The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
If You Are Making Music In Today's Era What Matters Is How Good You Have It
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1801
Lives for gear
 
IM WHO YOU THINK's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq ➡️
It is totally logical. The Powers That Be have always pushed up popular music and pushed down less popular music. "Popular" = a lot of people like it. The fact that NEW music is not promoted to the degree that it used to be, is because it is no longer in their financial interest to do so.

In fact, you could make an excellent case for the thesis that the past level of promotion of new music was the Anomaly. That is was artificial hype forced on us by the labels because they could not squeeze any more money out of you for your Allman Brothers album that you already owned. No matter how many "times" you played it! It would be just as fair to say that in the 20th century, new music was over-promoted! Shoved down our throats whether we liked it or not. Because only by selling us a new record could they make more money. This all was not the "way things are supposed to be". It's just they way things were when we were young. Perhaps today, the world is just kind of getting back to 'normal'.


No. You are cheating in your argument by conflating two entirely different metrics: The music people purchased; and the music people listened to. "30%" new music is just about the accurate listening percentage, both then and now. One Nirvana record (new!), then maybe they played Hendrix(old!) then the Allman Brothers (old!) . That's your 33% right there. Today they stream, but they are still listening to about 1/3 new music. Not because some Evil streaming service is being 'mean' to new artists, but because that's what People want to listen to. It hasn't really changed, only what we can measure has changed.


What do you think this algorithm is based on? You said it yourself: "Popularity"! The people. The vast majority of them clearly want about a ratio of 2 to 1 old to new. This is my basic problem with the tone of your posts: Who the hell do you think you are to tell the whole freakin' world that they are wrong to like what they like? The sheer massive weight of their preferences is the very thing that determines the "evil" algorithm. It's not a self-aware computer, it's not some guy with an eyepatch sitting at the head of booby-trapped conference table, stroking his white Persian cat.

You would like to see no sense in it, since it totally cuts your argument to shreds. The new/old listening percentage is roughly the same then as now. But today, people like you can view the actual statistics of what people are listening to and cherry-pick those numbers to support their butthurt about "their" favorites being unpopular. And since hard statistics for 20th century "listens" don't exist, you think you are entitled to substitute "promotions" as the equivalent. But that's obviously false.


New music and young artists are being championed... at the rate of about 30%. Because that's pretty much all that listeners want.

If you would like to promote new music you can go buy it, download it, go search it out, add it to your queue, donate to a kickstarter. Vote with your wallet. If enough people like you do what you do, you will move the algorithm, guaranteed. If not enough people like you, well, I believe the expression is tough noogies.
Did you really describe the promotion of new music as something being forced on you?

It may be a bit of a shocker, but all companies seeking growth tend to promote new products.

Last edited by IM WHO YOU THINK; 19th July 2021 at 08:14 PM..
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1802
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq ➡️
This is my basic problem with the tone of your posts: Who the hell do you think you are to tell the whole freakin' world that they are wrong to like what they like?
Again it's not about me. I'm not telling anyone anything.
I'm pointing out the stagnation of an art form powered only by the economic need to dominate new and innovative with 'popular' and money making. It's Die Hard 5 versus Sundance Festival. It's about a healthy balance.
Here is the actual point for clarity:
If people can't hear something, they can't decide whether they like it or not. As the previous music business 1.0 was all about promoting the new, through record stores, pop radio and MTV, is music business 2.0 supporting a healthy ratio of new versus old by serving up a diet of stuff people already know they like?
I say NO.
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1803
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IM WHO YOU THINK ➡️
Did you really describe the promotion of new music as something being forced on you?

It may be a bit of a shocker, but all companies seeking growth tend to promote new products.
Once again, you are mixing up culture with consumerism and marketing. Music and the creation of music is separate from money and consumer products. Record companies that were in the business of selling music may think of it as a product because it is a plastic product to them. But for a musician, its not a product. It is their life. I also think some of the great music collaborations in music were based on people striving to great works and not on how much to mass sell and peddle a product. Otherwise people like Daniel Lanois and U2 or Butch Vig and Nirvana would just have jumped on pop charts bandwagon and made run on the mill pop records that sounded like other pop at the time in an attempt to achieve massive sales and get bling bling and fast cars. A lot of collaborations that have stood the test of time are usually comprised of people that went against the grain and did the think they do .. they ignored trends and fashion. Even the late great Bowie, if you really listen to the records he did with Visconti.. he was far removed from fashion and trends.
2
Share
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1804
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Again it's not about me. I'm not telling anyone anything.
I'm pointing out the stagnation of an art form powered only by the economic need to dominate new and innovative with 'popular' and money making. It's Die Hard 5 versus Sundance Festival. It's about a healthy balance.
Here is the actual point for clarity:
If people can't hear something, they can't decide whether they like it or not. As the previous music business 1.0 was all about promoting the new, through record stores, pop radio and MTV, is music business 2.0 supporting a healthy ratio of new versus old by serving up a diet of stuff people already know they like?
I say NO.
... and this has been the direction of the music industry as it has become monopolistic, with labels being swallowed up here there and everywhere.

It's relevent a point in terms of "we've never had it so good" as a counter point, but it was happening anyway . it's not really to do with the evil of streaming.

But forget about the music the big labels are producing - they're no longer needed!

People got their minority music ,from elsewhere, from indepenent outlets and word of mouth.

That still happens but those outlets have change shape.. and individuals have more influence over networks of friends and friends of freinds of friends - social media. The landscape has changed.

Streaming has allowed all those new music discoveries to be channelled *directly into peoples homes and moblie phones* !!

Never before has that been possible!

New music is heavily promoted in this new environment. You're just deciding not to see it.

All I ever see is promotion of new music by the industry, I rarely see back catalogue being promoted other than to audiofiles and remasters.

What is you evidence for streaming services promoting back catalogue? If an algo is finding something similar, given that back catalogue is of a greater size of about 1000000:1 then given an *equal* weighting, an even change for e very single song being suggested next, the back catalogue is more times than not going to come up.

You're confusing simple, equal chance with a bias..

For an algo to promote more new music, it would have to be massively and deliberately biased toward new music. Why would or should an algo do that? to satisfy how you want the world to be? It does not help listeners discover music that"s new to them does it, doesn't help find music they will love..

Radio is by **far** the most biased toward back catalogue. All the same old cheese, 80s stations, 70s, golden hits, soul, most DJs on 6 Music..

I dont want new music to be pushed at me all day long. I want stuff that relevent to the tastes the algo has picked up on - if that's some prog, some folk, some of 80s new wave.. those are tracks I want.

Go to a bookshop and see all the new books layed out on tables at the front of the store - most a load of pap whose only attraction is that it's new. There are simply too many past classics I've still yet to read to really get into new literature..
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1805
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
If people can't hear something, they can't decide whether they like it or not. .
I just wanted to laugh at this bit.

Have you discovered Spotify ? !

You can hear *all* of this stuff now, even new stuff from some guy in his bedroom that you'd never ever been able to listen to before, ever!

All you have to do is tap the screen of your phone and the music arrives - the power is now in your hand! It's crazy, it's revolutionary!

You dont even need to know the artist or the track - Shazam !
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1806
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️
I didn’t want the particulars to cause debate, but you beat my delete with the quote. Yes it’s good stuff that should have a market, that’s what i was trying to convey.
There are so many more folks doing that kind of music today that being singled out as different is quite hard.

Not too long ago, just taking it to that next level of a vinyl run *may* take you further than others who cant be bothered or dont think that way.. that extra effort. But with streaming and some kind of instagram presence that people settle on instead, you can just blend into the background music.
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1807
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️
The stat was reversed. 70% of music streamed is new, 30% before 2010. The gripe about new music and streaming was based on a rather significant error.

So a considerable more amount of new music is getting listened to in the streaming era than what people here hypothesize was listened to in past eras. (There’s no data on past old/new listening habits, because as some have pointed out, there was no way to measure until the streaming era.)

This whole line of conversation is bunk.
Haha - classic

People see the stat they want to see and run with it.

Thanks for spotting the daft mistake - almost as if deliberately shoved in to catch people out! And caught out, they have.
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1808
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
I posted it. It is a recently completed UK members of parliament inquiry that heard evidence from ALL sectors, from pop stars, DIY musicians, the tech companies and the record labels. I submitted evidence myself.
Their conclusion, streaming needs a complete reset due to the unfair distribution of income.
"unbiased" haha

No, the MP's report says the major's monopolies need looking at, the status of a stream should be changed from being regarded as "sale" and instead should be changed to something like a broadcast.

The report had little bad to say about streaming companies and lots to say about the historical music industry ..

It did not say that streaming needs a reset.
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1809
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tific ➡️
Boombapdame ive sent you a pm.

A melanated woman created a topic highlighting her perspective of the climate & industry & now it's been totally derailed & buried.I tried to search the site to see if there was an unbiased updated sticky of streaming rates , copyright Law , royalties etc but couldn't find anything recent.But I found more of the same.

What is the current way to distribute music and get paid?
The Problem With Steve Albini

It's astonishing to read some of these comments.. obtuse analogies , recycled arguments.Distorted didactic statements & hyperbole.


Why doesn't everyone who has derailed & distorted this woman's topic create your own. Or continue your exchanges in the other topics?

Why is there not an unbiased well researched & updated topic on streaming copyrights etc ?
How does anyone know the gender or skin colour of anyone posting? How and why should people adjust how they post based on a gender or skin colour of the OP and combined with the first point, are we supposed to guess and adjust our online personalities based on simply what we *assume* the gender or skin colour of someone is?

Personally I want to focus on what people say and express. If gender or skin colour is brought up as part of the conversation and personal experience - that's very different and *then* becomes relevent.
3
Share
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1810
Sky
Lives for gear
 
Sky's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️
This has to do with streams measuring LISTENS, not a single purchase like sales.

Sales taper off after the first period, because once someone owns a song, the fact that they listen to it over and over the next few years never gets counted.

Streams GROW, considerably, after the first period, because each listen is counted.

"What you can see is that sales taper off by 33% in the second period compared to the first, whereas streams grew by a massive 177% from the first period to the second. This is what streaming momentum looks like." (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.c...-need-upgrade/)

This isn't some drag on new acts that's different from the past, its a shift in the information conveyed be sales vs streams.
I occasionally stream Steely Dan's Countdown to Ecstasy because I shed my vinyl copy and turntable decades ago. I stream Aja for those reasons, and also because the LP I've kept is collectible red vinyl; around 1980 I played it once to record a cassette. Years ago I re-bought Aja on CD for better sound quality. Now CDs are stored in a couple moving boxes and we have no CD player in the house.

I've occasionally bought a CD from an indie artist to support them, then stored it unopened while adding the same album through my streaming subscription for offline listening. No LP/CD player, no scratches, no hard drive, no data management, no hassle. If the album ever disappears from my streaming service, I'll open the CD and import into our small hard drive library via USB DVD drive.

At home, background jazz music that plays routinely during dinner generates more streams and revenue than the music I really listen to and enjoy some evenings afterward. Go figure.

Long story short, true streaming consumption metrics may be wholly distorted by the convenience of accessing music virtually in the cloud. Spotify thinks I'm a jazz-head, when I'm squarely in the 70% indie modern camp when really listening. I do enough discovery and playlist creation that the Spotify algorithms have adapted somewhat to my true preferences.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in 2021 is that business decisions are too cavalierly made from flawed conclusions about the data. Does the industry really understand what listeners want, or is the data pointing them in wrong directions?


Sky
1
Share
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1811
Lives for gear
 
IM WHO YOU THINK's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
Once again, you are mixing up culture with consumerism and marketing. Music and the creation of music is separate from money and consumer products. Record companies that were in the business of selling music may think of it as a product because it is a plastic product to them. But for a musician, its not a product. It is their life. I also think some of the great music collaborations in music were based on people striving to great works and not on how much to mass sell and peddle a product. Otherwise people like Daniel Lanois and U2 or Butch Vig and Nirvana would just have jumped on pop charts bandwagon and made run on the mill pop records that sounded like other pop at the time in an attempt to achieve massive sales and get bling bling and fast cars. A lot of collaborations that have stood the test of time are usually comprised of people that went against the grain and did the think they do .. they ignored trends and fashion. Even the late great Bowie, if you really listen to the records he did with Visconti.. he was far removed from fashion and trends.
If it's not a product, why sign a record deal, take an advance, record it and have someone invest in it?

Do you think the investor believes it's not a product?

The record business is very much a business with products. I realize it's different for you.

I said nothing about fashion trends. I said nothing about anyone making run of the mill pop records.


It may surprise you, but record companies are companies.

Do you think Motown wasn't trying to sell records? Staxx? Island??? Def Jam? Death Row? Blue Note? Sony? Columbia? Caiptol? RCA?


Which label do you think wasn't trying to sell units?

Last edited by IM WHO YOU THINK; 19th July 2021 at 10:57 PM..
2
Share
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1812
Lives for gear
 
Zed999's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️
Following the link next to the stat in your article:

“According to MRC Data‘s new mid-year report, the six months to end of June 2021 saw catalog music’s share of total album consumption in the US rise to 66.4% (whereby ‘catalog’ reflects anything released over 18 months before a consumer made a purchase and/or pressed play).

So 66% of music streamed is over 18 months old. This makes sense as a song’s 2nd year tends to outperform it’s first, and then have a run where it slowly declines over several years.

You had claimed 70% of music is 10-50 years old. That’s wrong. Only 30% of streamed music is over 10 years old. Your definition of “healthy” is more than currently achieved.

To clarify:

34% of music streamed is less than 18 months old.
36% of music streamed is between 18 months and 10 years old.
30% of music streamed is more than 10 years old.
How did you arrive at those streaming %'s from a quote about ALBUM consumption?
1
Share
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1813
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed999 ➡️
How did you arrive at those streaming %'s from a quote about ALBUM consumption?
That's where Chrisso's numbers came from. The article he's referencing cites this as their source: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.c...-new-releases/

Here's their bit: "A quick explainer: MRC’s ‘total album consumption’ metric bundles together physical and digital album sales with single-track downloads and streams, with these single-track downloads and streams converted into ‘album equivalent’ units. To achieve this, MRC converts every 1,250 premium streams or 3,750 ad-supported streams of tracks on an album into a single ‘sale’ for that LP. It does the same for every 10 downloads of tracks from a single album. This formula is designed to be ‘revenue reflective’ – for example, with 1,250 premium streams roughly generating the same amount of money as a single album. ‘Total album consumption’ does not take into account digital or terrestrial radio plays."

So yeah, some conflation going on. This should be more correct. .

From the article focused on streaming (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-43995542):

70% of music streamed is less than 8 years old (in 2018 looking back to 2010 at least).

From the article Chrisso has been referencing:

66% of all music consumed is over 18 months old.
34% of all music consumed is less than 18 months old.
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1814
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️
66% of all music consumed is over 18 months old.
34% of all music consumed is less than 18 months old.
I really have a hard time believing 34% of music streaming is new music. I think Spotify are playing the numbers just trying to get more hopefuls to keep making new music and fueling the endless supply of new music coming in. I think most of the stuff streamed is catalog back releases. Thats why so many artist selling their publishing while the going is good. There is a chance these streaming comapnies will go belly up in the next wave of whatever will take over music consumption.
Old 19th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1815
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
I really have a hard time believing 34% of music streaming is new music. I think Spotify are playing the numbers just trying to get more hopefuls to keep making new music and fueling the endless supply of new music coming in. I think most of the stuff streamed is catalog back releases. Thats why so many artist selling their publishing while the going is good. There is a chance these streaming comapnies will go belly up in the next wave of whatever will take over music consumption.
That's a stat from MRC Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRC_Data

The stat is that 34% of all music bought/streamed in any form is less than 18 months old.

If you're going with conspiracy, I can't argue, as that turns into beliefs.
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1816
Gear Guru
 
🎧 20 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by IM WHO YOU THINK ➡️
Did you really describe the promotion of new music as something being forced on you?

It may be a bit of a shocker, but all companies seeking growth tend to promote new products.
I am making a point about the difference in financial incentive between then and now. The companies promoted new music HARDER in those days because they had no way of charging you for listening to your old music that you already owned. New music was their ONLY source of new income.

Unless you literally wore out the grooves, the record that you paid for (once!) was yours to listen to as often as you liked. Now that they sell music by streaming, their incentive has changed. Their incentive in the 21st century is to sell you the music that you want to listen to RIGHT NOW, this very second. Which may be new and may be old.

Apparently the ratio averages about 2 to 1 old vs new. My point is that they don't give a rat's ass which one it is. There's no "conspiracy" here. They have plenty of music to stream to you. They make the most money by giving people what they want. The so-called "evil algorithm" is derived from the listening habits of the great mass of people.

Only a snob would say the great mass of people don't "really" know what they "want".
6
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1817
Lives for gear
 
TREMORS's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So the previous music industry is in the business of growth and selling product and make money, and it makes sense to sell products they think are popular and profitable.

And

Spotify and tech are evil businesses only interested in growth and making money by promoting only what's popular and profitable.
1
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1818
Gear Guru
 
🎧 20 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Again it's not about me. I'm not telling anyone anything.
So it's just a coincidence that you make some kind of obscure electronica? That nobody is buying?
Quote:
If people can't hear something, they can't decide whether they like it or not. .
They can find it. There's no conspiracy. Not being promoted does not equal "can't hear it". Or maybe we should tie them to a chair and blast electronica at them for 24 hours, you know, to give the music a "chance"?

In any case, the "=importance of new music is not a 'fact". It is just your opinion. If people share your opinion, they could demand a different ratio than 2:1 and in today's world, they would get that ratio.
The people who are streaming old classic rock bands because they LIKE those old bands would probably disagree with your opinion if they bothered to think about it at all. New music is just something that YOU think should be given a subsidy. Other people have different lists of what should be subsidized.

You are doing nothing less than demanding that the streaming services “educate” the consumer. I could demand that they “educate” them by feeding them more jazz. Or classical. Now [Uthere’s[/U] some music that is actually "good for you"!

Like broccoli.

There is no societal imperative to ‘nurture’ new music. Just what you like. In the long view, the human race got along just fine for thousands of years with new musical forms evolving at an obviously glacial pace. Baroque was around for 150 years. People in the tail end of Baroque era were listening to the same style of music as their great-great-great-grandfathers! Try taking an historical perspective. Not of your lifetime but all of musical history.

My view is that the world owes you nothing. The world owes ‘new music’ nothing. People vote with their wallets, Let the new music compete with everything else in the marketplace.

And not for nothing, but I am not buying one drop of your revisionist history about the "Nurturing" Labels of Yesteryear . The real New Music always came from the streets, anyway. Rock, Psychedelia, Punk, Hip-Hop. And the 20th century labels, far from “nurturing” this underground music would actually ignore it - until they saw enough dollar signs. Then instead of embracing it, what they really did for the most part was co-opt it.

Oh the kids are liking this Fats Domino guy? Here kids, have some Pat Boone.
7
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1819
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️
This has to do with streams measuring LISTENS, not a single purchase like sales.

Sales taper off after the first period, because once someone owns a song, the fact that they listen to it over and over the next few years never gets counted.

Streams GROW, considerably, after the first period, because each listen is counted.

"What you can see is that sales taper off by 33% in the second period compared to the first, whereas streams grew by a massive 177% from the first period to the second. This is what streaming momentum looks like." (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.c...-need-upgrade/)

This isn't some drag on new acts that's different from the past, its a shift in the information conveyed be sales vs streams.
This is fundamental to the streaming model - and which people stuck on the physical model haven't switched their instincts over to yet.

Streaming accumulates payments over time to make an equilavent to a physical sale over time. streams can grow significantly over time and it's this growth that determines being able to make a living over time.

In that scenario, playing older music is the whole point - your back catalogue accumulates too.

Physical sales were front-loaded by the consumer, payments from labels were front-loaded to the artist (whilst long-term is pocketted by the label) and sales drop off over time.

In that scenario, pushing new music is a quicker way to make money because people already paid for the older stuff when first released and can now listen forever at no extra cost.. Money comes from new releases (or new format, or re-issue, or sale to younger audience who weren't around first time).

That then leads to faster releases, more throw-away acts with large promo.
Streaming can encourage the slow burn - the tracks are always available on the services to generate plays, they're not going to have to be cleared off shelves from the store to make room for the next. Sudden pop-up of artists in new territories years later for example.. (as a producer relayed to me once, bringing about an unexpected tour in Korea, years after the release )
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1820
Gear Guru
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808 ➡️
I just wanted to laugh at this bit.

Have you discovered Spotify ? !

You can hear *all* of this stuff now, even new stuff from some guy in his bedroom that you'd never ever been able to listen to before, ever!

All you have to do is tap the screen of your phone and the music arrives - the power is now in your hand! It's crazy, it's revolutionary!

You dont even need to know the artist or the track - Shazam !
This is true... and it does not really matter that it's true.

Reality of the current environment is that if you go seeking fresh music that is not being promoted over multiple platforms to guarantee connection via a variety of mass media markets (the tiny fraction of new product that is force fed to the public with huge $$$ investments), what you end up doing is dipping a cup into Lake Superior, but thinking that you are "discovering what's out there."

In order to listen to just the new cuts posted in a single day, you would have to be glued to your computer or phone for about 4000 hours. That's one single day's postings. And that's going to happen tomorrow, and the day after that, and every day after that.

Reality is that the emergence of streaming platforms has not changed the way new artists are "discovered" by the public at all. They are simply a new way of delivering the product that is force fed to the public via big dollar, mass media, multi-platform marketing.
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.c...ne-per-second/
5
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1821
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️
That's a stat from MRC Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRC_Data

The stat is that 34% of all music bought/streamed in any form is less than 18 months old.

If you're going with conspiracy, I can't argue, as that turns into beliefs.
okay then. if they say so.. i guess we have to believe it.
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1822
Sky
Lives for gear
 
Sky's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq ➡️
Unless you literally wore out the grooves, the record that you paid for (once!) was yours to listen to as often as you liked. Now that they sell music by streaming, their incentive has changed. Their incentive in the 21st century is to sell you the music that you want to listen to RIGHT NOW, this very second. Which may be new and may be old.
I suppose this is sort of true, but subscribers pay the same monthly rate whether they consume 1,000 streams or just 10 streams during the period. So the streaming model is really a retainer, which compels Spotify et al to give listeners whatever will keep them as subscribers, not necessarily specific music.

For example, if Spotify stopped offering me a broad catalog that I can stream or cache however I want, I would drop the service. If sound quality was horrible or servers went offline a lot, again I would drop the service. This is regardless of what I may actually listen to in any month. Because I can access the world's catalog pretty much on my terms, I may binge on Beatles, or discover new artists, or fall asleep to meditation tracks. All good.

Now please charge me enough to compensate artists fairly, then actually do it. I'm fine with that.

Sky
3
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1823
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky ➡️
I suppose this is sort of true, but subscribers pay the same monthly rate whether they consume 1,000 streams or just 10 streams during the period. So the streaming model is really a retainer, which compels Spotify et al to give listeners whatever will keep them as subscribers, not necessarily specific music.

For example, if Spotify stopped offering me a broad catalog that I can stream or cache however I want, I would drop the service. If sound quality was horrible or servers went offline a lot, again I would drop the service. This is regardless of what I may actually listen to in any month. Because I can access the world's catalog pretty much on my terms, I may binge on Beatles, or discover new artists, or fall asleep to meditation tracks. All good.

Now please charge me enough to compensate artists fairly, then actually do it. I'm fine with that.

Sky
How so? If Spotify jackup their prices by $20 you would drop the service. Also, they have the non subscriber users who just listen for free. jack up prices on advertisers?
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1824
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
As always, fascinating point of view.

The comparison of speed of music development during baroque does not apply. The speed of the world operated at a much slower pace. It took weeks or months for a message to reach another person sometimes. The world today is much faster. The life span of artists and music genres is much shorter and new sub genres appear much faster. If music centered and revolved around how people vote with their wallets.. every band and song would be a Florida Georgia Line .. but its not!! Tons and tons of strange obscure artists and genres all over the place and many are making really interesting music. are they making a killing and driving McLarens.. no. And in most cases, their music doesn''t justify it as the entertainment is contained in the release itself and doesn't translate well in large venue. . Some would never be able to fill a 100 person club to entertain, let alone a stadium. They are more suited to being watched on YT and listened on on streaming. Until they can figure out how to be bigger and put on a bigger show.
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1825
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
... Some would never be able to fill a 100 person club to entertain, let alone a stadium. They are more suited to being watched on YT and listened on on streaming. Until they can figure out how to be bigger and put on a bigger show.
i don't agree much with chrisso or YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHO I AM ANYWAY on a lot of this (so it would appear that i'm "on your side"), but i disagree even more strongly with a lot of what you're saying. you just seem like you're on some other planet, so far removed from both the "artists" and the "consumers". i really wonder what you know about much of any "new" music from the past 40 years, beyond a few buzzwords.

i'm not even sure where to begin, but with this comment i'm just thinking of all the music out there that has nothing to do with any "show". i'd really love to be able to see/hear everyone's unique perspective on this. from their own point of view as an artist/producer/engineer/wannabe, and what they think the rest of everyone else "wants" based on their own listening/buying experiences and those around them.


btw - last night i watched the movie 'Streets of Fire' for the first time since the early 80s. absolutely horrible film, reminded me of a lot of garbage pushed out by the music industry. i was surprised to see/hear that Ry Cooder did the soundtrack. it was as cheesy as one might expect, while paying good tribute to the "originals". this was the hot new stuff to you at the time? this is when you were a big fan of his? the world is having its biggest creative period in music and you were listening to this and "the Toddster"?
4
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1826
Sky
Lives for gear
 
Sky's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode ➡️
How so? If Spotify jackup their prices by $20 you would drop the service. Also, they have the non subscriber users who just listen for free. jack up prices on advertisers?
How do you know someone else's intention with such certainty? In the past I have held two subscriptions while using mostly one, which doesn't really help the artists based on the current per stream model. So I sometimes buy a CD and shelve it (per my previous post). I'm fine with paying $20 per month for a streaming subscription if the extra cash goes to fairly compensating artists and not into shareholders' pockets.

Would you drop the service if the price doubled, and why?

Sky
Old 20th July 2021
  #1827
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
https://youtu.be/rEGOihjqO9w
Give 40 minutes of your time. Don't look at the pianist. Watch the fingers if you must. I do. Listen to the music. Hard to dance to huh? Does it remind anyone of just kickin' back and listening to a whole album?

Anyone here write music like this? Play their instrument like this? How much time do you think it takes? A weekend? More gear? Endless time on Gear[bad word]?

If it does anything at all, maybe revisit some of the previous classical composers.

Rachmaninoff was the last Romantic as far as I'm concerned. Straddling the fence. It was old fashioned. His era was over and yet he couldn't let it go. It called him.

By the way. Be prepared for a huge dynamic range if you're used to squished. If you fall asleep on the couch, you WILL be 'woke'. Just like DSOTM. Remember?
2
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1828
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tific ➡️
A melanated woman created a topic highlighting her perspective of the climate & industry & now it's been totally derailed & buried. ... Why doesn't everyone who has derailed & distorted this woman's topic create your own.
3
Share
Old 20th July 2021
  #1829
Gear Nut
 
tific's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tific ➡️

Why doesn't everyone who has derailed & distorted this woman's topic create your own. Or continue your exchanges in the other topics?

Why is there not an unbiased well researched & updated topic on streaming copyrights etc ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
I posted it. It is a recently completed UK members of parliament inquiry that heard evidence from ALL sectors, from pop stars, DIY musicians, the tech companies and the record labels. I submitted evidence myself.
Their conclusion, streaming needs a complete reset due to the unfair distribution of income.
? ? ? ? ? ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808 ➡️
How does anyone know the gender or skin colour of anyone posting? How and why should people adjust how they post based on a gender or skin colour of the OP and combined with the first point, are we supposed to guess and adjust our online personalities based on simply what we *assume* the gender or skin colour of someone is?

Personally I want to focus on what people say and express. If gender or skin colour is brought up as part of the conversation and personal experience - that's very different and *then* becomes relevent.

An apology to boombapdame

Boombap dame has a multitude of posts in her five year history describing herself & her goals.She also greets many newcomers on the introduce yourself threads. This was her topic expressing her perspective on a site that changed it's name to attract more female participants..


There's an Organisation named Mobo in the Uk. They were originally established to highlight the underinvestment & neglect of the industry & gatekeepers.


Merchandising.


A Roots Reggae Artist & many other Artists would refer to the system as Babylon. They are not going to be creating & selling merchandise to subsidize music as they are opposed to materialism.

You won't hear comments from another perspective because the topic never had a chance to grow & I & many others are not participating as ignorance wastes time.

Many people will have an opportunity to simply be themselves without compromising.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...music-industry
3
Share
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #1830
Sky
Lives for gear
 
Sky's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbuonacc ➡️
i'm not even sure where to begin, but with this comment i'm just thinking of all the music out there that has nothing to do with any "show". i'd really love to be able to see/hear everyone's unique perspective on this. from their own point of view as an artist/producer/engineer/wannabe, and what they think the rest of everyone else "wants" based on their own listening/buying experiences and those around them.
I appreciate your questions here. A couple comments ago I described some specific listening habits that don't always square up with how artists are compensated. E.g. I cue up a 50-song meditation playlist on random shuffle, hit play and fall asleep halfway through the third song. Every song in that playlist gets a performance credit, and whoever I actually heard before nodding off is totally random.

When doing discovery, I may listen to parts of a song I really like dozens of times, and listen to the entire song probably a few times. How does the artist get credited for my listening behavior? Are they credited once I've listened to 75% of the song without interruption? What if I jump back and forth to compare their first and second solos?

I do occasionally listen thoughtfully to an entire playlist I've saved or created, but my days of sitting in the living room sweet spot in a comfy chair listening to whole album sides are mostly over. I enjoy music as much as ever, but my life patterns have changed. I've attended small-venue shows in recent years, but not much interest in auditorium or stadium-scale events. EDIT: Onewire's post reminds me that I really enjoy hearing a professional symphony orchestra perform live in an acoustically-perfect concert hall.

Every person I've met has their own ways for consuming and enjoying music. For streaming, I'm convinced that pay-per-spin is not always the fairest compensation model. As the industry evolves, I would like to see other models tried. The 9 spin = purchase model mentioned in this thread is pretty interesting.

Sky
1
Share
Closed

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 40190 views: 3274089
Avatar for 50-pence
50-pence 27 minutes ago
replies: 21 views: 6210
Avatar for ibiking
ibiking 18th February 2018
replies: 809 views: 114057
Avatar for ArtFluids
ArtFluids 14th March 2022

Forum Jump
Forum Jump