MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: If you think we're having it bad look at musicians ...  (Read 48910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« on: February 22, 2015, 05:58 »
+2
Indie labels publishing their MISERABLE payouts from the top streaming music services ... as low as 0.001$ per stream !!

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/02/19/indie-label-spotify-youtube-beats-rdio-google-music-deezer-paying-us

and here another musician got barely 20-30 bucks from it :

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/04/03/streamingstatements


in the meantime things aren't going to look better for a DJ/producer who's working with top brands like Skrillex, he's actually LOSING money even from live gigs !

http://thayernick.tumblr.com/post/80563891112/do-you-wanna-know-just-how-much-money-i-make


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2015, 06:48 »
+12
You can't compare these type of business models. There is a difference between streaming music and using music for advertising or something like that. Streaming can compared with just viewing an image. So every time when someone see an ad with your picture you receive a small amount.

I can't believe that any music artist would give me the permission to use his song for advertising for just one buck like the dollar photo club do. Touring can be compared with traveling to do shots... so there are here also a lot of photographer which will lose money too.

« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2015, 09:28 »
+1
Doesn't indicate how much they make from people like me who listen to streamed music but will pay for a download if they really like it.  When I was a kid, I used to listen to music for free on the radio and tape it.  I don't see streaming as much different, there is obviously a lot more music available now but the good stuff should always make money.

« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2015, 10:02 »
+2
When I was a kid, I used to listen to music for free on the radio and tape it.  I don't see streaming as much different

Subscription streaming (eg Spotify) allows you to play any piece of music which you want to listen to. In this way it is different from radio.

There is no longer really any need to 'own' a music collection - whether virtual or physical (excluding arguments about fidelity, tone etc)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 10:04 by bunhill »

« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2015, 10:42 »
+2
You can't compare these type of business models. There is a difference between streaming music and using music for advertising or something like that. Streaming can compared with just viewing an image. So every time when someone see an ad with your picture you receive a small amount.

I can't believe that any music artist would give me the permission to use his song for advertising for just one buck like the dollar photo club do. Touring can be compared with traveling to do shots... so there are here also a lot of photographer which will lose money too.
Perhaps the comparisons aren't identical but the philosophy of companies running the businesses are. Pay out as little as possible; retain as much as possible.

« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2015, 12:47 »
+2
when mp3 first came out, i knew blokes in our local network who were earning 0.00014 cts per dl . and 50cts per indie produced cd. they had fans writing them from poland, japan, holland, germany,etc . they thought they were awesome and supported these artists. but when the fans were told these blokes were paid 50cts for the cd they bought they said it was sheer exploitation.
these blokes were in the top 5 in electronics,  blues, and fusion charts regularly.
i remember one showing me her annual earning = $74  and this was a leading top 10 chart indie artist during the early days of mp3 in the 90s , way before they dumped all these artists who made them famous, and got tori amos, whatshisname from the old santana group,etc etc etc.
then mp3 wrote these indie guys to say they now had to pay mp3 if they wanted to stay .


« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2015, 12:50 »
0
Perhaps the comparisons aren't identical but the philosophy of companies running the businesses are. Pay out as little as possible; retain as much as possible.
Youre right but this is also true for all other businesses as well. Just have a look at Mc Donalds, Ikea, Samsung, Apple and so on Its not a problem of this business its a general problem all over the world.
I still think you cannot compare streaming with the license model of the stock agencies. At the end of the day in the music business are also big players and small amateurs like here. Some making millions while others not even can pay their rent.

« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2015, 12:57 »
0
when mp3 first came out, i knew blokes in our local network who were earning 0.00014 cts per dl . and 50cts per indie produced cd. they had fans writing them from poland, japan, holland, germany,etc . they thought they were awesome and supported these artists. but when the fans were told these blokes were paid 50cts for the cd they bought they said it was sheer exploitation.
these blokes were in the top 5 in electronics,  blues, and fusion charts regularly.
i remember one showing me her annual earning = $74  and this was a leading top 10 chart indie artist during the early days of mp3 in the 90s , way before they dumped all these artists who made them famous, and got tori amos, whatshisname from the old santana group,etc etc etc.
then mp3 wrote these indie guys to say they now had to pay mp3 if they wanted to stay .

I'm confused. Who's mp3 to be writing to people? Was there a platform called mp3?

« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2015, 13:08 »
+1

« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2015, 14:24 »
0
I'm confused. Who's mp3 to be writing to people? Was there a platform called mp3?

back in mid 90s, there was a platform started (quote) to provide level playing field for indie musicians ONLY.(unquote).  it was called mp3.
for many years only indie musicians were allowed. till they got big and famous...
then they dumped all the indies who made them popular.

it transformed into what is today the platform for popular artists.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2015, 01:21 »
+1
Doesn't indicate how much they make from people like me who listen to streamed music but will pay for a download if they really like it. 

for downloads of an average 1.99$ track on Beatport/Juno/ITunes the artist usually only earns 0.30 to 0.50$ as labels typically get 50-70% of each sale while the platform keeps 30-50% ... on the other side if you own your label you get 50-70% all for yourself but yeah it's still peanuts considering the production costs.




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2015, 01:26 »
0
You can't compare these type of business models. There is a difference between streaming music and using music for advertising or something like that. Streaming can compared with just viewing an image. So every time when someone see an ad with your picture you receive a small amount.

I can't believe that any music artist would give me the permission to use his song for advertising for just one buck like the dollar photo club do. Touring can be compared with traveling to do shots... so there are here also a lot of photographer which will lose money too.

downloading a song does NOT give you any further permission to use it on movies or videos.
that's a whole different ball game, you will need to pay the author a reasonable amount of money, while there's a market for licenced sounds and loops and even entire songs ... they're called Samplers or Sound Banks and they're sold specifically to producers that will use them for commercial purposes .. however i don't think they get rich with that as some as are as cheap as 10$ ... while the industry's top plugins for Film Music cost 1000s of dollars.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2015, 01:30 »
+1
more on Pandora :

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2015, 06:43 »
+1
DAVID BYRNE writes in his blogs against the dreadful situation of the music business, claiming he's too on his last leg financially.
http://www.davidbyrne.com/how-will-the-wolf-survive-can-musicians-make-a-living-in-the-streaming-era

IGGY POP confirms he's broke and can't live off music royalties anymore, he's now a DJ and fashion model !
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/when-iggy-pop-cant-live-off-his-art-what-chance-do-the-rest-have/article21154663/



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2015, 06:51 »
+1
trending : in 2014 90% of all the music sales in Norway have been thru streaming !
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/5876789/business-matters-norwegian-musics-revenue-spike-may


this is BIG ... imagine 90% of the stock industry based on the cheapest subs ?
if the same trend spreads all over the rest of the world it will be the last straw for musicians.

« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2015, 07:36 »
-2
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits.  It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again.  I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it  :)

« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2015, 09:41 »
-1
Indie labels publishing their MISERABLE payouts from the top streaming music services ... as low as 0.001$ per stream !!

This isn't comparable at all. This was more like if we got 0.001$ every time someone looks at one of our images. (Wow - even I would be rich then!)  :))


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2015, 10:00 »
+1
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits.  It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again.  I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it  :)

i think many so called rockstars are totally inflating their real value, and if now streaming is the leading way to sell music i'm not surprised they're feeling the heat and live gigs are their last way left to make some money, problem is that even doing gigs is not exactly enriching artists like in the past, there's a good reason way even the top sellers like ACDC are gigging left and right no stop to make quick bucks while they can.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2015, 10:02 »
0
Indie labels publishing their MISERABLE payouts from the top streaming music services ... as low as 0.001$ per stream !!

This isn't comparable at all. This was more like if we got 0.001$ every time someone looks at one of our images. (Wow - even I would be rich then!)  :))

i think we're having it a lot better than musicians overall, it's a lot easier to shoot a photo set than to write a song and producing the final product, not to mention the shelf life of a stock photo can be easily be in the range of 3-5 yrs.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2015, 10:05 »
+1
talking about Iggy Pop, but his story could be similar to many other rockers, there's this interesting transcription of a lecture he gave on BBC where he puts on the table some details of his financials and how he's been always scr-ewed by record labels in the past :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1DBxXYBDJLt2xZgxjzCkLRg/bbc-music-john-peel-lecture-iggy-pops-keynote-speech-transcript


« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2015, 10:59 »
+1
As usual, Bowie was way ahead of the curve with the $55m collateralization of the future earnings of his back catalogue in 1997 - the first time that most people had ever heard of (ETA: the sort of finance which ultimately gave us .. ) CDOs.

Bowie Bonds.

Is David Bowie to blame for the credit crunch?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 11:15 by bunhill »

« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2015, 13:39 »
0
there are a number of popular artists who go their own way. they distribute their music almost independently and even some say they don't care if their fans share their music , as they more or less live on concerts and paraphanelia (spelling???) sold at the concerts like tshirt poster caps etc
this is not new. remember during my kiddie days hearing my elders talking about the grateful dead doing concerts and not recording. everyone brought their tape recorders to tape their performances and jerry garcia actually encourage them to do so.
but not many artists can do that , go against the empire...same with stock photographers.

« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2015, 18:27 »
0
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits.  It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again.  I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it  :)


i think many so called rockstars are totally inflating their real value, and if now streaming is the leading way to sell music i'm not surprised they're feeling the heat and live gigs are their last way left to make some money, problem is that even doing gigs is not exactly enriching artists like in the past, there's a good reason way even the top sellers like ACDC are gigging left and right no stop to make quick bucks while they can.

A lot of them don't seem to have a problem getting on a rich list or paying huge divorce settlements, so I disagree with you on that one.  A dreadful glam rock star from the UK who is now quite rightly in prison is still allegedly making a small fortune from a few songs he wrote in the 70's.  Some of them were screwed by the record companies but if that didn't happen, we wouldn't have some great songs like this one.
<a href="http://youtu.be/kqVpk0qxmfA" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://youtu.be/kqVpk0qxmfA</a>

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2015, 19:35 »
+3
Excellent post by David Bryne. Sounds eerily similar to stock photography.

I've heard a lot of artists accepted some pretty bad deals over the years. [Promoter] "Hey you get to hear your music on the radio, fly jets to concerts, party all day and night, and live like a rockstar. No you don't get any royalties and yes you're signing over all of your music rights to us forever but that's normal! You wanna be a rock star or go back to being a nobody who's barely getting by doing odd jobs. Sign here now or we'll offer it to another band".

He's right though. How will artists be compensated? Things aren't headed in the right direction.

« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2015, 20:26 »
0
Excellent post by David Bryne. Sounds eerily similar to stock photography.

I've heard a lot of artists accepted some pretty bad deals over the years. [Promoter] "Hey you get to hear your music on the radio, fly jets to concerts, party all day and night, and live like a rockstar. No you don't get any royalties and yes you're signing over all of your music rights to us forever but that's normal! You wanna be a rock star or go back to being a nobody who's barely getting by doing odd jobs. Sign here now or we'll offer it to another band".

He's right though. How will artists be compensated? Things aren't headed in the right direction.

if you really want to hear a tragic story of a musician being scr*wed, read up on either Robert Johnson or Charlie Parker , the great bluesman and the great jazz man. One of them signed away his music for like 5 bucks or something. I think it was Robert Johnson because he could not read or something like that. But Bird (Charlie Parker) also got scr*wed by his reps as well in the early day of his career. That was what prompted Miles Davis to be cynical about dealing with the people in suits.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
2484 Views
Last post July 17, 2013, 22:21
by Silken Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results