The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is the current way to distribute music and get paid?
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1501
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by J R ➡️
As I said before I don't give a flying fork what spotify pays to the labels or what the labels pay to their artists.

The indie artists are not getting properly paid and Spotify should do something about it as it appears that more and more indie artists are unhappy with how it is.
https://www.billboard.com/index.php/...alleges-majors

Quote:
Originally Posted by the article above
The indie label rep goes on to allege that some major labels engage in digital streaming strategies that he believes are patently unfair. "Universal Music makes the per-stream rate as low as they possibly can so they have to give the artist very little money,” he claims.
This guy - who has seen the agreements with Spotify and was there as head of A2IM (now Merlin) when they were being drawn up - says the Majors deliberately pushed for low pay-out rates for artists.

Yes, read that again: "Universal Music makes the per-stream rate as low as they possibly can so they have to give the artist very little money,”.

But so many artists are lead by the Majors (who are effective voices in the music industry as a whole) to believe it's all Spotify's doing..
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1502
Lives for gear
 
IM WHO YOU THINK's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The majority of my childhood friends who made records in the 90s became millionaires from selling records. I don't understand this attitude of planning and expecting a mediocre living.

I consider that loser talk. Most started from indie record labels and we had limited access to major labels or markets.
Old 19th February 2021
  #1503
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
We are entertaining the idea that both Big Tech and the Major Labels could be mutually responsible for taking more than their fair share of the pot, with or without explicitly colluding, right? Shouldn't we start from the assumption that both parties seek to maximize their revenue (at least in the long term), and that musicians likely don't have a good enough understanding of the economics and law to make fully-informed decisions? There are so many information gaps from the top down that it's difficult to know how fair the current situation is, how efficient any of the involved parties are with their resources, and ultimately how the entire process could be streamlined for the benefit of the people who create the material upon which this whole system revolves.

Also, if Spotify isn't supposed to act like a label or directly help artists, as claimed earlier, how do they get away with - in their own words - a "program designed to identify and break the next wave of music superstars" when they "handpick four up-and-coming artists we believe in and spotlight their work through playlists, promotion, video, and events to tell the story behind each rising star"? https://artists.spotify.com/blog/wel...ming-musicians

And what about Spotify-curated playlists that make up 1/3 of monthly content hours? How do the Spotify generated "Personalized Playlists" work, and can we find that out? i.e., if I like jazz, is my personalized playlist more likely to recommend jazz that makes Spotify or a certain label more money? Is any part of their recommendation algorithm weighted towards making more revenue for a certain party?

Landing on one of these playlists can be huge for artists, as "A study conducted by the University of Minnesota and European Commission Joint Research Centre found that inclusion on Spotify’s “Today’s Top Hits” playlists, with around 26 million followers, increases streams by close to 20 million. In financial terms this is worth $116,000-$163,000 to an artist. Artists have even found themselves catapulted up the Billboard Hot 100 by virtue of inclusion on a playlist." This page has a lot of factual business info I haven't seen elsewhere: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/

Spotify makes that playlist. From a news release celebrating 25 million followers for 'Today's Top Hits' - "Since 2014, Spotify’s team of curators have analyzed our streaming data, as well as music culture and trends, to populate the playlist." What does it mean that they analyze 'music culture and trends'? Certainly no room for influence there, right? Later Spotify says, "Today’s Top Hits not only reflects the music culture of the zeitgeist, but also shapes it. The playlist has helped kickstart the careers of many artists, including: Arizona Zervas, Tones and I, and Ant Saunders..." So it seems as if Spotify does have some power to directly help artists if they are making the kind of decisions that can have a profound impact on an artist's career. https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-12...ion-followers/

But who really knows how all of this works? Isn't it likely there's obfuscation from Major Labels and Big Tech to the detriment of the musicians? Most artists don't have the money or lawyers of the other parties, and based on the musicians I've known and worked with for decades, they aren't as driven by or interested in business, money, and power as lawyers and tech bros are. This puts them at a disadvantage from the start of negotiations, but if the terms of the deals and innerworkings of this music distribution scheme were more transparent, perhaps musicians could make more informed decisions for the betterment of themselves and the entire marketplace.

Last edited by over-man; 19th February 2021 at 07:26 AM..
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1504
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by over-man ➡️
We are entertaining the idea that both Big Tech and the Major Labels could be mutually responsible for taking more than their fair share of the pot, with or without explicitly colluding, right? Shouldn't we start from the assumption that both parties seek to maximize their revenue (at least in the long term), and that musicians likely don't have a good enough understanding of the economics and law to make fully-informed decisions?
No. There are a lot of highly qualified musicians, including professors.
The case for fair income share has been made for well over ten years, but we have super powerful corporations grouped against us, and it was extremely easy for those corporations to mobilise millions of consumers against artists, by telling them we were 'millionaire rock stars' just partying all the time, and by claiming artists are trying to stop people from enjoying the music.
The condemnation of 'bullying' Facebook has been fairly universal over the last 24 hours. the fact an actual nation with a dem0cratically elected government can't negotiate a fair income for content creators tells you exactly why small organisations of musicians could not negotiate a fair deal.
The tech barons, whether it's Ek, Zuckerberg or Google, have had a free reign to do what they want for over ten years and now the world is waking up, their push back to any challenge is heavy handed and brutal - including shutting off vital healthcare information in the midst of a pandemic.
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1505
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by over-man ➡️
perhaps musicians could make more informed decisions for the betterment of themselves and the entire marketplace.
No because that is victim blaming.
The counter has already been posted here by the apologists - 'if you don't like the deals f**k off, take your music somewhere else'.
So the dominant music platforms have shown zero interest in negotiating (as we see in Australia). A lot of musicians are plenty well educated and business minded, but when a platform is allowed to become so powerful and so dominant, they just call your bluff all the time, telling you to take your music into the wilderness where none of your fans can find it.
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1506
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
So the dominant music platforms have shown zero interest in negotiating (as we see in Australia).
Huh? That is a demonstration of your bias. It has you seeing everything as part of the same over-arching battle between - as you see it - internet tech vs humanity.

The Facebook/news media thing is not related at all.

It's a strange position, because if you were to try to make it analogous to music used on platforms, it would be akin to Youtube removing music form it's platform after being forced to pay for whatever a user decides to upload. That is surely what the industry has been fighting for! That users cannot upload any music they like and it's filtered out..
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1507
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IM WHO YOU THINK ➡️
The majority of my childhood friends who made records in the 90s became millionaires from selling records. I don't understand this attitude of planning and expecting a mediocre living.

I consider that loser talk. Most started from indie record labels and we had limited access to major labels or markets.
There are lots of people who become millionaires during boom years of an industry. When the world changes, they're not so easily made. You can lament missed opportunities as much as you want, it doesn't bring those boom years back.
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1508
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
No. There are a lot of highly qualified musicians, including professors.
The case for fair income share has been made for well over ten years, but we have super powerful corporations grouped against us, and it was extremely easy for those corporations to mobilise millions of consumers against artists, by telling them we were 'millionaire rock stars' just partying all the time, and by claiming artists are trying to stop people from enjoying the music.
The condemnation of 'bullying' Facebook has been fairly universal over the last 24 hours. the fact an actual nation with a dem0cratically elected government can't negotiate a fair income for content creators tells you exactly why small organisations of musicians could not negotiate a fair deal.
The tech barons, whether it's Ek, Zuckerberg or Google, have had a free reign to do what they want for over ten years and now the world is waking up, their push back to any challenge is heavy handed and brutal - including shutting off vital healthcare information in the midst of a pandemic.
The filtering is automatic and related to a vague definition of what someone could charge or sue them for..

But someone with bias will of course frame it as a deliberate cynical act. It's not a surprise to find media orgnaisations with that bias or governments either, when they've always been so scared of big media moguls - see a quote today from Rudd saying exactly that. Politicians in many nations have a history of being completely out of touch with modern technolo g y, especially the internet.

Read interviews with Tim Berners Lee about this topic (facebook/news) calling out the law as unworkable and ignorant of the internet, whilst also advocating proper funding/compensation for media usage.
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1509
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IM WHO YOU THINK ➡️
The majority of my childhood friends who made records in the 90s became millionaires from selling records. I don't understand this attitude of planning and expecting a mediocre living.

I consider that loser talk. Most started from indie record labels and we had limited access to major labels or markets.

petty much all my musician childhood friends never got married and never got rich. now they are hitting late 50s, no family, no one at home, all sorts of heath issues, .. welcome to the real world.
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1510
Lives for gear
 
IM WHO YOU THINK's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
petty much all my musician childhood friends never got married and never got rich. now they are hitting late 50s, no family, no one at home, all sorts of heath issues, .. welcome to the real world.
Why on Earth do you think of failure as the real world?

There's some weird perspectives offered here.
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1511
Lives for gear
 
IM WHO YOU THINK's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808 ➡️
There are lots of people who become millionaires during boom years of an industry. When the world changes, they're not so easily made. You can lament missed opportunities as much as you want, it doesn't bring those boom years back.
Missed opportunities? Your issues are showing again.
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1512
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Court finds Uber drivers are employees, not self employed.
All over the tide is slowly turning. All of these tech start-ups (inc Spotify) have made millions for their founders by hammering workers pay and benefits down to the absolute minimum, using loopholes, market dominance and laws not keeping up with technology. The average Uber driver is now probably getting £12,000 compensation each in lost earnings and benefits.
Technology and internet watchers on the news last night were saying this is a bad move by Facebook to bully an entire nation. If professional musicians were a bigger demographic we might get more help from lawmakers.
But it's clear for now, the situation with streaming is no different from Uber and the fight for fair pay from Facebook by Australian content creators.
Old 19th February 2021
  #1513
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
To answer the original question: There are many ways to distribute your music but very few musicians are making any real money. I totally respect the musicians that are hustling on many fronts by writing, recording, playing live and creating videos, etc. Even they are lucky if they can survive without another means of income. Even live performances pay (relatively) much less than they did in previous years. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is how, I'm assuming, many musicians never make enough money to cover the tens of thousands that they have invested in gear and it's an ongoing expense for most.
Old 19th February 2021
  #1514
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
@ markmann how much less does live performances pay?
Old 19th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1515
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmann ➡️
What I have trouble wrapping my head around is how, I'm assuming, many musicians never make enough money to cover the tens of thousands that they have invested in gear and it's an ongoing expense for most.
do you really need tens of thousands to become a musician?

that explains why I never became one.

I use a 20 € audio interface. low budget hifi headphones. when I tried to work with a singer we used somebodys rehearsal room and the mics and mixer found there. we had to buy new headphones for the session (another 20 bucks) and another interface with a mic preamp.

cubase was included wth the interface.

all in all you could waste several hundred dollars this way.


but you dont need more than 1000 plus your instrument of choice (which can be more expensive of course)

especially you dont have to buy new. In many cases you dont even have to buy, just ask around.

if I had 10s of 1000s to waste for music Id invest that in people, in vinyl, in artwork, not in gear.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1516
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IM WHO YOU THINK ➡️
Why on Earth do you think of failure as the real world?

There's some weird perspectives offered here.
not weird at all. i am sick and tired of all this bull**** internet social media fake positively. IMO there are way too many people blowing hot air and not enough people being pragmatists and realists about their situation.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1517
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
The music industry has always been 'rigged' so to speak... (as well as numerous industries) It is part of the business game. You either work with the system or spearhead something new. IMO nothing changes. The difference is - when there is a shift in technology or the playing field there is an opportunity. Old days you could not even press a record. But the few that DID it with a decent song or artist never looked back. The money goes to the #1 songs. There are frontiers out there right in front of everybody. The way to break algorithms and business standards is to go out of the box! Take FINNEX Copyright free music album after album... to get ranked and index... then comes the spoils. Many artists have 'made it' in adjacent non-music industries. Sheeple do what they are told and do not question enough or are apathetic and give up easy. Any one can create future shock to an industry - now more than ever. Many can not 'see it'. It's there. Success is just seeing the exchange. You do this you get that. This is how it's done. Business minded artists tend to make it 1000x faster/better than those who do not apply their creativity in business as well...

Streams etc. should be the icing on the cake. Where else can you make money 24/7 worldwide than on net selling etc.? Heck I set out to make money from music but my first success came out of the blue from social media views and monetization - I just set up a network - figured out the algo of SEs and set up a network to release my music. Lo and behold - before that happened I was offered multiple monetizations. WHY - because I correctly guessed what media platforms were going to take off! I took a gamble and supported them - got my friends to go all in and now we are the influencers. Not huge mind you - but making lil money 24/7 world wide. Now my only question is - do I grow this business or stop here and use it to brand my music. Well - my original purpose was use it as a launching pad for my songs... and that is exactly what I will do. Soon they will be my songs and all my friends songs. Lil Nas X getting it on TikTok etc etc. The spoils go to the risk taker - they always will. House and sync areas are exploding now - tons of new platforms every month - you must have vision for creating a song and you must have vision for the future of business as well, nothing has really changed... except it is easier today. Vinyl days were a night mare basically... a few companies a few people basically determined all the success in the music industry. Take a risk...
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1518
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
You are so wrong in many ways.
But all I can say is you are playing the tech game. Tik-Tok isn't developing artists for long term careers, 90% of it is viral one offs, more like the novelty records of old. In addition you have to look the other way from Tik-Toks questionable ties to ugly dictatorships.
Yeah, if your creativity is all about instant gratification, giving the mainstream what it wants, financial calculations, yeah I am sure you can be more successful. Those attitudes are bad for music and bad for music fans.
If Drake is the most streamed artist today, do we want the next generation to be mini-Drakes, just so they can earn a living? I think not.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1519
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave ➡️
Sheeple do what they are told and do not question enough or are apathetic and give up easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave ➡️
I just set up a network - figured out the algo of SEs and set up a network to release my music. Lo and behold - before that happened I was offered multiple monetizations. WHY - because I correctly guessed what media platforms were going to take off!
So you were more about branding and satisfying the algorithm than you were about being true to your music.
You call others 'sheeple', but you are championing being 'sheeple' to social media algorithms.
It's machine thinking, it isn't human creativity, and that approach illustrates everything that is wrong about the music scene. You see as many people championing social media as you see decrying the low quality of current popular music. Music can't be made to satisfy an algorithm.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1520
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Bear in mind, in 1981/82 a major record label (CBS) paid niche artist Frank Zappa to fly to London and make an entire album with the prestigious London Symphony Orchestra.
At 25 minutes:



Zappa: "You have to understand how I get my budgets".
Letterman: "How do you get them?"
Zappa: "By fans spending money for buying records".

There is no chance of an art rock artist getting the budget to make an orchestral album in 2021.... and that is exactly why the consumer is the most hurt in this relationship between tech companies and artists.
A lack of forward vision and a lack of creative risk taking. Streaming just wants to keep pumping out the music that was most popular last year, and the year before.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1521
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave ➡️
The music industry has always been 'rigged' so to speak... (as well as numerous industries) It is part of the business game. You either work with the system or spearhead something new. IMO nothing changes. The difference is - when there is a shift in technology or the playing field there is an opportunity. Old days you could not even press a record. But the few that DID it with a decent song or artist never looked back. The money goes to the #1 songs. There are frontiers out there right in front of everybody. The way to break algorithms and business standards is to go out of the box! Take FINNEX Copyright free music album after album... to get ranked and index... then comes the spoils. Many artists have 'made it' in adjacent non-music industries. Sheeple do what they are told and do not question enough or are apathetic and give up easy. Any one can create future shock to an industry - now more than ever. Many can not 'see it'. It's there. Success is just seeing the exchange. You do this you get that. This is how it's done. Business minded artists tend to make it 1000x faster/better than those who do not apply their creativity in business as well...

Streams etc. should be the icing on the cake. Where else can you make money 24/7 worldwide than on net selling etc.? Heck I set out to make money from music but my first success came out of the blue from social media views and monetization - I just set up a network - figured out the algo of SEs and set up a network to release my music. Lo and behold - before that happened I was offered multiple monetizations. WHY - because I correctly guessed what media platforms were going to take off! I took a gamble and supported them - got my friends to go all in and now we are the influencers. Not huge mind you - but making lil money 24/7 world wide. Now my only question is - do I grow this business or stop here and use it to brand my music. Well - my original purpose was use it as a launching pad for my songs... and that is exactly what I will do. Soon they will be my songs and all my friends songs. Lil Nas X getting it on TikTok etc etc. The spoils go to the risk taker - they always will. House and sync areas are exploding now - tons of new platforms every month - you must have vision for creating a song and you must have vision for the future of business as well, nothing has really changed... except it is easier today. Vinyl days were a night mare basically... a few companies a few people basically determined all the success in the music industry. Take a risk...

Agree with this for the most part. But a lot of it comes down to money and who's money it is? If you believe so much in your "art", then go out and take out a loan against your house and spend it on putting your preferred art out there. If you make the wrong decision, the bank takes your house and you go out on the street. It's as simple as that.

Once you are in that sort of situation -- then you start to make decisions such as, is your art making the next Justin Bieber/Halsey pop artist album or are you going to embark on to be the next Nick Cave meets Tom Waits meets Metallica album? Which "art" are you willing to risk your $1M house and families future on? The bank don't care, they get their money back either way.

That's the sort of situation some music labels owners are in. People who were risk takers in the past such as Chris Blackwell were really brave guys that could have been out on the street easy for their choices. But they took serious risks on art. Many people in today's world are not brave guys. They too afraid to take risks on music.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1522
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
So you were more about branding and satisfying the algorithm than you were about being true to your music.
You call others 'sheeple', but you are championing being 'sheeple' to social media algorithms.
It's machine thinking, it isn't human creativity, and that approach illustrates everything that is wrong about the music scene. You see as many people championing social media as you see decrying the low quality of current popular music. Music can't be made to satisfy an algorithm.
This is wrong... It is not music that really gets crawled by SEs... most people are clueless of how to rank/index a word let alone an image - meta micro macrodata - and how the search engines algo each other! These are what I call the sheeple. I can make couple words rank in #1 on google (approx 10 mill google searches) within an hour. ANYONE can figure it out this is todays marketing etc. There is always a way to get something done. Most of this thread is talking about 'It's the systems' fault or lack of pay per stream. There are many ways to make money but people do not even really try. Eilish presold millions upon millions well in garments to Target etc. well before the release of he joint major label PR push of her songs. Pessimistic talk does no one any good. And yes IMO 99% of artists are sheeple when it comes to distribution or todays music industry. IMO anyone who signs up with and aggregator is shooting themselves in the foot basically. I would NEVER sign with pub admin unless it was very lucrative or appealing. Why would anyone want to even do this with ez options on the table. Why pay a pub admin money - when the idea is to instantly create POSITIVE flows of revenue from the get go?

Just to make money I would rather back any Kardashian singing poorly and a terrible bad song than MOST any other random artist. WHY is this so?

I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Of course a song is NOT a usable commodity like soap or rice - it is a different sale. A great marketer can make money with a poor song period. 'Machine thinking' is what drives streaming revenue... and it would behoove anyone who is serious to learn what the AI gate keepers are doing - but it is by FAR the only game in town. There are TWO separate entities here. One is the black hole funnel (sheeple sign w/pub admin etc) and pay them and cross your fingers UGH! - and drive to drive views within their system. And yes a very few break through to make a 'living' here. The other side of this coin is a true brand (or influence) and/or having tangible equity within a 'brand' - which is where the spoils lie. This is how I see it it works. You do not even need a static IP (although is/can be the major key). It is doable IMO but not for the uninformed masses. Many artists are happy not showing their songs to anyone - some are happy to just have some songs up on a few platforms. And very very few aren't satisfied with anything less than truly knowing how a successful business model works today and tomorrow. There are MANY moving parts and Many opportunities today than in most years past. This is just my two cents.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1523
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
I ask you would you rather have a song pushed by someone who does NOT know the tech game - or one who does? I do not do much in the TikTok world at all (I mention NAS because he did it with KEEN business sense and YES he has as LONG of a career as he wants now that he is branded!) You are wrong when you are saying that I am playing 'just' the tech game here. You do not know/see what I am doing. I LEARNED the tech game and NOT just 'playing' it as you say. Those who do not know the tech industry or are working with the tech industry are light years behind the 8 ball. I have USED the tech game to establish a company label for the future - and not for moneys sake particularly. As with my first efforts years ago - I will never have corporate interference with an artists poetic lisc. (I also do not like the regime behind TT either which is why I tend to shun it)
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1524
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
Agree with this for the most part. But a lot of it comes down to money and who's money it is? If you believe so much in your "art", then go out and take out a loan against your house and spend it on putting your preferred art out there. If you make the wrong decision, the bank takes your house and you go out on the street. It's as simple as that.

Once you are in that sort of situation -- then you start to make decisions such as, is your art making the next Justin Bieber/Halsey pop artist album or are you going to embark on to be the next Nick Cave meets Tom Waits meets Metallica album? Which "art" are you willing to risk your $1M house and families future on? The bank don't care, they get their money back either way.

That's the sort of situation some music labels owners are in. People who were risk takers in the past such as Chris Blackwell were really brave guys that could have been out on the street easy for their choices. But they took serious risks on art. Many people in today's world are not brave guys. They too afraid to take risks on music.
Well said. I am a bold risk taker. And I mean bold. Cuban said the great thing about business is - YOU ONLY HAVE TO BE RIGHT ONCE!. From Gordy to Alpert and Grusen this is how you do it. The only thing I would change in your answer is that you do not need money to 'make' it. Sweat and clarity and speculation is ALL you need. I would not risk a million dollar house on a song - but I would risk time and effort... I learn so much from failures when it is my hard determined effort and time for naught. . I believe in NASA moon statement when they told their scientists - fail hard and fail fast.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1525
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Too many people in this thread who are not risk takers critiquing others.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1526
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Too many people in this thread who are not risk takers critiquing others.
Someone who says I am not 'True to my music' What exactly am I not TRUE about? (I figure you will not answer this - for your lack of know anything about my music or let alone me) tc...
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1527
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Just going on what you wrote.
I'm not particularly picking on you, just saying your method and outlook is all about pandering to what the tech industry wants. The tech industry is only interested in advertising revenue, not at all interested in good quality music.
I'm just saying I don't think it's the right way to go for the future of music, to make music FOR the algorithm. To look at what currently works on Tik-Tok and Facebook and make music for that. No great music was made by copying the most popular music that had already been done.
All great art is made on the basis of the artist's personal taste, what THEY think is good. they then hope other people will agree with them. If they don't that's OK, at least they have produced work they believe in and can stand behind honestly.

My comment about non-risk takers was primarily aimed at those sniping from the sidelines. A couple of people who don't make music and aren;'t releasing anything, trying to claim the rest of us are scared of taking risks.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1528
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I'm happy for musicians making money but don't know of any that are.
Old 20th February 2021 | Show parent
  #1529
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave ➡️
I figure you will not answer this - for your lack of know anything about my music or let alone me

This:
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave ➡️
Heck I set out to make money from music but my first success came out of the blue from social media views and monetization

I set out to make music, money or not was a by product.
People scoff at this attitude in the uber capitalist scene we now live in, but I have my head held high that I made a mark and left some good memories for people.

Those who 'set out to make money' are rarely those we remember ten, twenty years later.
Old 20th February 2021
  #1530
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by over-man ➡️
Also, if Spotify isn't supposed to act like a label or directly help artists, as claimed earlier, how do they get away with - in their own words - a "program designed to identify and break the next wave of music superstars" when they "handpick four up-and-coming artists we believe in and spotlight their work through playlists, promotion, video, and events to tell the story behind each rising star"? https://artists.spotify.com/blog/wel...ming-musicians
I guess because it's nothing but promotion for the tracks. The only difference between that and featuring on a normal play list is that they're telling folks and giving a bio.

Spotify and I think Deezer too, have both tried to take artists under their wings of sorts and both have had to stop due to opposition. The first time Spotify tried to pay artists to develop their talent, there was a lot of vocal opposition in the music press from Major execs. I did find those articles way back when I was reading around the subject earlier in the thread but can't find them now.

That's the thing with NDAs... something that is known to be in the hidden agreements has an element of doubt built in because no-one can show it because of non-disclosure.

So all sorts of accusations can be made about behaviour of a party of an agreement but that party can't then show everyone the agreement as to why they *have* to behave that way... and so the mud sticks. Happens in all sorts of NDAs, some exposed for example during the heat of the #MeToo movement where past victims couldn't counter accusations against them because of NDAs from civil action settlements (some did eventually feel empowered to do so).
📝 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