Excellent point!
Must we support the artists en masse? Or can we be selective? And in case I was misunderstood, I wasn’t advocating “leaving the ship”. I was saying that the “ship” won’t float.
The theatre district right-sized itself 20-25 years or so ago. Used to be a 20+ piece orchestra in the pit each day, every day, two or three performances. Now, it’s maybe three live artists and a sound board and a tape player. Is it “progress”? Is it “a shame”? Was it “unfair” to the artists who got laid off? Was Broadway unethical to move to a canned-music model?
This white-paper idea will attract some interest, maybe a lot at first. They will get a few major artists who sign “for the good of the industry.” But the supply will come mostly from those artists who aren’t faring well in the hyper-competitive other world.
Meanwhile, the demand will be a small market of those who make a good living, drive their Prius to Starbucks, buy a fair-trade cup of coffee, then turn on their hi-rez FairShot streaming service for which they pay 2X - 4X, and listen to a collection of aspirant artists (BTW I do two of these things). There will NEVER be a thriving market where people pay extra for services out of the goodness of their hearts. Not as a primary motivator.
I think a model that could thrive is the kind practiced by Tom McDermott, a talented pianist from New Orleans. He seems to do the whole musical spectrum: composing, live gigs, concerts, and recording, maybe birthday parties. If you want to buy his music, you may pay full price ($16-$19) to Rabadash Records in New Orleans. I doubt Rabadash has cut a deal with streamers yet.
I would guess that he has captured 50% of the value chain for himself. He’s making higher margins off of lower sales. Probably a low/no marketing word-or-mouth proposition.
This model requires no altruism, no standard contracts, no BitCoin payment requirements (or worse, a “trust us” currency). The model can be replicated instantly, and requires little more than top-shelf talent and a work ethic. Luck always plays a role.
Of course, I could be wrong.
I hear what you say and most of the artists I know work hard gigging, rehearsing, writing, managing and traveling. They are forced by streaming to give their music away. Sure they sell CD’s and T shirts etc but it’s a bleak living, you have to be doing it for art. Consequently the best and most vibrant music is to be found playing small gigs live.
If streaming won’t pay, and it won’t; do yourselves a favour and take in some live music and buy the CD. This way we can hang on to original talent for a little longer.
Just thoughts…
1 Like
I agree, under the current streaming regime it is simply unethical, immoral and unsustainable for artists. Why should you be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour without buying it. Streaming in its current form is nothing other than legitimised piracy. If you believe otherwise, go ask global software houses how they’d feel about being paid by torrent hosts based on the number of downloads.
3 Likes
Note my not-so-subtle plug for Mr. McDermott. I wish he would come my way; I’d even travel a state or two. 
1 Like
Evan, if you are familiar with industry practices, please answer this serious but uninformed question: how is it that streamers have a legal right to stream? I’m NOT picking a fight.
I assume they get permission from the major and minor labels, but then the question becomes: where do the labels get their right to give permission? Somewhere along the legal chain, something must have gone badly awry. It could be that streamers and labels are taking unfair advantage of vague contract language, or perhaps a loophole exists that no one even thought of when the artist signed the original contract. Or maybe the labels used maximum leverage to make artists sign “boilerplate” contracts when they were young, stupid, and hungry. But what labels and/or streamers are doing has some contractual legitimacy in their favor. I doubt they are exposed.
The labels would argue that they have paid for those rights, they “bought” the artists’ output “ear unheard” and they had no way to predict the popularity of any one body of work. So, they would add, the “outrageous” profits made on a small percentage of hits help to pay for the large majority of non-hits.
So, any expertise out there? Are artists’ contracts starting to change now that streaming has revealed itself to be the beast that it is? Is the supply of new talent drying up as more starving artists choose not to starve? Someone needs to organize this loose band of spirits. The situation begs for a union.
I don’t have any special insights into the contacting regime, but this article sheds some light on the basis of payment: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-muzak-pelly121
I posted a link to a lawsuit against Spotify somewhere in this thread. There is some history there about it.
Chris, Thanks. There was a $43MM settlement in a class action suit that alleged that Spotify wasn’t paying royalties to stakeholders. Part of the issue focused on how diligent Spotify was in seeking out stakeholders. Spotify was asserting bad or missing copyright data.
But you and others seem to saying it is not only the slow payment, but also the “paltry amount” of the payment.
Here is the executive summary on digital rights (not to be confused with sync, mechanical, or performance rights) “Under the law, 45 percent of performance royalties are paid directly to the featured artists on a recording, and 5 percent are paid to a fund for non-featured artists. The other 50 percent of the performance royalties are paid to the rights owner of the sound recording.”
Here is a detailed look at the money split with pictures:
https://www.manatt.com/Manatt/media/Media/PDF/US-Streaming-Royalties-Explained.pdf
Interestingly, I found a 2016 lawsuit (not class action) against TIDAL for non-payment. No hits on whether it’s been adjudicated or settled. Again, it seems to be over the lack of an iron-clad system for identifying stakeholders.
Summary: the royalty system is a pot-full of minutiae and fine print and its easy to see how artists could sign things against their better interests. However, I find it hard to justify the “unethical” or “immoral” labels for streamers. The “rapists” in this drama are losing money too. It’s a sick industry. I understand better the call for using a royalty cyber-currency. It’s a way for pennies to be easily distributed to the various interests.
1 Like
Looking at it quickly it doesn’t account for how the portion set aside for artists is divided amongst the artists, which is set out here and is clearly inequitable. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-muzak-pelly121
hmm, couldn’t reach your link. But I did read that the split among artists – including composer, producer, performer, and backup – is set on a case by case basis, negotiated by band, and sometimes, by album. I doubt there are equal shares if that’s what you mean by inequitable.
Sorry I still don’t get the inequity label, but perhaps we should agree to disagree. Are you saying there should be one formula, one scheme, that all must comply with?
This seems on point:
Saw that. Great. However, they seem to be focused only on songwriters?
Related:
Does it redress the basis of distribution based on what a subscriber has actually listened to in the billing period? If not it’s just throwing more money at Bieber, Taylor Swift and the like.
Yes I would happily pay, if the artists that I stream actually got the royalty portion of my monthly fee.
$25 - 30 dollars a month, maybe with a prepay discount for the non-royalty portion.