By making really short songs.
noise artists ahead of the curve putting 500 songs on a cd
that got nerfed after a band put a 30 second white noise song on their page and asked fans to play it while they slept
They aren’t. The fees are supposed to benefit the streaming companies.
I hope the bill discussed in the article helps rectify that.
Less avocado toast.
Those goddamn machiatos.
You heard that new song by Avocado Toast and the Macchiatos?
Oh yeah, their seminal EP “I’ll never afford a house at this rate” sure is a banger.
To put that in perspective… If you listened to 30+ songs a day, a thousand a month. And you only listened to ONE artist. That artist’s label company would get $1.73 for the month, and of that, the artist would probably pick up like 50c.
To give an alternative perspective.
Dua Lipa “Levitating” has made 3.4 Million dollars on streaming revenue. Blinding Lights by The Weeknd is over double that.
Then the real success stories are the Indies. Run the Jewels only have 1.2 Billion streams but that 2 million dollars is their 2 million dollars.
Its peanuts per stream but anyone anywhere in the world can be a fan and show their support by ordering an overpriced Tshirt from the website.
Ok, not defending the record and streaming companies but this is nothing new. In the past if you bought an album the artist would see around 1.50$. At an average of 13 tracks on an album you would have to listen to the full album 133 times to equal 3$. That would be close to the band getting 1.50 depending on their contract. This math makes a lot of assumptions about royalties that are varied and complex but I listen to many albums more than that on streaming.
Bands never made tons of money off record sales, there are lots of better ways to support bands you like. Royalties are often paid to the band in merch, so buy a CD or vinyl directly from the band. Same for anything they sell directly at concerts or on their site.
That said I would love to see better shares for the artists, but it’s unlikely going to get better because screwing artists goes back decades.
The access to Spotify is also super easy. I was in bands and unless you were already popular or had a record deal, getting your CD in stores was almost impossible. I managed to get my bands CD into all the hot topic stores in my state but it was a huge undertaking for a 20 year old kid that just wanted to play music and knew nothing about getting upc codes and negotiating margin and managing inventory.
When Spotify came around I was able to put my music up with about an hours worth of work which was mostly entering banking details, uploading the songs and artwork, and writing a blurb.
I honestly want to start a record label just to put all the local bands I used to play with up on Spotify. Most of them broke up just before the barriers to entry fell down and now the music is lost forever.
Thats why RTJ drop their albums for free. The money is in fans buying merch, buying limited edition vinyl pressings, appearance fees, licencing the songs to tv and movies touring and concert appearances.
On their own label, they have absolute control of how the money is spent.
RTJ.
Man so many acronyms. Cant know em all.
TIAFPMWAA
Yeah thats my bad. Run The Jewels.
Return of The Jedi.
Presumably not run the jewels as it seems they charge for theirs?
For RTJ 3 and 4 If you registered before the release date they sent a code to redeem on Google Music for the full album for free.
No catch, no strings, no being pestered with marketing emails till the end of time.
So, I just asked a GPT to name some famous bands with the initials RTJ and literally Run the Jewels was the only answer.
Edit: GPT = Good prompt texter.
Considering there are 10s of millions of users that doesn’t seem too bad tbh.
You’re looking at the mega successes. It’ll be nice for musicians with thousands or tens of thousands of listeners to be able to feed themselves
I feel like people are starting themselves blind on per-stream revenue in a bad way - no one is actually paying per stream. Not the customers, not the streaming companies, not the labels. This is the deal when it comes to streaming platforms - you get to listen to as much as you want for a fixed amount of money per month.
It’s a little bit like saying someone who bought a CD in the 90s for $10 and listened to every song 100 times is a 10 times worse customer than someone who bought the same CD and listened to every song just 10 times. Yes, the person who listened to the CD 100 times paid 10 times less on a per-song listen basis, but that’s quite simply not relevant.
I think the latest issue now is how Spotify for example is changing their revenue sharing model in a way that big artists (i.e. Taylor Swift) get a bigger chunk from the pie and smaller artists get close to nothing in % from streaming income. So the value of a single stream for a song is different depending on who you’re listening to.
What change is this in reference to? I’m not familiar with it.
This article can probably explain it better than I can: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/06/spotify-royalty-model-ramifications/
There is a finite amount of music that you can listen to in a month.
Meanwhile… Last year, Taylor Swift received over $100 million for streaming from Spotify alone, making her a billionaire.
Clearly, (some) musicians are doing better than ever. And, judging by this dishonest, manipulative screed, they are determined to do better still.
This is why more people need to move away from Spotify. They pay artists way too little.
That figure is potentially misleading. You want to know how much of your subscription or ad revenue is paid out. The per stream royalty is diluted by non-paying users, or by users paying lower rates (in poorer countries, etc). If you move your subscription to a service that pays out a lower share, then you pay musicians less, even if the average payout per stream is higher.
If ads don’t make enough money to pay artists, then Spotify shouldn’t offer a free tier. Don’t support a company that is hurting artists.
This is the kind of thinking that usually gets mocked on lemmy.
0 . 0 0 3
Give me two years, and your dinner will be free
Gas station champagne is on me
Edgar cannot pay rent for me … 🎶
I thought deezer paid a LOT better
This was a deciding factor in why I use Tidal.
Record companies have been stealing artist record sales for 70 years. This is nothing new to musical artists. The motivation to get on a streaming service is so sell tickets to your tour shows. Inflated album prices of the 90s made very few artists any money.
Streaming was never going to be profitable, it was the only option the music industry had to make any kind of money over piracy.
Most artists are happy to be making nothing on streaming, because giving access to your recorded music sells tickets. Tour tickets sales and merch has been the bread and butter for the musical artist for decades and remains the primary source of income.
Most artists are happy to be making nothing on streaming
Which artists have said they’re happy with no income on streaming?
How many minor artists are doing big tours?
We need a users controlled streaming platform. First we have to get rid of those disgusting capitist rats, then we can work on a revenu model. People are willing to pay a small amount to access content, that’ proven now, we just need to give the control to the users.
There’s this streaming co-op that me and my friend joined a few months ago. It’s still in the building stages but hopefully it gains some traction. It’s called jam.coop
This looks awesome.
Convenience and consumption mechanism matter. The current entrenchment of the top services provide this and user centric mechanisms usually fall flat.
Isnt Lemmy proving otherwise? But yeah, keep paying Spotify because “convenience” and I’ll keep buying albums on bandcamp because it’s the only current fair option.
Isnt Lemmy proving otherwise?
We are an extremely small bubble, comparable in size to your average 2008 internet forum.
So what? It’s a user controlled platform that is convenient, proving it’s possible.
Let’s hope that bandcamp stays like that for a while, I’ve been worrying for it’s future since it was bought by Epic Games
Epic actually sold Bandcamp to another corporation last year. I’m also quite worry, but they added a few nice features and didn’t change the revenu model , so far so good.
Small fee boatloads of content or small fee per music small music selection. You do you, but the masses don’t align with your approach.
I use bandcamp because I like helping the artists I enjoy. Since its a small niche I prefer that most of my spending goes directly to them. Otherwise with the profits being so small they would stop making music. Sadly as you said the masses don’t care about that.
On the other hand Iappreciated that the streaming services as Spotify have helped reach more audience and made accessible to people that otherwise would have never heard of them unless maybe pirating.
I’ve followed a few artists on bandcamp as well and am grateful for the platform. On the flip side as you say reach is extensive via the other mechanisms.
I’d like to point out that in some cases it’s less a matter of preference and sometimes a budgetary constraint as to which services people gravitate toward, especially if your tastes are broad.
Yeah because the masses are brainwashed into the believing they too can be billionaire, lol. I’ll keep doing me, you and “the masses” can keep enabling Joe Rogan.
Yes, keep doing you. As I said. Not sure why you’re taking this so personally.
Lol, I don’t take it personally, I just don’t get what you’re doing here with that kind of resigned capitalist enabling discourse. You would be better on facebook or twitter. People like you like consumption, not music.
Understood, you’re not here for discourse you’re here to proselytize and grandstand. Best of luck.
Because there’s a fuckload of people streaming and because they’ve already paid for it, they do it for hours every day.
There’s artists on tens of billions of streams. That’s enough to live on for anyone.
Of course if you’ve got only a few thousand streams then you’re going to make fuck all, but you probably weren’t going to make anything anyway. You might get a few fans from discovering things on Spotify who might turn up to your gigs or buy that T-shirt or whatever, but with that number of listeners you probably wouldn’t even have got any radio play in the old days, let alone make money from albums.
Most people never make money on art, no matter which art it is, or what business model they use. It’s just life. If you never hit that mainstream vein, you’re going to need a proper job.
Cooking is a form of art.
That’ll be a 25% tip for your server.
I love how in this scenario cooking is the art but the guy walking your food to you feels like the star.
Commercial radio stations pay about 12 cents per play, while college stations pay about 6 cents per play. Half of the money goes to the publisher and half goes to the songwriter or songwriters.
It’s always been a crap shoot for musicians. They make more money touring which is why even really successful musicians tour well into their twilight years.
Record sales are also a crapshoot. Someone else posted the numbers for those in this thread. Streaming allows more access by more people to more music. But that access results in a cost. The cost is less pay per listen. The entire industry is broken.
https://kbin.social/m/music@lemmy.world/t/926850/-/comment/5918633
Easy.
The average middle class income in Canada is $70,000. All I have to do is get 40.5 million streams per year to afford a small home 2 hours away from the city where I play music.
Honestly, you can be a full-time musician or you can have a comfortable life. You can’t have both.
You’re probably still right but the comparison to a job doesn’t make sense because the labor component isn’t continuous for streaming. The job would be live touring, streaming would be additional income on top.
I would agree, but shows on the road habitually pay close to nothing because musician compensation hasn’t really increased in the last half century. So generally you make money off of album sales and merch sales at shows, not really money to live off of either.
They don’t need money to survive, they just need exposure which is what Spotify provides them. Musicians can survive indefinitely on nothing but praise cocaine and exposure.
/J
Oh ya know just simply get a billion streams per song
700,000 streams per month across their entire discography gets you to the poverty wage for an individual.
Plus it is entirely passive income once the songs are out so they could tour live in addition, or go get a non-music job if it’s not enough.
