This. Streaming from Tidal provides me the opportunity to hear vast amounts of new music - I go through each week and listen to new stuff that’s coming out and if I like it I’ll buy a copy - hopefully a download but if not then a CD. I also make sure to buy stuff from Bandcamp on their Fridays when they waive their fees.
BTW I find it frustrating (and perplexing) so many artists (and/or labels) not make their albums available as a decent quality download (minimum CD quality). I have no need for CDs but for some of the music I want I can’t get it any other way. It’s not exactly environmentally friendly!
Streaming is broken as a business model that adequately supports Artists because the underlying structures of copyright, publishers and collection societies are inadequate to deal with the Internet and digital media.
Copyright grew from a 16th century stationers monopoly and it shows. The most interesting illustration of its inherent geographic limitations was the Byzantine complexity that Chris Hadfield encountered with his version of Space Oddity. Even that article glosses over the difficulties as Bowie was subject to music publishing agreements that fractured his rights geographically until special arrangements for this one song were made.
Additionally, any serious reform of copyright would require amendment of the Berne Convention and will be opposed by those who currently profit from the existing arrangements and who have the deepest of deep pockets. You mess with The Mouse at your peril.
The result is that reform will be slow and incremental and is unlikely to be accomplished by established Artists. Young musicians need to have expensive original legal advice before signing publishing agreements, but at such an early stage of their careers they don’t have the clout to insist on a fairer slice of the pie.
If I was dictator of the world I’d restrict copyright assignments of performing, broadcasting and streaming rights to 5 year terms. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
I had felt a longish post coming on but it’s now a +1 for @andybob’s post. My only addition, as world dictator, would be to reduce the terms of all IPR. Reward innovation but, IMHO, long term IPR protection stifles it. If after 5 years someone can beat you at your own idea you need to up your game…
Fame, glamour, lifestyle, get there mesage voice out and to make a living. Most bands struggle to do the latter. This is quite a common occurence these days Jim. If your not writing your own material then you realy are going to get screwed at some point especially if you fall out of favour. There have been many big artists against strreaming to its not just the little ones as it affects their revenue to. Even Taylor Swift banned her material from Spotify for quite some time if I remember.
That’s why I spend most of my music $$$ on independent artists, such as the wonderful crew at Biophilia, who have now a subscription plan (go check it out!).
No kidding. I’ve been close to streaming projects on and off for the last 23 years or so — from well before streaming had taken off — and the story is simple: labels who control the rights for the popular acts have the upper hand and push for deals that are ruinous to the streaming service but keep user costs low enough to make piracy not worth it. The only way for a streaming service to keep going is as a loss leader for some other product. If you look at the current business, you can easily figure out who is using streaming to sell something else, and who is trying (against all evidence from the last 20 years) to make money as a digital distributor for major labels.
Yes, it is actually. It is one of control. If a user wanted to hear her music when and in the order she desired, that control only came with a purchase. Radio queuing was controlled by an outside entity, and listening was mostly a passive choice.
It’d probably run much better if the title was changed. The topic is about the (un)just treatment of artists by streaming services rather than criticisng users of streaming services.
Musicians can and do still make good money if they know how to. It’s the same as in most other lines of work. But if you love making music, it’s one of the most fulfilling ways to earn a living (I’ve been in the business for 20+ years now). It would be hypocritical to pretend we’re all broke. Streaming can be a solid (additional) source of income, but I make most of my money in the studio and on stage…
Just because artists from 50 years ago made a lot of money then doesn’t mean the same should be true today. Artists should make what the market will bear for their works. Let’s not forget that record companies invest in a lot of turds to find the few gems. Does anyone have any real numbers on how well the labels are actually doing?