Why are we falling for the great vinyl scam?

[Dynamics]

Highly unlikely much of this 'extra revenue' would make it's way to artists. They could just pay them more now, couldn't they? It's not like digital distribution is getting more expensive, is it?

Most likely why artists tour so much (to generate direct income) and sell vinyl and - heaven forfend - cassettes direct to fans. CDs. too.

I think it will get to them for the smaller players certainly, if the industry does better on the whole. The ed sheerans etc will always do well because they have huge impact. But the music market is now half what it was in 2000 by revenue, when cd started declining. So it's more difficult for record companies to pay relatively unknown artists more cash with the same costs they have. Digital distribution is cheaper clearly but this is not reflected in the model at the moment as most streaming firms like tidal, Spotify, are loss making. I suspect due to marketing and implementation costs which must be huge. Record firm are making money but a smaller section of the pie. The new artists will command more from pay per stream royalties as the overall size of the streaming market gets bigger and they will do that if more people buy into streaming, because the relative proportion of money to be made from records is tiny in proportion to that which could be made by them via streaming (which is increasing much faster than vinyl and a much bigger market to vinyl too). Whilst I think it's good to support artists with vinyl purchasing, if people really want to support artists to the way music is now being listened to, buy vinyl I'd say, but get a streaming sub too. Enough said from me.

[jusbe]

I think it will get to them for the smaller players certainly, if the industry does better on the whole. The ed sheerans etc will always do well because they have huge impact. But the music market is now half what it was in 2000 by revenue, when cd started declining. So it's more difficult for record companies to pay relatively unknown artists more cash with the same costs they have. Digital distribution is cheaper clearly but this is not reflected in the model at the moment as most streaming firms like tidal, Spotify, are loss making. I suspect due to marketing and implementation costs which must be huge. Record firm are making money but a smaller section of the pie. The new artists will command more from pay per stream royalties as the overall size of the streaming market gets bigger and they will do that if more people buy into streaming, because the relative proportion of money to be made from records is tiny in proportion to that which could be made by them via streaming (which is increasing much faster than vinyl and a much bigger market to vinyl too). Whilst I think it's good to support artists with vinyl purchasing, if people really want to support artists to the way music is now being listened to, buy vinyl I'd say, but get a streaming sub too. Enough said from me.

Perhaps. But I don't see new bands forming, rushing to get playtime on Spotify or similar. They are forming new audiences away from established and/or larger publishers and distribution concerns. Lots of smaller labels do well but seem to focus on live performance and more direct relationships to their listeners. The model you refer to is old and tired, and in the service of long-established businesses who are presently trying to ram MQA down my throat. No thanks.

I have a streamer (or sorts) - it's called a radio, and has the added value of having much of the music curated for me, and the advantage of benefitting from another human's investment in time and discovery, on my behalf. When I'm feeling less curmudgeonly (sorry, that last sentence was a bit grumpy), I entertain ideas of getting some kind of streaming mechanism going, but the main driver for this (our children) don't seem to give a monkey's whether their tunes are available on the house system or not.

But, to each, his/her own. And we'll likely end up with something streamy, sometime.

[struth]

Perhaps. But I don't see new bands forming, rushing to get playtime on Spotify or similar. They are forming new audiences away from established and/or larger publishers and distribution concerns. Lots of smaller labels do well but seem to focus on live performance and more direct relationships to their listeners. The model you refer to is old and tired, and in the service of long-established businesses who are presently trying to ram MQA down my throat. No thanks.

I have a streamer (or sorts) - it's called a radio, and has the added value of having much of the music curated for me, and the advantage of benefitting from another human's investment in time and discovery, on my behalf. When I'm feeling less curmudgeonly, I entertain ideas of getting some kind of streaming mechanism going, but the main driver for this (our children) don't seem to give a monkey's whether their tunes are available on the house system or not.

But, to each, his/her own.

I do all 3 tbh. Got spotify, although its only mp3 320kb, plus my own files which I can access in several ways, and internet radio too which has come on leaps imv. So much music there it gets hard to find time to spin cd far less vinyl. Still, its nice to have options and the only one that costs money really is Spotify, and although I'm poor I find it value.

[alphaGT]

As I was exposed to steaming by the other members here on AoS, I got on Google and did a ton of reading. It says that Spotify specifically pays a fee for every stream of a song, to the record company that owns it, and the artist's share amounts to $0.0007 per play! So Tidal comes along and advertises themselves as the artists streaming company! Because they pay a whopping $0.007 per play. Ten times what Spotify plays, but artists generally have no or little choice who is streaming their music, the rights to their songs belongs to the record companies, and most record companies have signed with both providers. I did the math, and if you record a killer hit song, and you get a million plays! You will get paid a whopping $7,000. Certainly a long way from the millions they got paid back in the late 70's, by the time you break that up between all who receive royalties for any given song, the average musician is not getting rich from his music. Perhaps these prices are similar to what one makes from standard radio play? But it sure doesn't measure up to what a band was making through album sales, which streaming replaces. Radio play only gave you a tease, one song from an album, played when they wanted, not when you wanted. It made you want to buy the record! But streaming allows you to hear your favorite song as often as you like, along with the rest of the album, no need to ever buy the album. And now you can even hear full lossless files from Tidal, so what motivation does an artist have to record?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Macca]

, so what motivation does an artist have to record?

If their motivation for making music is making money I'd be happy if they don't bother recording.

[struth]

Think it has to be part of the motivation. Why give up your life to something if you dont get well paid for it. No, I dont think all by any means go into it for money as such(well maybe a bit). fame maybe more; everyone who is young fancies a bit of fame'' til they get it. I am sure that the top artists get lots of cash so that is the target. if everyone of them made a fortune the music would stink

[Macca]

Why do you need to give up your life? 1 album every 2 years that's say 5 songs a year you need to write. Do that in your spare time. If you are in a band and more than one member is writing that is even less to do. Most of the musicians I know have full time jobs. They still find time to write, rehearse, record and play gigs.

Okay if you want to gig full time that is a job but then you can only do that if enough people like your stuff that they will pay to come and see you. That means it makes more sense to put your material out there for free. You will be able to make a living but you are unlikely to get rich. At least you get to do what you love for a job, though.

So the days of writing one hit song and retiring to a mansion with royalty cheques landing on the doormat every day are over, but nothing lasts forever.

[Stratmangler]

That means it makes more sense to put your material out there for free

No it doesn't.
It makes a lot more sense to own your own publishing, because things like TV & radio stations are actually pretty good at paying royalty payments.
The same will apply to streaming companies. Revenue from them may not be all that great, but at least whoever owns the publishing will get the due payment.

So the days of writing one hit song and retiring to a mansion with royalty cheques landing on the doormat every day are over, but nothing lasts forever.

I don't think those days ever really existed.
There's the odd one, but they're few and far between.
The ones that really pay? You don't even have to look that far, because they're right under your nose. Think mundane things, such as national radio jingles. I know of one widow who still gets royalty cheques for her late husband's work, and she's not rolling in it, but she's not too badly off either.

[Dynamics]

James blunt was talking about the very small royalties he gets paid per stream, on some Cambridge student union talk on you tube I watched, but these royalties represent the commission based amounts he gets paid by the streaming services no doubt via his own record company. The streaming firms also get charged by the record companies for putting their artists on the streaming sites./services. And it's important to remember too that these well known artists will have their own fee based record contracts with the record companies too. I bet pretty much all artists do. It will be tied to a percentage of actual revenues the record companies make from him no doubt. So it's not as if these relatively small per stream amounts are his only revenue stream. But I wonder too how these streams rack up and the amounts of streams he has too.

[Macca]

The ones that really pay? You don't even have to look that far, because they're right under your nose. Think mundane things, such as national radio jingles. I know of one widow who still gets royalty cheques for her late husband's work, and she's not rolling in it, but she's not too badly off either.

True, the bloke who wrote the Channel 4 fanfare did quite well out of it and it was only four notes.

I knew a bloke once who wrote the theme for an Australian gameshow, he stood to do quite well if the program was popular but it was cancelled before it ever aired. That's decades ago now though. I doubt they are so generous anymore, nothing like as much money in TV as there was.