The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is the current way to distribute music and get paid?
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #61
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaugruen7 ➡️

Think again about "no win"
My point remains......
Netflix and Apple TV - spending big budgets on original content (therefore paying actors, camerapersons, directors).
Spotify and iTunes - not funding any new music content.
Old 26th January 2020
  #62
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I agree totally.

Btw the founders of Spotify come out of the file sharing community.... No joke
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #63
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaugruen7 ➡️
I agree totally.

Btw the founders of Spotify come out of the file sharing community.... No joke
I'm not really sure what you're expressing - I'm guessing you're saying that there's a form of underhand-ness because of your image of someone from the "file sharing community" ?

Well... did you know bridges are designed by engineers? Is that surprising too or part of a conspiracy ?

Do you know how Spotify worked as a start-up? With peer-to-peer technology. It would not have existed without this at the beginning and therefore no streaming services would really have taken off without it.

So yes! *unsuprisingly* Spotify was founded by the software engineers who already had experience in the software/hardware techniques that were required for it to happen.. Duh.

They were entrepreneurs who commercialised their knowledge to create a service that the public were crying out for.. that's why it is so damn popular - the people want it.

Arguably, seeing the massive piracy taking place, Spotify was a way to get musicians back in to the fold - you have no idea of the moral leanings of those who started Spotify, everything you think about them is nothing more than seeing your reflection in the mirror.

.. but hey, the major labels maybe sold out their artists for their own monetary reasons... as they always have done.
Old 26th January 2020
  #64
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
what i was saying was that the spotiy founders were into file sharing before spotify.

whatever.

everything has plus and minuses.
as a unkown musician i am happy that spotify exists and it is supereasy for people worldwide hear my music.

unkown musicians have never made a lot of money with selling music
Old 26th January 2020
  #65
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
I was confused by the part where you said "no joke!" .

Yes of course, those who started a file-sharing company that shared music files - that's what streaming is - was started by people who had experience in the engineering behind sharing files.

Your "no joke" comment implies you think this means a lot more than simply that they're engineers in the field...

It would be surprising if Spotify was started by people in the music industry to be honest - they're normally tech-clueless, and like any massive business, they just want to keep their old ways going for ever ( a bit like the oil industry and climate change).
Old 26th January 2020
  #66
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
so the questions remains:

how can you be a muscian and stay happy.

everybody might answer this different
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #67
Gear Addict
 
Digiplex's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaugruen7 ➡️
so the questions remains:

how can you be a muscian and stay happy.

everybody might answer this different
Shlepping gear to a hole in the wall for about a Benjamin. That’s the goal and hanging out with all the um granny’s that dance at your gigs.
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #68
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808 ➡️
I'm not really sure what you're expressing - I'm guessing you're saying that there's a form of underhand-ness because of your image of someone from the "file sharing community" ?

Well... did you know bridges are designed by engineers? Is that surprising too or part of a conspiracy ?

Do you know how Spotify worked as a start-up? With peer-to-peer technology. It would not have existed without this at the beginning and therefore no streaming services would really have taken off without it.

So yes! *unsuprisingly* Spotify was founded by the software engineers who already had experience in the software/hardware techniques that were required for it to happen.. Duh.

They were entrepreneurs who commercialised their knowledge to create a service that the public were crying out for.. that's why it is so damn popular - the people want it.

Arguably, seeing the massive piracy taking place, Spotify was a way to get musicians back in to the fold - you have no idea of the moral leanings of those who started Spotify, everything you think about them is nothing more than seeing your reflection in the mirror.

.. but hey, the major labels maybe sold out their artists for their own monetary reasons... as they always have done.
Major labels or indie labels did not sell out their artists. Spotify and their technology is a seprate history from what happened to the music industry.

As clearly mentioned, the music industry changed because consumer technology enabled music entertainment to become a value less commodity. The labels had to deal with a major shift in how they did business.

Spotify became what it is thats to ints location. Swedish government did major invenstment in Internet technology in that country to make Internet accssible to everyone, this investment allowed many entrepreneurs to get a foot hold and head start in Internet based file sharing tech innovation. Spotify is a success becuause of Swedish gov investment in Internet infra and also because of the timeing of how the bottom fell out from under the music labels. Bottom line is, Spotify allows access to music on a level never before done. Its offered (for now) free or at a insignificant price point becuase the rights holders keep and collect peanuts in money. Aritst get very little i any of that. Compared to what traditional radio pays to rights holders to play music, Spotify is peanuts.
Old 26th January 2020
  #69
Deleted 38a4a95
Guest
Personally I am not even very interested in getting really paid for my music.
What I am interested in in the first place is to get the music across to those people who might apreciate listening to it.
And it seems that even that is becoming more and more difficult nowadays.

I used to be on an other forum where I got 10-100 times the plays I get from here, though hardly any buys, and eventually I quit for several other reasons.

I was expecting that some of the people listening to the music and leaving comments and likes etc on a regular basis would follow and keep track - but it turned out there are only five or so who did.

For the others it was already to much of an obstacle or too much effort to actively follow my music.

And on that forum I also observed a phenomenon that can also be observed here:
when you post "random accidential gear test" you easily get 300 or 600 plays.
But when you post "serious try at music" an GS now you may only get 2or 3 plays..

That makes me wonder if I should get more music on spotify but that means that in the end I would possibly pay to make more people listening again.
And that's something I still refuse to do.
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #70
Gear Addict
 
Digiplex's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by memristor ➡️
Personally I am not even very interested in getting really paid for my music.
What I am interested in in the first place is to get the music across to those people who might apreciate listening to it.
And it seems that even that is becoming more and more difficult nowadays.

I used to be on an other forum where I got 10-100 times the plays I get from here, though hardly any buys, and eventually I quit for several other reasons.

I was expecting that some of the people listening to the music and leaving comments and likes etc on a regular basis would follow and keep track - but it turned out there are only five or so who did.

For the others it was already to much of an obstacle or too much effort to actively follow my music.

And on that forum I also observed a phenomenon that can also be observed here:
when you post "random accidential gear test" you easily get 300 or 600 plays.
But when you post "serious try at music" an GS now you may only get 2or 3 plays..

That makes me wonder if I should get more music on spotify but that means that in the end I would possibly pay to make more people listening again.
And that's something I still refuse to do.
If I can make 10x more doing something why would I pick the low paying option? Go ahead and do Spotify or whatever but reality is regular radio pays a lot more.
Having a cd table at your shows pays even more than any other method. Heck if they also paid a cover then it’s almost a given that they would buy a cd or T-shirt too.
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #71
Lives for gear
 
BIG BUDDHA's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➡️

Plus of course - you'd have to educate a whole generation into the idea music is no longer free....
a while back i started a thread, asking people how much money they had spent in their entire lives, on recorded audio product.

meaning Vinyl, CDs, Cassettes, MP3s, I-Tunes, streaming, whatever.....

no one wanted to post ???????

i estimated and admitted, that i had spent between 30 and 40k, during my life on final product.

i was trying to make the point to the younger generation, that music has not always been free, and that the expectation that music costs nothing, has destroyed the revenue stream for artists, and has also decimated the genuine recording industry.

i was around in the hey day of big studios (80s and 90s) and i have watched it all fold. i have seen hundreds of studios gone down. i know personally many very good engineers who have switched jobs, and do other things to stay alive.

this Free music concept, has a real cost, for those of us that actually create the product that people are so happily listening to.

Buddha
Old 26th January 2020 | Show parent
  #72
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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!
This really is everything. The record labels allowed every record ever made to be freely shared with the world. TV and Film have not allowed this and so have remained profitable. Netflix may be relatively inexpensive, but there is NO freemium version of Netflix, while the majority of Spotify users do not pay for a subscription and stream everything without contributing a cent.

Furthermore, the fact that Spotify and other streaming services INVEST NOTHING into the creation of new content is another huge difference from the past and also makes the current model arguably worse.

Yeah sure, in the old days record labels still got the lion's share of the profits of record sales and frequently screwed over artists in their contracts. BUT, they still at least financed the making of the records in the first place! Labels put tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of dollars into recording budgets, which allowed for many uncompromising masterpieces to be recorded over the decades.

Now artists finance their own record production (which is usually of low to mediocre quality because they have no budgets), then without a moment of contemplation turn and give the product away for free to Spotify, who does not reimburse them for their hard work or investment other than with the vague (and usually unmet) promise of 'exposure'.

This is a scam and the only faction I see who has the power to stop it is the artist's themselves by ending the insanity of giving their work away for free to a service that does not actively work to promote their music, pays virtually NOTHING to 99.9% of artists and doesn't pay anything proportional in value to the 0.1% of artist's whose works do 'blow up' and reach tens of millions/hundreds of millions/billions of plays.

Artists need to be educated to why this system is unfair, unreasonable, and unnecessary.


MM
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #73
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808 ➡️
Arguably, seeing the massive piracy taking place, Spotify was a way to get musicians back in to the fold - you have no idea of the moral leanings of those who started Spotify, everything you think about them is nothing more than seeing your reflection in the mirror.
Wow, so one sided.
Spotify initially used pirated content to get started. The creators of Spotify did it to make money - simple as that. They did NOT do it to help musicians, they have fought artists and musicians every step of the way.
Of course people want free music. they want free movies and tv too, but those industries have fought harder to retain their rights, harder than the music industry did.
Spotify is a reality, so we have all moved on, but let's not rewrite history.
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #74
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
Major labels or indie labels did not sell out their artists.
You are flat out wrong - sorry.Let's not try to rewrite history.
Quote:
The major record labels – and the bigger indies – that I spoke to seemed unusually positive about Spotify, which made me think that they must have received a pretty hefty payment and/or equity in the company. Sure enough, the other week some of my suspicions were confirmed when it was reported that the majors received 18% of Spotify shares.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/mu...labels-spotify
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #75
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss ➡️
The record labels allowed every record ever made to be freely shared with the world.
As mentioned multiple times. Its not "freely shared". The well known and documented achillies heel in the spotify business model in the licensing costs associated with it. In order for them to stay in business, they have ot license everything, even stuff that is obscure and isn't listened to very much. Because if you can't find your obscure record by so and so at any particular time you feel like listing to it, you will bitch and complain thats it's not a very good service anymore and they only have top 40 stuff. Rights and licencing is where the money is and labels are getting paid for licencing. Its a very very complicated part of music industry. Labels tend to keep almost all of whatever comes in from that revenue stream. Only top artist get some back from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by memristor ➡️
Personally I am not even very interested in getting really paid for my music.
What I am interested in in the first place is to get the music across to those people who might apreciate listening to it.
And it seems that even that is becoming more and more difficult nowadays.
The bigger question is, now that we have accepted that there is much less (or even no money!) is making music as the "new normal", is the entire art of music going to degrade and we are to accept that as the "new normal" is lower quality music because there isn't much money in it for the great creators?

If you look throughout history, great artists created their great works by being supported by rich benefactors. Meaning, great artists need money to live in order to devote their lives to creation of great works of art. It didn't just get created magically in a cave in the middle of nowhere.

In music terms, now that the new normal is, less money and less professionals and professional equipment -- is that all gong to trickle down into the lesser quality music? Are the days of things like Beatles or Pink Floyd or Def Deppard or U2 type artists spending years and fortunes in expensive studios making great music release coming to an end because there will be no more Abbey Road type studios with highly experienced people working there with artists that have the financial freedom to devote all their time to making that great release at an end?

There is only so much you can away with in a home brew guessing game of " let me see how far i can get with a low budget and can i get lucky while still having to juggle working my day job"?
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #76
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
The other problem you have with the idea that Spotify should invest in creating their own content is, they would only created content that back be backed up with numbers. So they would only invest in making top streaming top charting top 40 music. Indie labels specialize in genres. It would be like the old days on the major labels except highly concentrated and super charged to the extreme to streaming music genres. There would be no room for really weird out there music in that scenario.
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #77
Lives for snowflakes
 
12ax7's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The best way to distribute music and get paid is to specialize in distributing music (not writing or performing it).

It is much the same as what has happened to agriculture.
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #78
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
You are flat out wrong - sorry.Let's not try to rewrite history.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/mu...labels-spotify
You linked to a 11 year old article. You are not going to get very far in life in the extremely fast paced and changing online media world by using 11 year old data. Its obsolete.

I think the more relevant info is here:

"So far this year Spotify has spent more than $300m buying three podcast firms: the true crime podcast maker Parcast; Gimlet, the firm behind Homecoming, which was made into an Amazon TV series starring Julia Roberts; and the podcast platform Anchor. Spotify says it plans to spend up to $500m in total this year outside music streaming.

The company’s founder, Daniel Ek, believes that in the future up to 20% of all listening on the service will be non-music content. It is also a strategy to help move away from the dependence on music licensing deals, which are low-margin with the majority of revenues paid out in royalties to music companies."

They are investing in "content' but not in music --the content that you want them to invest it. So, you got to ask yourself, what is it that they know about streaming revenue that you don't which is making them invest in podcasts and non-music entertainment? ;-)

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ming-us-canada
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #79
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
The other problem you have with the idea that Spotify should invest in creating their own content is, they would only created content that back be backed up with numbers. So they would only invest in making top streaming top charting top 40 music. Indie labels specialize in genres. It would be like the old days on the major labels except highly concentrated and super charged to the extreme to streaming music genres. There would be no room for really weird out there music in that scenario.
At which point in history has the freaked out stuff generated some steady income?
Old 27th January 2020 | Show parent
  #80
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaugruen7 ➡️
so the questions remains:

how can you be a muscian and stay happy.

everybody might answer this different
Enjoy playing and making music... ?
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #81
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Wow, so one sided.
Spotify initially used pirated content to get started. The creators of Spotify did it to make money - simple as that. They did NOT do it to help musicians, they have fought artists and musicians every step of the way.
Of course people want free music. they want free movies and tv too, but those industries have fought harder to retain their rights, harder than the music industry did.
Spotify is a reality, so we have all moved on, but let's not rewrite history.

Sorry to be blunt, but your comprehension needs improving.

My first word was "Arguably". That means it is not necessarily the absolute truth, nor is it necessarily my view (I don't really have a view as I haven't done extensive research into it - have you?) but that there is a good argument for it. So.. no, it's not one sided at all - it's just that you have chosen to read it that way.

The creators of any business do so to make money. Duh.. That's a truism that doesn't support any particular stance here.

To get Spotify or any streaming service off the ground is a chicken/egg situation. You can't have a working model without the content. You can't get backing without some kind of proof of business model and demand. You can't get the rights-holders of 90% of popular music (major labels) involved unless they come up with the idea and control everything - pretty much damning any new technology to die a death, unless it's a new physical format to repackage and resell the same old same old. Their monopoly is a massive hurdle to overcome for any music distribution business. Playing their game gets you taken over by them or destroyed.

So yes, I guess they hit a wall and pushing ahead first with their company without rightsholders on board had to be done, else it would never have happened.

Again, your take on their actions is bathed in bias.. not necessarily factual at all. It could be factual.. but you'd have to get the founders to admit it, before you have evidence of it being true. You are trying to write your own version of history here..

Arguably (note "arguably" - as it has been argued and also backed by research) free distribution models lead to higher real sales in the film industry, driving interest in film as a whole, people going to the cinema more and people buying more Blu-rays / DVDs. Those consuming more film because they're finding it for free, also spend MORE than the average consumer on film / cinema - that's what many many accademic studies have found. Strangly, all the industry studies somehow report that money is being lost ... (because they count sale losses that never would have happened anyway) and they make a lot of noise about it.

Personally, I feel interest in music is booming, from major artists to obscure artists - especially with obscure artists because now their work can actually be found and found by people world-wide, thanks to both the free and the DIY distribution models that are now available.
Somewhere in the middle, people are probably finding it hard to make money though, granted, compared to when independent labels had more of a role and captive audience. That captive audience has been lost via technology.
When there's so much more music to find and absorb AND all the social media stuff taking up people's time, that's not really surprising is it..

... so, one has to find different ways to make a living in the music industry, one that that works with current culture/technology, rather than how it used to work. Hence this thread.
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #82
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
Major labels or indie labels did not sell out their artists. Spotify and their technology is a seprate history from what happened to the music industry.

As clearly mentioned, the music industry changed because consumer technology enabled music entertainment to become a value less commodity. The labels had to deal with a major shift in how they did business.

Spotify became what it is thats to ints location. Swedish government did major invenstment in Internet technology in that country to make Internet accssible to everyone, this investment allowed many entrepreneurs to get a foot hold and head start in Internet based file sharing tech innovation. Spotify is a success becuause of Swedish gov investment in Internet infra and also because of the timeing of how the bottom fell out from under the music labels. Bottom line is, Spotify allows access to music on a level never before done. Its offered (for now) free or at a insignificant price point becuase the rights holders keep and collect peanuts in money. Aritst get very little i any of that. Compared to what traditional radio pays to rights holders to play music, Spotify is peanuts.
It is good to remember, as you say, that it's "rights holders" getting to say in what happens to the artist's music. The artists get next to nothing and have no say at all in how their music is distributed.

This is what I mean by the labels or rights holders selling out their artists - they do things for their own gain, not for their artist's gain - not all, but those who have a big role in shaping things.

Interestingly, if you read op-eds in music making magazines or hifi magazines in the early 80s, they were warning that the CD would lead to music being a value-less commodity... perhaps it's a recurring fear? Or was it true and it all went downhill because of the CD?
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #83
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808 ➡️
Or was it true and it all went downhill because of the CD?
Depends what are you defining as it's all went downhill?

Under the old system and old technology in the 80s to 90s you had next to zero chance of getting your music made or heard by anyone. Today, you can make it at home, upload it and send a link and anyone can hear it. I consider that progress that technology enabled.

Under the old system there weren't people and companies clamoring with cheques to throw at anybody. The same rules applied then as they do today. Most acts lost money. Very few made a profit or made it. It was a crap shoot. The question is, is it more of a crap shoot today than it was back then.

I think a great musical artist that has something important and relevant to say to a large music market has much better opportunities today than they would have had 30 years ago. Entities like Spotify or labels don't suppress great music artists. They enable them for their music to be spread wide and heard.
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #84
500 series nutjob
 
pan60's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
It was a crap shoot. The question is, is it more of a crap shoot today than it was back then.
if you have a product it realy boild down to the hustle and the work.
for the most part those that made it worked there buts off and hustle to get where they where going.

maybe more of a chalenge but i think it still aplies today.
work you back side off.

i know artist that have gone form nothing to making a good living based on what they where willing to put in.

if you are going to set hope and hope to make it of youetube or facebook i think you will still be setting home may years from now short of just getting very lucky. great product rite place rite time.

or somthing stupid that goes viral.
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #85
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaugruen7 ➡️
At which point in history has the freaked out stuff generated some steady income?
Zappa and Bowie spring to mind as obvious examples.

I don't really feel Spotify should invest in their own content in the same way that Netflix have - it'd pretty much make them into a major label on their own. Plus if you "signed" to spotify you then wouldn't be on iTunes/Apple Music/Amazon etc and so cut yourself off from a large proportion of the market, given that unlike Amazon/Stan/Disney, you don't have lots of non-overlapping content.

What I do think is that there should be a proper payment rate - and at this point, no "free" option. If you want free go to Youtube and suffer 10 ads for ever one song.
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #86
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➡️
Zappa and Bowie spring to mind as obvious examples.

I don't really feel Spotify should invest in their own content in the same way that Netflix have - it'd pretty much make them into a major label on their own. Plus if you "signed" to spotify you then wouldn't be on iTunes/Apple Music/Amazon etc and so cut yourself off from a large proportion of the market, given that unlike Amazon/Stan/Disney, you don't have lots of non-overlapping content.

What I do think is that there should be a proper payment rate - and at this point, no "free" option. If you want free go to Youtube and suffer 10 ads for ever one song.
Easier said than done. What is a "proper payment rate"? Artist at the top like Taylor Swift and co get one rate, and everyone else get's peanuts? Or the other way around because artists like her already generate a lot of revenue from live and other channels, so she should get peanuts and unknowns should get more? Never gonna happen.
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #87
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
Easier said than done. What is a "proper payment rate"? Artist at the top like Taylor Swift and co get one rate, and everyone else get's peanuts? Or the other way around because artists like her already generate a lot of revenue from live and other channels, so she should get peanuts and unknowns should get more? Never gonna happen.
I just mean the overall rate per stream needs to be higher.

One rate for everyone, just as it is now, but more.

And fewer streams should then = one sale, 'cos really who buys a single and listens to it 50 times....

I agree it's wishful thinking, but if streaming paid (say) 1c/stream, and thus your 50 streams roughly = one sale financially, you wouldn't have people complaining in the same way.
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Fay Smearing's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
The company’s founder, Daniel Ek, believes that in the future up to 20% of all listening on the service will be non-music content. It is also a strategy to help move away from the dependence on music licensing deals, which are low-margin with the majority of revenues paid out in royalties to music companies."
Even with the pittance paid per stream.

Once again, a demonstration of the model not working even when it pays next-to-nothing per song.

Evidently the plan is to find other content that people are still willing to pay for and that the creators of aren't willing to let out for free or so close to it that it might as well be, like audio books etc.
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #89
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➡️
Zappa and Bowie spring to mind as obvious examples.

.
I think this is a very interesting question.

Maybe it's be being an older f###, but I think the times have changed. My 17 years old son doesn't want to be as rebel and question everything. I believe that nowadays youth is more conservative.

Another point to this. The hero's of nowadays music university students here in town is a band called snarky puppy. In my student days it was the most hardcore free jazz bands.

This leaves less room for the "Zappa's and Bowie's"

Interesting topic. Times change. The kids must do the opposite of their parents
Old 28th January 2020 | Show parent
  #90
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
You linked to a 11 year old article. You are not going to get very far in life in the extremely fast paced and changing online media world by using 11 year old data.]
No because we were discussing a historical fact - about which you were wrong.
The labels DID pull the rug out from under artists and musicians, because while we were fighting the Spotify model, Spotify did a deal with the labels to provide very cheap content in exchange for an 18% share in Spotify.
The history is the history. You can’t incorrectly rewrite it and then when you are challenged claim it’s ‘old news’.
📝 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