The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is the current way to distribute music and get paid?
Old 23rd January 2020 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgood ➡️
but, the reality of it is is that most music sucks and nobody wants to listen to it, let alone buy it. .
I don't think that. I find lots of really good new music to get into that is made by new artists. I probably discovered more new genres of electronic music in last 10 years than I did ever before. I think the bigger issue is, why would I buy their CD when I can just give my money to Spotify and go "all you can eat" buffet style.

The only music I actually buy is catalog releases by major record labels because I am a) old and b) an idiot and c) I get my thrills from buying again something I already own, or owned long time ago, but this time it comes in a fancy packaging and maybe has been re-mastered a little better.
Old 23rd January 2020 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digiplex ➡️


"But I never heard of Nine Inch Nails before"..
Old 23rd January 2020 | Show parent
  #33
Deleted 38a4a95
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgood ➡️
the reality of it is is that most music sucks and nobody wants to listen to it, let alone buy it.
absolutely.
People claim that 90% of everything is crap but thats a lie, 99.998% is crap.
That would not be that much of a problem if it wasn't that there is much to much stuff in the first place.

To paraphrase Stanislav Lem and what he wrote in the 60s about scientific papers:

No one is listening to anything anymore, and if they do, they don't care, and if they care, they forget about it immeditately.

We have too much stuff, not just way too much crap but even too much good things to care about. It's the information explosion.

So thats why there is no money in music, and that's justified, but mind that, as Bruce Sterling put it:

What ever happens to musicians will happen to anybody.

It's a general problem.
Old 23rd January 2020 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by memristor ➡️
absolutely.
People claim that 90% of everything is crap but thats a lie, 99.998% is crap.
That would not be that much of a problem if it wasn't that there is much to much stuff in the first place.

To paraphrase Stanislav Lem and what he wrote in the 60s about scientific papers:

No one is listening to anything anymore, and if they do, they don't care, and if they care, they forget about it immeditately.

We have too much stuff, not just way too much crap but even too much good things to care about. It's the information explosion.

So thats why there is no money in music, and that's justified, but mind that, as Bruce Sterling put it:

What ever happens to musicians will happen to anybody.

It's a general problem.
I dunno... maybe

But, we sure have a lot of Taylor Swift and Kanye stuff, too... way too much

I don’t turn on the radio very often anymore and find myself saying “that’s amazing!” And making a note to research that artist’s catalog. Pop, rock, country... even jazz. But, maybe radio isn’t the way to “discover” anymore... I’m pretty sure SoundCloud isn’t. I guess I’ll have to explore Spotify as that’s all anyone seems to listen to anymore... at least almost everyone I know (including my kids, ages 12-23). That and Alexa music deal from google
Old 23rd January 2020
  #35
Deleted 38a4a95
Guest
there is great stuff on Soundcloud, but to find it you have to wade through 99.98% crap
And after that you are tired and not open for it, ans also, you know that you only have discovered a fraction of it so there might be better things youll never discover.

forgot the link to Bruce Sterlings essay
https://networkcultures.org/mycreati...ruce-sterling/
Old 23rd January 2020 | Show parent
  #36
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgood ➡️
I dunno... maybe

But, we sure have a lot of Taylor Swift and Kanye stuff, too... way too much

I don’t turn on the radio very often anymore and find myself saying “that’s amazing!” And making a note to research that artist’s catalog. Pop, rock, country... even jazz. But, maybe radio isn’t the way to “discover” anymore... I’m pretty sure SoundCloud isn’t. I guess I’ll have to explore Spotify as that’s all anyone seems to listen to anymore... at least almost everyone I know (including my kids, ages 12-23). That and Alexa music deal from google
First of all. no one tells you to tune in to pop or hip hop. if you don't like it, tune into other music like Brandi Carlile or people like that. They are the new artists that are sort of carrying the lyrical Dylan torch and they are pretty good at it.

Secondly, Kanye made quite a few damn good records. I am not saying everything he touches is gold and I do think he's splattered a little too much in the media, but there is no denying it, those first three records released 15+ years ago, from 2004, 2005, 2007, were killer stabs at the very accessible popular oriented hip-hop genre. He didn't just get lucky.
Old 23rd January 2020 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgood ➡️
I dunno... maybe

But, we sure have a lot of Taylor Swift and Kanye stuff, too... way too much

I don’t turn on the radio very often anymore and find myself saying “that’s amazing!” And making a note to research that artist’s catalog. Pop, rock, country... even jazz. But, maybe radio isn’t the way to “discover” anymore... I’m pretty sure SoundCloud isn’t. I guess I’ll have to explore Spotify as that’s all anyone seems to listen to anymore... at least almost everyone I know (including my kids, ages 12-23). That and Alexa music deal from google
I agree. I've found more music I liked just from people posting on this site.
Old 23rd January 2020 | Show parent
  #38
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digiplex ➡️
So history about payola isn’t correct?
Yes and no.

You can’t just arrange a meeting at Apple, dump a pile of cash on the table and bang your artist is front page.

If you’re a major label, there’s people who’s job is to maintain relationships with the likes of Apple, Spotify etc and then you have the opportunity (that others won’t have) to promote your artist to them, just like they do with radio.

But you still can’t buy a placement - enough major label records fail to prove that!
Old 24th January 2020 | Show parent
  #39
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by breakinrecords ➡️
There is virtually no money left in music distribution. Streaming pays next to nothing. It’s been that way for some years.

Again, the music is pretty much for promotional purposes, only, with the exception of sync.
Yeah, I just wonder why this is acceptable to recording artists and why we just let this happen.

As far as I am concerned, the record is the product. Live performances are not nearly as enjoyable to me personally as a music consumer as a recording of the band. I would rather be given a vinyl of a band’s music I like than a ticket to see their show. A record I can listen to basically indefinitely and unlike seeing a band live, I’ll actually be able to discern most of the lyrics the singer is singing and hear the instruments clearly and can listen at any volume at any time I please. Records have infinitely more utility and value than the experience of a live performance.

The record IS the product, not some promotional gimmick. It’s unbelievable that a whole entire segment of art and artists willingly acquiesced to the idea that their product has no value.

It’s especially absurd thinking about that on a forum like GS where the amount of money invested to build the facilities and buy the equipment to make this art is known to everyone. It costs >$1000 to buy a single top of the line preamp and yet the recording engineers of the world seem to have agreed to the proposition that we don’t deserve/shouldn’t receive any return on our investment and should give away what we produce for free.

It’s mind-blowing that so many in the profession seem to have accepted this.

MM
Old 24th January 2020
  #40
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I agree with you, something is wrong.

The major labels are only giving the music to Spotify because they hold parts of the company and get paid from the Spotify adverts and Spotify subscription buyers, too.

The musicians are screwed.
Old 24th January 2020
  #41
Gear Maniac
 
tedannemann's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by piano ➡️
What is the current way to distribute music and get paid?

Are CD's officially done?

I don't understand how in 2020 we STILL do not have a way of selling music and keeping if from getting copied. It's fairly difficult to copy a piece of software now.
Same way it's always been. Only in partnership with an established major label - everything else is a gimmick. Apple Music has 45 million songs in their catalog, Spotify has 30 million (status 2020). How the hell do you want to stand out from this unmanageable noise on your own? This is only possible with partnerships.

CDs? Excuse, how old are you? I'm an old bag and bought my last CD in 2009. My computers, my car, my home cinema have not had a drive for many years. My godchild doesn't even know what a CD is anymore. You should look around in the real world and see how music is consumed today.

The game is the same, but the medium and distribution have changed.


And the US are even behind in comparison to European countries for example where sales are even lower...
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by breakinrecords ➡️
There is virtually no money left in music distribution. Streaming pays next to nothing. It’s been that way for some years.

Again, the music is pretty much for promotional purposes, only, with the exception of sync.
The most successful "real" musician[1] I know is this chick I grew up with in high school. She does the world music & culture circuit with her band and does those outdoor music venues all around the major cities. Over priced vegan food samples, over priced clothing imported from 3rd world countries. that kind of venue. They release CD's that sell at concerts and plays live all summer long. Last time I spoke to her, she made $1000 in 10 years from streaming from all combined or something like that. They make way WAY more from selling CD and playing live. Her day job is marketing communications.

[1] everyone else is a failed wanna be musician that was in a band at some point in their 20s and now way over the hill but still holding onto lotto pipe dreams that they will make a masterpiece in their 50s.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tedannemann ➡️
CDs? Excuse, how old are you? I'm an old bag and bought my last CD in 2009. My computers, my car, my home cinema have not had a drive for many years. My godchild doesn't even know what a CD is anymore. You should look around in the real world and see how music is consumed today.
Yup. This!! ^^ last time i bought CD's was Disney CDs for my kids when they were toddlers.

Mind you, I do go and buy the CD at a concert if its an artist I really care about and know the money is going directly into their pocket and know the money is contributing towards them making more music and touring in future. But also, those guys are smart. The CD they sell at the concert is not their music you will find on Spotify. ;-)
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #44
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by frans ➡️
In the light of musicians being dishonest and using stolen software while wanting to get paid
Sad that this myth is being repeated, twice in this thread.
Most 'stolen software' was kids - who knows if any of them went on to become musicians wishing to be paid.
It's one of those blaming the victims games isn't it?
people feel bad about stealing something, so blame it on 'professional' musicians.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss ➡️
Yeah, I just wonder why this is acceptable to recording artists and why we just let this happen.

As far as I am concerned, the record is the product. Live performances are not nearly as enjoyable to me personally as a music consumer as a recording of the band. I would rather be given a vinyl of a band’s music I like than a ticket to see their show.
You're right.
Although both are viable products. It's like cinema versus Broadway theatre.

As I see it, the most commercial artists struggle for a short period while hoping to get noticed, then after signing with a major label they ARE earning very good money. Stormzy, Eillish, Sheeran - they are all making big bucks.

The majority, who want to make good music but don't want to be pop stars are earning very, very little.
I have discussed this with numerous people, both young and old/experienced, both band musicians and music industry insiders.
None of them are earning very much.
This is the change - in the 80's even some quite niche artists were earning enough to live, buy an apartment.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
.
in the 80's even some quite niche artists were earning enough to live, buy an apartment.
The 80s were a very very long fuggin time ago. Different world. Different society. Different planet.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #47
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
The 80s were a very very long fuggin time ago. Different world. Different society. Different planet.
Sure, but that doesn't necessitate going backwards does it.
TV and Film saw the writing on the wall, didn't allow all tv and film ever made to be freely shared. So the comparison is stark.
Spotify - all the music you ever want, free.
No investment in new content.
Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime....
Subscription fee, content restricted to what streaming services are willing to show. Netflix, Apple and Amazon investing in new content with huge budgets.

Film makers and actors are being paid, just like they always were.
Musicians = not!
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #48
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
As to the original question.....

Digital distributor (to streaming services), a digital download service like Bandcamp or Music Glue, limited edition vinyl.
Merchandise - like t-shirts and mugs.

In a crowded scene it's hard to earn much even when employing all the above.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #49
Gear Addict
 
Digiplex's Avatar
 
I don’t think anyone watched my video.
He earned 65 million last year and distribution was on tik tok initially till he got signed.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #50
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digiplex ➡️
I don’t think anyone watched my video.
He earned 65 million last year and distribution was on tik tok initially till he got signed.

Didn't need to. That was an absolute phenom. I'm sure thousands of other people are trying the same route.
There are always exceptions.
Tik-Tok has made a huge success out of military units for example.

It doesn't replace a system like Netflix and Amazon Prime who have invested in creative people to the tune of millions.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #51
Gear Addict
 
Digiplex's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Didn't need to. That was an absolute phenom. I'm sure thousands of other people are trying the same route.
There are always exceptions.
Tik-Tok has made a huge success out of military units for example.

It doesn't replace a system like Netflix and Amazon Prime who have invested in creative people to the tune of millions.
So what does video streaming services like Netflix have to do with selling cds? I don’t see your point.
There’s millions of cds online without some kind of marketing your music will be lost. Little Nas used social media and was very successful.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #52
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digiplex ➡️
So what does video streaming services like Netflix have to do with selling cds? I don’t see your point.
There’s millions of cds online without some kind of marketing your music will be lost. Little Nas used social media and was very successful.
Because by selling music you are competing with free.
Making film & tv you are not competing with free.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #53
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digiplex ➡️
Little Nas used social media and was very successful.
Everyone is using social media.
You don’t think some other savvy, well funded artist isn’t throwing everything at social media and not making 65million?
I can assure you they are.
Social media is NOT the answer.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Sure, but that doesn't necessitate going backwards does it.
TV and Film saw the writing on the wall, didn't allow all tv and film ever made to be freely shared. So the comparison is stark.
Spotify - all the music you ever want, free.
No investment in new content.
Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime....
Subscription fee, content restricted to what streaming services are willing to show. Netflix, Apple and Amazon investing in new content with huge budgets.

Film makers and actors are being paid, just like they always were.
Musicians = not!
re: Spotify. its not free. Sure you can use the free option. But most people buy a sub because they get sucked in by the model. They suck you in because of the price point and convenience. The same as Netflix model. (Except there is no free option for NetFlx). But you are basically getting sucked in because of the convenience. A lot more convenient than managing CD's or MP3 file libraries or Apple iTunes libraries.

RE: film. I think its because the data files are larger. But as computing tech advances that industry will get hit with the same mallet. Once you have a computer that can convert and download a 50g to 100gb gb file within what is considered a reasonable timeframe for an average human.

Re: music and payment. Most musicians are not getting paid (a very small top ones make money) because all the revenue is being sucked up further up the chain. There are two schools of thought about that. One is, the money is in the licensing and ownership of rights. The corps, aka labels et la basically take your ownership and money in exchange for you getting exposure. You can't get exposure unless you go through the corps. They control the siphon to the audience. Its the same catch 22 situation that existed before the Internet. You could not get exposure or make a decent record unless you got a record deal and advance with a major or indie label. They controlled the siphon to the audience.

The other school of thought is, the old music industry ran on a very fragile business model. Since the late 70s onwards, they were mostly in the business of re-selling people music they already owned but in a different format. Tapes, 8 tracks, singles, LPs, CDs... it worked well while they had complete control of the formats, but once they lost complete control of the format , the bottom fell out. They still tried to keep making the same amount of revenue as when they used to make when they did control the format. Hence the onslaught of the 360 deals and only a very select few top artists that could ever dream of negotiating anything out of the 360 deals.

re: new content on streamers like Spotify. Why should they when there are a gazillion of people willing to give it away for free in exchange for getting exposure to entice people to come out and see them live? Also, there was some research done that seems to indicate Spotify *might* be using technology to make music and artist in some genres. It got hush hushed.. but.. we shall see. Time will tell. I get very suspicious of curated lists that contain artist that seem to have hardly any history.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #55
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
You don’t think some other savvy, well funded artist isn’t throwing everything at social media and not making 65million?
There are actually some very smart and savvy Indie music artists that are using the Internet and social media to maintain their fan and community base very successfully. They aren't making Taylor Swift millions but they are using it the tools available to them very smartly. Mostly because they and their management team have a lot of experience building and maintaining fans before the Internet boom and post Internet boom.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #56
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
There are actually some very smart and savvy Indie music artists that are using the Internet and social media to maintain their fan and community base very successfully. They aren't making Taylor Swift millions but they are using it the tools available to them very smartly. Mostly because they and their management team have a lot of experience building and maintaining fans before the Internet boom and post Internet boom.
So you are contradicting yourself. In the previous post you said one needed a major label to get 'exposure', now you're saying savvy indie people can get plenty of exposure.

I disagree with your previous post.
Because of the small file size, the music industry was first in the sights of the free sharing demographic.
Where the music industry went wrong was to let streaming companies have everything and give it away free.
I think you'll find statistically that 3/4 of Spotify users are on the free version, which is why Spotify has never made a profit.
The film & tv industries looked on, took note, and didn't let that happen.
They partnered with the streamers, like Netflix.
All the tv and film streamers are gatekeepers. You can't watch every film or every tv show ever made, and you have to pay to even get onto the service.
hence there is no money in the music industry, and multi-million dollar budgets in film & tv (still).

In any case, as has been said ever since Napster - exposure means absolutely nada if there is no key to be made from it.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
So you are contradicting yourself. In the previous post you said one needed a major label to get 'exposure', now you're saying savvy indie people can get plenty of exposure.

I disagree with your previous post.
Because of the small file size, the music industry was first in the sights of the free sharing demographic.
Where the music industry went wrong was to let streaming companies have everything and give it away free.
I think you'll find statistically that 3/4 of Spotify users are on the free version, which is why Spotify has never made a profit.
The film & tv industries looked on, took note, and didn't let that happen.
They partnered with the streamers, like Netflix.
All the tv and film streamers are gatekeepers. You can't watch every film or every tv show ever made, and you have to pay to even get onto the service.
hence there is no money in the music industry, and multi-million dollar budgets in film & tv (still).

In any case, as has been said ever since Napster - exposure means absolutely nada if there is no key to be made from it.
I think you misinterpreted my post or I wrongly worded it. I meant to write, the reason you don't make money from streaming is you sign off all your rights to a corp entity. it doesn't have to be a major label. Even if you scramble to get a track on a popular youtube playlist of a particular genre (trust me, you get 1000% increase in streams if you get on one of them), the owner of the playlist does not pay you back one cent. They keep all the income and you get your little dinky spotify income which you can't collect until you have made a certain amount that is quite hard to reach.

The music industry didn't let the steamers have their way. They tried and there were lots and lots of failed attempts. The streams took it because they were able to figure out how to make it work because all the streams have to focus on is the technology. That's their entire business. Music companies deal (or dealt!) with CD manufacturing, promotion, artist management, publishing, all sorts of stuff. They didn't specialize in just tech like a small agile start up. The other problem they had going for them is during the upheaval of the 90s and 00s, there was mass media consolidation -- traditional music companies were in the midst of massive internal shake ups and restructuring . It's kind of hard to get a brand now product off the ground in a brand new market off the ground when new corp owners are closing offices and laying off 80% staff and everyone is stressed about lay off.
Old 25th January 2020 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️

The music industry didn't let the steamers have their way.
Actually they did, because just as artists and musicians were fighting back, all the major labels did a quiet deal with Spotify giving them everything they wanted in return for equity.

Quote:
It's kind of hard to get a brand now product off the ground in a brand new market off the ground when new corp owners are closing offices and laying off 80% staff and everyone is stressed about lay off.
Film & tv have gone through the exact same transition, and yet film makers and actors are being paid good money by the new streamers (Netflix, Apple TV and Amazon Prime).

I don't know how you can see it any other way....
Spotify is allowing free access to every record ever made and not investing one cent into new music or musicians.
That is NOT happening in film & tv.
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Actually they did, because just as artists and musicians were fighting back, all the major labels did a quiet deal with Spotify giving them everything they wanted in return for equity.



Film & tv have gone through the exact same transition, and yet film makers and actors are being paid good money by the new streamers (Netflix, Apple TV and Amazon Prime).

I don't know how you can see it any other way....
Spotify is allowing free access to every record ever made and not investing one cent into new music or musicians.
That is NOT happening in film & tv.
by the time spotify google and amazon came on the scene, the internet battle was already long lost by the majors. recall the many disasters that were realmedia, rhapsody, emi online, ...
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
I think you'll find statistically that 3/4 of Spotify users are on the free version, which is why Spotify has never made a profit.
Spotify has over 4000 employes.
2018 had 5.2 billion euro sales.

Don't fall into the "no win" argument.

Companies do all kind of tricks to move around money to have "no" win and pay no tax.

For example Spotify signed a 500 million dollar office space contract at ground zero.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...-trade-center/


Think again about "no win"
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump