Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Or why don't they?
famously earned the grand total of 11 quid from over 154 million Youtube views of Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up. Definitely something wrong there, when people start feeling sorry for Pete Waterman.
Psy has only made about £100 from Gangnam Style via YouTube.
As YouTube only pay from the point you claim for the plays and they can't back date income. Once you claim it you can choose to have pre-roll ads which pay much better than those little google ad popovers.
Google basically make a crap-tonne of money off of music that hasn't been claimed.
because of Rick Rolling. Did anyone really expect people to click on the ads too? There's little money in Adsense page views compared to when people click on the fuckers.
How much toy train track can you buy for £11?
I want them to be fooled by the rocks that I've got.
video streaming services pay upfront to host content, music ones don't. which is a bit odd.
i appreciate that's in part because releasing music is worlds easier and so there's always going to be more of it, but at the same time, I'm fairly sure that even in our world of neverending choice a majority of the music listened to will be from a small number of artists.
and society decided it would be better for me to spend most of my income on housing instead. sorry creative endeavours that make jobs xx
Do you think Spotify et al need more restrictions? I sort of do. But then I also think if they did too much people would just use p2p or SoundCloud (who pay no royalties)
pretty much every TV show and film is available on p2p, yet netflix have 33m subscribers in the US. again, it isn't a perfect analogy, but i think it points that people will pay for these things.
but the difference there is that the restrictions are between the content producer and the content deliverer, and don't really involve the final customer. that's where it all falls down in relation to spotify.
I pay for Netflix, but there are so many holes in the UK service...
it'll catch up eventually
Most of the problems are BSKYB's monopoly over certain studios. Netflix is a bit like how eMusic didn't have major label music.
the alternative to a convenient spotify isn't paying more for music. It's bypassing spotify altogether for unlicensed filesharing.
they just don't pay directly and they don't pay for owning it
so they end up paying for the delivery service that brings music to them
in various ways it has always been like this whether it's a parlour piano, a music hall ticket, or a shellac 78 you've pretty much always been paying for the delivery mechanism than the music
it's simply that the delivery mechanisms of today (your ISP, youtube, spotify etc.) have found a way to pretty much keep all of the revenue arriving in the artists' pockets
But the Pizza was free. Would that seem like value for money?
with the dominoes example you're buying flavour, taste and the experience of eating it - intangibles - and the pizza is the delivery mechanism
for which you actually pay monies for
Most people are buying convenience.
And buying into being part of that glamourous world of pizza delivery that they see on the TV.
I don't follow
If you just wanted pizza, you could make it from scratch - even going as far as growing your own tomatoes and making your own cheese, but this requires planning ahead.
Or you could buy a pizza in the supermarket far less cost, but again, you either have to plan ahead or go out and get it, then cook it, then wash up... it's a cost vs fuss.
Whereas ordering a pizza and getting someone else to do it, is far easier, so you end up paying for it, and buying into a world of pizza, rather than having money extracted from you because you can't be bothered to grow your own tomatoes, make your own base or goto the supermarket.
how much of the final pizza cost to the customer goes to the farmers who grew the wheat or tomatoes? Not much, but probably more as a percentage than your spotify subscription goes to the artists you listen to
Maybe about the same or similar as a percentage as goes to the artists you buy a LP of - but that depends on their deals and the market dictates a poor deal for artists even there in the vast majority of cases
say it again
because the musicians need to earn an income in order to continue making the music. Or so I believe.
they clearly don't
not least because:
i) Coldplay / etc don't 'need' my money
ii) some kind souls aren't in it for the money (hobbyists) and might have other jobs
But the reason I buy music IS because I think the 'model' for delivery of music is to pay for it. In some way I worry that if I were to stop I would contribute to the collapse of the industry, and I don't want that on my conscience.
Paying so that they can continue to make more of the sort of music you like? And perhaps, given some funds, can dedicate more time they may even improve on what they already do?
but in practice I can't really think of examples of how having more money makes bands better, or how being around for longer is that good. Most bands fizzle out creatively after a few years, with the notable exception of those who were never commercially viable in the first place.
There's a whole different thread there.
If I want a cd, it costs me a tenner, if I want to download an individual track it's about a quid. If I want to go to a gig, I don't mind paying a bit of door tax.
I guess cos I know quite a few people who try and earn a living through music, it's a lot easier for me to equate that with a value.
and laughs at us for our bourgeois notion of conscientious consumerism
Especially those at the bottom end of the scale who are playing the pubs and small clubs.
I've always wondered whether bands should just set-up donations.
I guess fan buying merch and artists selling a CD makes it feel more like a transaction and less like charity.
It's not a charity domation but it is still supporting. If everyone buys coffee from coffe shop A and not coffee shop B, A is still being supported by the cumstom and B will close.
Because if it was a 'pay what you want' model, I'd frequently pay £1 or £2 to artists I liked, which wouldn't seem like much, but I reckon if there was the opportunity to do that, tens of thousands of other people like me would start doing it too, and that's £10,000 just from 10,000 people giving £1 who wouldn't have given any money at all faced with buying an overpriced CD/Download.
Do you think you'd be more likely to pay after spending some time with the music? i.e. you've hit 20 streams, fancy donating a bit to the maker of this song?
And built it. http://albumpeek.com. Currently in beta and is just my old band and a few mates bands, but it actually works. If anyone wants to jump on this with their bands just give me a shout.
I reckon it has legs. It winds me up when I do pay-what-you-want on bandcamp so get it free, then I love the album and want to give some money and there's no obvious way to do it. Hence why I did this. At some point it'll be fancy pants and you can auto-sign up yr band and choose when the fan get's their email etc., but for now I'm just testing the water.
Christ, overpriced? Where are these overpriced CDs/Downloads? Most are barely the cost of two pints. If you're going to claim this is overpriced for what you get out of it maybe you need to reconsider how you cost things?
also, need to look at substitution. What's a cheap alternative to a pint of beer when you're in a pub? vs what's a cheap alternative to a particular album of music (A: about a billion other things you can listen to for free).
and support... either that or I just fucking love them. I buy £5 downloads on 7digital quite often if I've streamed it first and liked it. I think a fiver is a good price for an album.
when they're living on the breadline.
In my head, Vini Reilly of the Durutti Column lived in a house full of guitars, occasionally doing a small tour or putting out an album because the music was in him. The reality we saw last year where he'd had a number of strokes and couldn't afford his rent because of cock ups with his disability benefit showed that you can't just assume artists are doing OK.
If I could guarantee it all went to the artist. Like if each artist had a Paypal account you could pay into if you liked an album. I think that'd be a good idea.
so many more people than just the artist have contributed to it, be it other musicians, producers, masterers, the production factory, the PR, the label, the delivery company.
You can remove a few of those people with on-line music, but you still need most of them.
you CAN remove all of them (apart from presumably the ISP if you're listening via web or the venue owner if you're listening live)
whether you'd want to remove them all or not is something else entirely
you don't need a venue
busking is the purest form of music
or your own private gig/parlour piano recital
..be it a CD, a TV or a Playstation. I would'nt think twice about "stealing" music off artists who have more money than I could ever make in a 1000 lifetimes because I don't really want to give a massive corperation money I don't really have. I do however make a point of buying a T shirt when I go to small gigs because these people are in a similar boat than me and if I can make a small contribution to the people I love to continue doing something they love then it's worth it. Good Lord, I think I might be a socialist or something.
I wonder if it's time for artists to be honest about how little they actually earn.
Maybe the media needs to share more of this http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html (which is the reality for 99.9% of musicians covered by DiS... and to be fair, a lot of not-quite-major indie acts work jobs or do session work or whatever else to get by...)
and less of this http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4354390 and this http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/adele-tops-young-musician-rich-list-with-30m-fortune-as-one-direction-rack-up-25m-8568196.html
they must be doing pretty well and it's their job when in reality most DiS level bands will have other sources of income and you're only going to be a millionaire if you're stadium level.
as I don't recognise having digital files on a laptop as 'owning' anything. It's not tangible. And it's a blurred line (in terms of the user's behaviour, not the legality) between downloading an album illegally and having the option to stream it whenever you want on Spotify/Youtube, which is legal.
and it's not about getting a physical thing for your money or even making a profit for the band it's about covering the costs of making the record.
If a band you like made an album, let's so a d/l only release and no one bought it off bandcamp etc but illegally downloaded it instead. They or their indie label might not be able to afford to make another.
it's not possible to steal data.
music is only data until you click play and make sense of it...or something.
it is also possible to copy data by not removing it from its source
I'm happy to pay £20 for an LP on vinyl because it is tangible, a work of art, etc. Never paid for digital music but used to buy CDs, now I've moved onto vinyl. Plus if you buy a record for £20 you're more likely to give it a proper few spins, considering you paid a fair amount for it!
but this does rip off artists.
And streaming definitely doesn't equate to buying.
Basically, these days, artist are FUCKING FUCKED.
1. It's shit for the artist
2. I don't get anything 'tangible' (see Mongrelcat above)
3. It's prone to 'missing tracks' (apparently)
4. I don't want ALL music on tap ALL the time (it's a cultural/behavioural IWANTITNOW attitude that I want to avoid)
If I want to 'try before I buy' there are plenty of alternative avenues for that.
because of Spotify. Then I write about them, or post links to them and send them to people, so that counts for something.
But yes, it's a rip off and utimately I think it harms music. But that's the way the world is going. Spotify is a good solution to streaming which is an inevitability.
Just realising that Sony only recently ditched minidiscs indicates that legacy technology can persist for years. I think the days of physical delivery (i.e. CDs and vinyl) will be here for many years - perhaps at least until the generation that grew up with physical formats have lost their hearing / had to live on a terrible pension.
By the time all music is streaming, who knows what the musical world will be? We'll probably all hum into the ether and enjoy a whole populace symphony or something. Of course you'll still be able to buy an overpriced white and shiny apple thingy to do it with.
is way better i reckon. Plus it's always there and you can put it on any portable system even when your phone dies etc.
but that means I use a free Spotify account. I can't see how anyone would imagine people who are already paying the cost of an album a month to stream that music any time would then also buy the album. It would be as crazy as thinking people would buy the CD and also the cassette for their car back in the early 90s, rather than just taping the CD.
but that can also be the case for signed artists that might not have the best deal. When i worked as a signed professional musician I made a living from playing live and PRS payments. I never had any meaningful royalty payments from the label.
I would certainly have preferred to self release and have anybody that enjoyed the music pay a token amount directly to us, no matter how small.
(ie spotify, the occasional CD) or indirectly (youtube adverts and ting).
If there was an easy was an easy way to listen to lots of music without paying for it then I'd use it.
to be completely transparent and say "here's how much I earnt last year, and the year before" for people to realise how little they do earn and what a state the industry's in. Although pieces like that Grizzly Bear article linked above ^^ are great, it's done in such vague terms that it's difficult to understand just how much they're talking about
bandcamp/bleep/boomkat/itunes etc have made buying digital music a doddle.
Otherwise I like having the physical artifact + album booklets + liner notes and on a practical note cd's are also nice to have as a high quality back-up.
Spotify Premium so I can easily access stuff on my mobile and make the most of my unlimited data package, purchase if I really like the stream just in case Spotify one day decides to go down (I know, I know), occasional £5 7digital sale, etc.
It's a shame that money you spend on data ends up going to people like Professor Green and V Festival mobile phone branded sort of music / music TV shows.
if I treated it like an unlimited resource where I could get whatever I wanted for nothing. Making a financial investment and having a tangible item provides more of an incentive to give things the time they deserve and properly get into them. Too much choice for me would likely mean I soon get overwhelmed/bored through lack of engagement.
what's the point in having an income if you're not going to spend it on anything
To comment on a broader scale though, today people don't need to commit £10 or so to a record to hear it for the first time, you can just find it somewhere (such as Spotify,YouTube etc.)then make your mind up whether they're willing to pay for it. Whether this is fundamentally good or bad is a different debate, but clearly it puts more power into the hands of the consumer regarding choice, perhaps more so than for any other 'product' you can buy e.g. you can try clothes on in the store but they won't let you wear it out a couple of times first or anything, bit of a rubbish analogy I know, but humour me.
Personally, the effect of Spotify etc. on me (and I'm going to assume a good proportion of people who frequent this site) is that I get to try more music than I have done in the past and, because it is something I love, I'll probably end up buying more as a result (income allowing).
On the whole though, the people who maybe buy 10 or so records a year now have a lot more ways to enjoy music conveniently without buying albums, so whilst the big artists (Adele et al.) will still get their money, the pool of smaller artists (who perhaps get on the Radio 1 B or C playlist for a few weeks) are now fighting over a much more fickle demographic.
Well, I pay for Spotify but you can barely count that in terms of the musicians getting anything from it.
I used to buy everything as CDs or iTunes downloads, but in the last couple of years I've just gotten too used to downloading everything, so easy to check out a band when I'm thinking about going to a gig or something. I would like to buy more, but I think my mindset has changed too much to go back. Yet another reason I wish I was back in the 90s, would have HAD to buy then, no choice