While true, ain’t no problem with pushing back on the man 
2 Likes
Indeed, the never-ending struggle goes on.
With each new advance comes a new ways to exploit.
2 Likes
Artist + Record company is not a symbiotic relationship? Artists should run from a record company contract rather than coveting one?
As we support Roon thus we support streaming? Quite the quandary then.
@OffRode It’s heavily rigged. The artists are left with an unfair reality that for most, a record company contract mostly serves as publicity rather than a revenue stream. The can choose between no publicity, or some publicity. All the while someone else makes the lion share of revenue off their music. Nothing will change unless they unionize, but the artists might be too scattered to get such a thing together.
All that aside, we as consumers are left with a choice as well. We can participate in the theft by streaming, or buy CDs/ Vinyl as directly as possible from our favorite artists.
I totally get the consumer appeal to streaming. But at least for me, it has me questioning my Tidal subscription on ethical grounds rather than “oh, something for free” grounds. Such debates are highly personal.
2 Likes
Since we are talking about right things to do, we should buy digital downloads rather than pieces of plastic.
1 Like
@Marian
Yes, digital download and 3D print a record 
1 Like
Spotify has lost over 3 billion euros since inception. It is likely that no streaming service is turning a profit.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/244990/spotifys-revenue-and-net-income/
2 Likes
I have the answer , lets all nip onto Pirate Bay and download it for free , it probably came from Spotify anyway by some tricky software route . That way it’s equality no one gets anything 
SORRY JOKING before the Thought Police start working
This getting a bit heavy , I never really rated @John_V as anything other than a tad sarcastic 
3 Likes
This is the primary reason the CEO of JRiver will not touch streaming services , along with I suspect a few burnt fingers from trying .
They do however support certain video streams which are profitable , Netflix, Amazon etc
When has a “flash mob robbery” been legal, but super shady?
2 Likes
Netflix isn’t profitable either. Amazon is however although it’s propped up by the online retail and AWS services. It’s just a means to get people in the Amazon Eco system like Apple does for music and Apple TV+. They are all loss leaders. The big studios are also struggling to make streaming hugely profitable, Disney just axed loads of stuff, Paramount isn’t doing as well nor Warner’s with HBO max. The main issue with video is too fragmented now not one single provider to give you all that’s around. Unlike music services.
2 Likes
It keeps them out of landfill and helps insulates my attic now all the vinyl is downstairs 
3 Likes
This article makes me think. There are many musicians, who write and sing their on songs. But reading this article illustrates, what is behind the “music business”.
Looking back in history, stereo microphones were used, but the musicians were told, it is mono. Because the recording companies did pay less for mono …
No excuse for todays behaviour, but it was always a rip off somehow.
3 Likes
This forum is a bit schizophrenic: some people think that streaming is stealing because of its price, while others think that Tidal is exaggerating by charging $19.99 or removing their advantageous Best Buy offer. But isn’t the whole point of streaming, and Spotify in particular, to get large numbers of users who previously didn’t pay to pay a small fee and thus increase their numbers? Prices will undoubtedly rise, but streaming services need to find the right balance to suit the profile of the vast majority of users, who tend to be young and oriented towards Rap (https://cnm.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DMS_2021_ENG.pdf), and who experience music as a consumer item rather than a cultural object (which is regrettable, but that’s the way it is). Isn’t the sale of second-hand records also theft for the musician, who gets nothing out of it, and the same goes for copies of CDs (illegal, but commonplace). If streaming is not beneficial for musicians, we can also think that it has enabled an incredible increase in the number of musicians who would not be known without these services and would not benefit from sufficient CD sales.
5 Likes
Quite enjoy some of the tongue in cheek stuff in this thread, as well as more serious comments .
But still, it makes me ponder where I stand, as a very happy (Qobuz) streamer, and what in fact I know about my own behaviour and how great, or terrible, it is for artists and others involved in creating music.
I tried to quantify and qualify my behaviour, and what it means, and probably got it all wrong. Here goes …
Streaming
Over a year I play approximately … (via Roon)
- 1200 hours - 18000 songs?
Plus a bit more via radio and direct from Qobuz and other sources - 21000 songs total?
My Roon playtime of course includes local, already purchased, content…But let’s e.g. assume 2/3 is from outside the local collection - Qobuz streams in my case. This is admittedly a wild guess, and (deliberately) towards the high end of what occurs to me as realistic.
So, I would get exposure to maybe 14000 streamed songs, via low-cost (but not free) ‘window shopping’.
Purchases
(full albums) … bought over a year for my own collection and some as gifts. Approximately :
- 125 CDs ;
- 30 Vinyl records ;
- 100 Digital downloads (without physical media) from Bandcamp ;
- 35 Digital downloads (without physical media) from other sources, (10 or so via Amazon, remainder direct from artist or label)
In total 290 records. Average 10 songs. By ca 250 (album) artists.
Total purchase cost ex shipping and tax around 3000 GBP for close to 3000 songs. (Not so clear to me how much of this goes to artists, to independent labels, to big fish in the chain …)
In other words…
Streaming 14000 songs (the ‘window shopping’) converts into spending GBP 3000 of my money (on average ca 1 pound per song bought) on music purchases, effectively on a lifetime right to listen to play ca 3000 songs whenever I like. I don’t feel I am over- or underpaying.
As I buy albums, not songs, these are not a simple subset of what I streamed. And the bulk of my money benefits only those involved with the sales chain of around 250 album artists - I may have streamed from many more, perhaps 10K artists? So my purchases are more ‘concentrated’ in the sense of covering a relatively limited number of artists. But that is not really different from window shopping old style, I guess.
But still, despite not knowing where the money exactly goes, my ability to stream unlimited (at a very low cost) appears to make me spend more, not less, on music than at any time before I had this opportunity. And a good proportion of it is spent through channels that I hope benefit and reward artists fairly.
Please, tell me I am deserving to sleep the sleep of the innocent 
…
Sweet dreams all!
2 Likes
Well, the forum is not a schizophrenic hive mind but different individuals with different opinions
I agree that this is part of the calculation. In the past, before digital downloads, a very small percentage of people actually purchased records in any significant numbers.
My parents, rather average people, didn’t buy one in decades as far I am aware. Nor did any relative in my family as far as I recall. Among my friends in my youth, most of them interested in contemporary music at least in principle and some being fans, maybe bought one or two a year if at all. I was regarded as a frequent buyer for maybe buying one a month (which was all I could afford).
Many of the greatest “alternative” records of the nineties (apart from Nevermind or something like that) sold 50K or 100K if they were lucky, which works out to a few K USD for the band - if they saw any money at all (Compare Steve Albini’s “The Problem with Music” essay from that time).
Maybe the numbers don’t work out with streaming either, in the current scheme, but to me it seems that in principle it’s not impossible if you get hundreds of millions of subscribers to pay a small subscription fee
2 Likes
Mary Spender is a brilliant singer who also gives the artist’s perspective on this topic. This is worth a watch:
4 Likes
“Fair” and “unfair” are perceptions, not realities. Planted somewhere in your argument is an axiom that the proportion of Spotify profits actually received by the artist should be higher than it is. Why should that be? And what is the correct split, if not the current one? Perhaps it should be lower than it currently is?
Presumably an artist signs a contract that places their music on the streaming service because that artist thinks it is in their best interest. Are they adults? Should they be allowed to run their own lives? Would they be happier if they were showered with higher royalties? Almost certainly. But where is it written that society should be torqued to make musicians happier, and presumably someone else unhappier?
And, of course, there are already unions for musicians.
3 Likes
Now for a non-tongue in cheek comment (and no, you’ll have to discern which is which without the use of emojis): the music business is a sick industry. It has zero barriers to entry: any kid with a guitar and time can enter into the fray, and publishing costs are incredibly low. The suppliers (musicians) have no power, primarily because they are in plentiful supply. Competition is intense: here today, gone tomorrow.
The industry hasn’t made meaningful returns since the middle ages when minstrels traveled from hamlet to hamlet. So incredibly talented people are virtually doomed to subsistance wages, unless they happen to achieve superstar status.
The joy of making music, and the intoxication of being an idol, create an incredible endless oversupply of music and result in paltry deals from the likes of Spotify (although one poster revealed that Spotify’s musician fees probably aren’t low enough - no profits!).
So when legal, CONSENSUAL streaming gets tagged as “legalized theft” I think people need to consult their economics textbooks again, if they even have any.
2 Likes
While I agree in principle, there was certainly an unfairness when labels were the gatekeepers and the label’s lawyer got 50K out of a contract signing while the artist got nothing or ended up owing the label. Again, I refer to Albini’s “The problem with music” essay for the pre-streaming situation in the nineties.
And new tech brings new kinds of problems, but as per Albini in 2014/15 (linked above) the internet overall was a big improvement for artists