Casual listeners won't, but they never did anyway. If people really like my music, I still believe they'll support it somewhere, somehow. I do not see streaming as a threat to my income, just like I've never regarded file-sharing as a threat but as a convenient way to hear music. Streaming is not yet a replacement for digital sales, and to conflate the two is a mistake. "The income of a non-mainstream artist like me is a patchwork quilt and streaming is currently one tiny square in that quilt. Zoe Keating shared data on her digital income How You Turn Music Into Money in 2012 (Spoiler: Mostly iTunes) That's an important read, but his new piece has some thoughts on how the music industry might learn from open-source software culture, with musicians finding a new "decentralised" network to distribute streaming music and make money off the back of it. Independent musician Krukowski (of Galaxie 500 and Damon and Naomi) has already made one influential contribution to the streaming debate with his Making Cents op-ed for Pitchfork last year, breaking down his royalty payments. Perhaps that kind of competition would spark newly cooperative ideas, and take us away from the antagonistic relationship between much of the music business on one hand, and the network of musicians and fans on the other." What I am envisioning is something like what has developed for music posting via YouTube, but allowed to proliferate throughout the network, without corporate control over context or quality. Services like Spotify might continue to operate as they are, with their pittance of revenue sharing, but they would have to compete in an open market of free streaming by musicians and fans. So let them flow freely – from everyone, fans included – instead of only from companies that have cut deals with the copyright holders. "One way we could start is to collectively acknowledge that nobody can really claim digital streams as exclusive property. Not Frere-Jones' words, but a useful collection of the tweeted criticisms of Spotify and the streaming business model by Atoms for Peace's Nigel Godrich. The model massively favors the larger companies with big catalogues." Catalogue and new music cannot be lumped in together. The massive amount of catalogue being streamed guarantees that they get the massive slice of the pie (that $500 million), and the smaller producers and labels get pittance for their comparatively few streams. The big labels did secret deals with Spotify and the like in return for favorable royalty rates. Big labels have massive back catalogues, so their forty-year-old record by a dead artist earns them the same slice of the pie as a brand new-track by a new artist. Spotify say they have generated $500 million for "license holders." The way that Spotify works is that the money is divided up by percentage of total streams. Spotify and the like either have to address that fact and change the model for new releases or else all new music producers should be bold and vote with their feet. "Streaming suits catalogue but cannot work as a way of supporting new artists. If you care about music, should you ditch Spotify? Now feels like a good time to publish an updated version here, with a selection of 10 pieces for artists and fans alike to read and think about. Yet it's also a debate dominated by gut feelings and data of varying quality, and a tendency to slip into polarised opinions along the lines of "Spotify is just the latest embodiment of THE MAN!" or "Thom Yorke's a rich HYPOCRITE!"Įarlier this year, I published a roundup of views and data on the streaming music / artists debate for industry site Music Ally. It's an emotional debate, and an important one at a critical time for artists and the industry, as they look for the best way forward after more than a decade of declining sales for recorded music, post-Napster.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |