and Spotify in general, but a real indie path exists

[Samuel T Cogley]

Bandcamp has a better model, but the talent?  A very small fraction is good, most most is meh.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Bandcamp has a better model, but the talent?  A very small fraction is good, most most is meh.

I love the model but the general public has spoken. It wants streaming. It’s willing to pay for streaming. It isn’t willing to pay much for it and it isn’t willing to purchase any more. Kind of a bummer. 

[AudioDoctor]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I love the model but the general public has spoken. It wants streaming. It’s willing to pay for streaming. It isn’t willing to pay much for it and it isn’t willing to purchase any more. Kind of a bummer. 

 

Its disappointing.

[GregWormald]

13 hours ago, PeterG said:

 

 

The other thing that the article overlooks here is that musicians' plummeting incomes during covid are primarily driven by the dearth of live performance opportunities.  This is not a streaming issue

Strictly speaking—yes.

 

However, the poor artist payment from streaming (another middle man to take a big cut) meant that (before covid) artists were turning to live shows in order to make a living. So on that note it is a streaming related issue.

[astrotoy]

I think one can make the case that the same technological revolution that has created streaming music has also allowed musicians to much more easily publish their music independent of professional studios and record companies.  There have always been more popular (sometimes good and sometimes not so good) musicians and less popular ones.  However, in the old days, there was a big filter.  It was the record label.  So relatively few musicians in the old days actually made it having their music published. 

 

Your very talented or semi-talented son or daughter, or local band can now create and publish their own music for a very small investment of capital, and whatever sweat equity they want to put in.  They can even pitch correct or edit out wrong notes - with ease (not quite the same as AI music, but artificial nonetheless).   They have multiple venues where these can be heard or seen and heard (like youtube, where their plays are monetized if certain levels are reached - attracting ads).   The vast majority will fail to make a living doing that.  I think that latter fate was true fifty years ago, except that the music of those artists never made it to the record stores, so we didn't even know they existed.  

 

Being super popular and becoming very wealthy has not correlated perfectly with being a great artist.  We can best determine the latter through the lens of time.  Unfortunately, the time needed often takes longer than the artist has funds to remain viable, sometimes longer than the artist's lifetime.  Popularity has usually included a good dose of good luck and human nature's proclivity for following the herd has been multiplied by the ease of communication by social media. I don't know the statistics of the most popular artists on streaming media, but I would guess that most will not be as popular 25 years from now or even remembered.  

 

Ars Gratia Artis

 

Larry

[PeterG]

13 hours ago, GregWormald said:

Strictly speaking—yes.

 

However, the poor artist payment from streaming (another middle man to take a big cut) meant that (before covid) artists were turning to live shows in order to make a living. So on that note it is a streaming related issue.

 

I'm a bit confused by your comment.  My take is that to evaluate streaming's economic impact on artists, we have to compare it to the pre-streaming world in which major labels controlled the production and distribution of vinyl and CDs.  In this pre-streaming world, a large majority of artists were getting the lion's share  of their income from live performances.  Also, when you say "another" middle man--this is only true for the minority of artists who have record deals.  So it that sense nothing has changed.  But on the bright side--for the past few years young artists have had the ability to distribute (and record!) their music without record contracts.

 

To be sure, I agree with you in spirit--Spotify, YouTube, EMI, Warner, and the rest are all doing their best to minimize artist compensation.  But many artists are, or at least should be, grateful for the Spotify ecosystem compared to their previous alternatives

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

One thing that is not covered in the article, but that I find very important, is the loss of all the "non musical" information on streaming services: credits, dates, venues, recording equipment, liner notes, album art (not just the cover)... 

 

This information is rarely given on streaming services. This is a shame for us listeners as it greatly impoverishes the "Listening experience". 

 

It is also problematic for royalty payments that credits are missing or inexact. I read somewhere that it is estimated that 25% of payments are not made to the right artists.

 

There is a new standard being implemented for metadata management in the recording industry, but that will only cover new recordings, and obviously does not cover things such as liner notes. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, hopkins said:

One thing that is not covered in the article, but that I find very important, is the loss of all the "non musical" information on streaming services: credits, dates, venues, recording equipment, liner notes, album art (not just the cover)... 

 

This information is rarely given on streaming services. This is a shame for us listeners as it greatly impoverishes the "Listening experience". 

 

It is also problematic for royalty payments that credits are missing or inexact. I read somewhere that it is estimated that 25% of payments are not made to the right artists.

 

There is a new standard being implemented for metadata management in the recording industry, but that will only cover new recordings, and obviously does not cover things such as liner notes. 

 

 

I love when Qobuz includes liner notes. 
 

I’ve never had a physical release show “dates, venues, recording equipment.” Are you suggesting streaming services don’t have this and some other thing does?

 

I don’t think liner notes do anything for royalty payments. Nobody is scanning though each album looking for people to pay. It’s all done behind the scenes. 
 

I’d love a new standard with tons of info. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Physical release do not always have all the information but often do. If I don't have the CD/LP I sometimes look it up on the Internet Archive which often has full scans. Discography websites and databases are also useful but the quality/accuracy varies... 

 

No, I did not mean to imply that liner notes were useful for royalty payments, just the credits, which are often incomplete or even erroneous on streaming sites. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Standards for music metadata have been defined by this organization, for example, but I don't know much about this (time-line, scope...) :

 

https://ddex.net/standards/collection-of-studio-metadata/

 

More on all this and the importance of metadata for royalty payments, here for example (first that came up on a Google search of recent articles) :

 

https://www.bridge.audio/blog/metadata-the-new-cornerstone-in-the-music-industry/

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Here's a good example I came across recently: Lennie Tristano - Intuition. 

 

On Qobuz: https://open.qobuz.com/album/0724385277153

 

On Spotify: 

 

 

On Discogs: https://www.discogs.com/Lennie-Tristano-Warne-Marsh-Intuition/release/1085765

On the Internet Archive (scan of the CD booklet): https://archive.org/details/cd_intuition_lenny-tristanowarne-marsh-lennie-tristano

 

This album is a reedition of several sessions:

- Warne Marsh (leader) sessions in October 1956, originally issued on LPs (two different versions, in fact)

- Lennie Tristano (leader) sessions in March and May 1949, originally issued as 78s (see here, for example: https://www.discogs.com/The-Lennie-Tristano-Sextette-Wow-Crosscurrent/release/4312593)

 

The CD provides all the information (on the back, it actually omits the year for the Tristano sessions, but this is indicated elswhere in the booklet):

 

 

 

The Qobuz credits do not provide any dates, and on the Warne Marsh sessions they do not provide the full list of musicians:

 

 

Whereas on the Lennie Tristano dates they do (but still no recording dates):

 

 

On Spotify, however, none of the tracks contain the full credits:

 

 

 

What was the process involved in all this ? I have no idea. Did someone at Blue Note Records enter this information in file tags by looking them up on the CD ? Did they already have some kind of database ? Is the information communicated to Qobuz differently than Spotify, or is that Spotify chose not to include everything ?  Who knows.