Some good news for the music industry

    Trying to organise my music now does my head in. Years ago it was simple. Buy CD, put on shelf, play CD.


    Now we have the time consuming process of ripping and retagging etc. I bought a program to sort out all the errors on iTunes and it messed things up too. Songs wrongly named or categorised. What a nightmare.


    And after all that you still have a huge compromise in sound quality. Lets face it, if you rip at lossless you have huge file sizes that won't play on many devices - so most of the time it is a lossy fie.


    I end up listening to Spotify or Amazon Prime on my crappy laptop or phone speakers so I am as guilty as anyone. But I do feel that as musicians we should be railing against digital music as it currently stands.


    It encourages lazy listening habits and generally distributes with inferior sound quality. And it undoes a lot of the work we all do to make our tracks sound the best they can! Not even considering the whole remuneration issue!


    I kind of feel that iTunes is a bit like how I used to look at Line 6 modelling products.Convenient, flashy - cheap and easy. But plastic, hollow and tinny. Disposable.


    No wonder vinyl has made a comeback.

    I so hear you, endlessnameless.


    Gone are the days when buying, opening, reading the liner notes of and playing an album was an adventure. These days it's all about... lists. Playlists. Favourites lists. Sharing lists. Comparing lists. Building lists. To me, this is very sad.


    Hey, it seems cassette is making a comeback too; can't remember where I heard that...


    Quote from db9091

    Monkey_Man,


    Well the "db" stands for "Daily Bread" and the 90 is the 90th psalm where the 9th verse first line says "All our days pass away..."
    It's to remind me of my mother who died when I was very young. But she used to read me that psalm all the time.


    Well, aren't I the prize dick then, Brother Dennis?


    Thank you so much for sharing that mate; I've been meaning to ask the significance of the numbers for quite a while now, and I'm honoured that you shared their relevance. Pity it took such a low-brow move from the Monkster to prompt this revelation for me. Typical, really. :D


    Thank you again, mate.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    Do you have a link to that taylor swift thing? It wasn't the thing about three months free trial on their streaming service (as opposed to regular sales)? If so, it never came to a trial - just an open letter :)


    I think iTunes gives a good share of the price, as I recall. Of course, the money goes through the record company, not directly to the artist.


    Apologies, you are right and I was way off. She didn't sue anybody but her fans according to what I could make out on google. I don't even like Taylor Swift, for the record - another mass produced, plastic, "baby doll" musician.


    Don't know about itunes, but Spotify reported in 2013 that it pays an average of $0.007 per play to artists, so I guess streaming royalties are really low, at least as far as the artists are concerned. Don't know how much Apple pays.


    But I do note this is per play, not like if you buy the song. Still not sure how that merits less than 1 cent a play.


    Quote from heldal

    The share going to songwriters and musicians is still shrinking. The music industry once delivered value in the form of industrial production and distribution. With the exception of studios and post-production, they now represent mostly greed, waste of space and wasted money.


    Yes, I am sure that is the case. I wish there was some data in that report on how much artists made in 1998 vs 2015. Don't know how much help that would be either actually, because I think all the (c)rap artists and the like probably get better deals than rock musicians, which would skew the result. Would be interesting to know though.


    Sadly though, without the record companies' distribution networks, most artists will never be able to get their albums in stores or get enough promotion to be played more than a few times on radio. I'm all in support of guys that self produce and release their CDs, but I always wonder how much bigger an impact it would make if it was a commercial release on a major label.

    Quote from nightlight

    but I always wonder how much bigger an impact it would make if it was a commercial release on a major label.

    The traditional labels should be a thing of the past. What musicians need to do is to fight for open formats in distributon ("open" does not mean unprotected) with independent playback clients. in a competitive market this will give musician the freedom to choose the distributor that offer the best terms. Current online distributors have pretty much defined their own terms and been able to put musicians and listeners in their own walled garden that it is hard to break out of. This model will never benefit the creative side of the industry.

    Quote from Monkey_Man


    Thank you for providing a quantitative, scientific term for my earlier description, a "poofteenth of a cent", nightlight.


    Precision. Love it, mate.


    Haha, yes. Now I know what a "poofteenth" is. I stumbled upon that figure while I was researching more about Taylor Swift suing anybody. :D


    Quote from heldal

    The traditional labels should be a thing of the past. What musicians need to do is to fight for open formats in distributon ("open" does not mean unprotected) with independent playback clients. in a competitive market this will give musician the freedom to choose the distributor that offer the best terms. Current online distributors have pretty much defined their own terms and been able to put musicians and listeners in their own walled garden that it is hard to break out of. This model will never benefit the creative side of the industry.


    The problem for independent musicians is that it is better to be a part of some sort of ecosystem like this "walled garden" than out in the cold. I know plenty of people who have cut CDs and released them online. The problem I see in that kind of model is that there's too little visibility: people just don't know about your band or your album.


    The reason why bands like Metallica can send 10 million CDs and guys like Biever can sell 30 million is because of visibility to a large extent. You have to have some sort of marketing machine behind you to have your CDs in stores, get you those views on youtube or spotify or whatever hopefully translates into sales.


    That, I think, is the sole benefit of the labels, for which they deserve a cut. But I agree, the current labels are all leeches feeding off most musicians, especially in genres that don't fall into the "popular" category. I read that they give 8-25 per cent royalty to artists, but out of that, about 25 per cent is reserved for packaging costs, some is held back for other reasons, etc.


    To boot, they take control of your IP. It's absolutely untenable.

    Quote from db9091

    It's a mess. I remember just using an SD card with my Android, things in folders the way I liked them. Now, importing them to iPhone, I have to retag them. I even got messed up tags downloading FROM iTunes (recently downloaded Hamilton and the tags had it into 2 separate albums. Tried to refund it and Apple said "no" and told me to delete it and redownload. BUT the download was greyed out on the phone and on iTunes and I had to find it under my user name, whereas it used to be under a menu option. It's F$#@ up)


    8|
    Wow. I don't have a problem playing music. I just pop the 8-Track into the car player and I enjoy hours of uninterrupted music. :thumbup:



    [Blocked Image: http://www.retroland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/eight-track.jpg]

    The key to everything is patience.
    You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.
    -- Arnold H. Glasow


    If it doesn't produce results, don't do it.

    -- Me

    Like 1


    I think very few artists get that kind of royalties - and then only after the label has recouped all the costs associated with the contract, which includes marketing, music videos, car rentals, whatever. And promotional stuff like selling CDs at reduced cost to walmart, they might not get anything for when all is paid (since the reduction in cost in those cases are treated like a cost itself). It's not uncommon that the only money the artist ever sees is the initial advance, so that better be big enough. Especially since 360 deals are getting more "popular" (where the labels take a cut of touring income, t-shirt sales etc etc etc).


    In the "olden days" (before napster and the subsequent consolidation of label portfolios), the artists that made it big helped fund some of the "wild cards" - i.e. the labels taking a chance on music outside the mainstream. Reinvesting funds in developing new, novel products, you could say. It's absolutely possible that if today's market was the situation back then, we would never heard of a band like U2.


    The consolidation of the music market combined with the easy access to getting your band RECORDED (smaller studios, or just DIY) means that it's very hard to get noticed. For the DIY musician/band, it has of course always been hard - but there's much more competition today, and lesser likelihood of music outside the norm getting exposure.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    I think very few artists get that kind of royalties - and then only after the label has recouped all the costs associated with the contract, which includes marketing, music videos, car rentals, whatever. And promotional stuff like selling CDs at reduced cost to walmart, they might not get anything for when all is paid (since the reduction in cost in those cases are treated like a cost itself). It's not uncommon that the only money the artist ever sees is the initial advance, so that better be big enough. Especially since 360 deals are getting more "popular" (where the labels take a cut of touring income, t-shirt sales etc etc etc).


    In the "olden days" (before napster and the subsequent consolidation of label portfolios), the artists that made it big helped fund some of the "wild cards" - i.e. the labels taking a chance on music outside the mainstream. Reinvesting funds in developing new, novel products, you could say. It's absolutely possible that if today's market was the situation back then, we would never heard of a band like U2.


    The consolidation of the music market combined with the easy access to getting your band RECORDED (smaller studios, or just DIY) means that it's very hard to get noticed. For the DIY musician/band, it has of course always been hard - but there's much more competition today, and lesser likelihood of music outside the norm getting exposure.



    That's the thing. Only a few artists get a 25 percent cut of royalties and it's most likely the well-established big players. New artists are likely to struggle for years on 7-8 percent. It becomes mind-boggling when you think that the revenue has to be shared between all the band members.


    But if you don't go to a label, you don't get exposure. Which means you don't make sales anyway, so whatever you spent on self-producing your CD will just be money in a hole.


    It's a vicious cycle and the labels know this. That's why they dictate terms.


    Any idea what a common advance for a recording contract is?

    Quote from nightlight

    Any idea what a common advance for a recording contract is?


    I don't think there's any such number - i.e. a "common" advance. I think Nirvana's advance was 600 $ for the first album which is ridiculously low - but other things in the contract made up for it in some ways. Another artist might get 200,000§ which sound like a lot... but if they never break even and are on a contract for 5 albums - AND they get shelved by the label (but not released from the contract)... And it's a 360 deal... That's NOT a lot.


    But I have no idea of the numbers involved. There's a lot of artists who have sold millions of albums but don't get royalties and have to rely on more or less constant touring just to get by. Big artists whom you've heard of, newer and older.


    "Artefact" is an interesting movie about the band 30 seconds to mars struggling with a lawsuit with their label, while recording their 3rd album. Lots of perspectives in that movie, although it doesn't go into details about contracts and such.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    I don't think there's any such number - i.e. a "common" advance. I think Nirvana's advance was 600 $ for the first album which is ridiculously low - but other things in the contract made up for it in some ways. Another artist might get 200,000§ which sound like a lot... but if they never break even and are on a contract for 5 albums - AND they get shelved by the label (but not released from the contract)... And it's a 360 deal... That's NOT a lot.


    But I have no idea of the numbers involved. There's a lot of artists who have sold millions of albums but don't get royalties and have to rely on more or less constant touring just to get by. Big artists whom you've heard of, newer and older.


    "Artefact" is an interesting movie about the band 30 seconds to mars struggling with a lawsuit with their label, while recording their 3rd album. Lots of perspectives in that movie, although it doesn't go into details about contracts and such.


    That sounds really horrible. Almost like paying to play.


    I would really want to be able to play music for a living. But all this stuff makes me think I should just stick with my day job.


    I will still probably send something to a label one of these days just for kicks, see if it has any merit. If it does but the terms are anything like you describe, I will probably just release it for free on the internet.


    Should keep a lot of pirates happy :D



    Today it's difficult to "make it" in music. I guess this has always been the case, however. For the select few, I think that it is possible to get a career and live of it within the industry. But when you turn on the radio, you have an idea of the handful of genres that seem to "make it" (and with no idea how they do financially, especially down the road). You also want to have longevity, which is difficult today, I think.


    Bottom line is: if you aren't able to build a SOLID, consistent, large and long-lived (however you predict that) fanbase by playing live and releasing self-produced or low budget recorded material, then you're at a BIG disadvantage when it comes to getting a label deal, and especially getting a GOOD label deal. If you CAN get such a thing going, and maintain it (which requires constant effort, creativity and "self-marketing"), then you might be able to make it. At that point, it may be that a label is superfluous, if your goal is to "make a living" doing the stuff. If you want to also get financial stability in the long run and/or get moderately wealthy, then the odds are long indeed, either way (but possibly, a label deal might be the way to get there). VERY long, if you don't play pop music (although the musical climate might change over the years). But really, how many artists you hear on the radio these days do you imagine standing up to the test of time?

    But on the other hand, I have a friend who is making a living doing music (on a label), and rock music at that. So it CAN be done. I hope he'll be able to continue doing it as long as he wishes.


    The success criterion, I think, has gone from superstar to making a living - and when all is said and done, that's a fine success criterion. I'd just like to see more people being able to do it.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    But on the other hand, I have a friend who is making a living doing music (on a label), and rock music at that. So it CAN be done. I hope he'll be able to continue doing it as long as he wishes.


    The success criterion, I think, has gone from superstar to making a living - and when all is said and done, that's a fine success criterion. I'd just like to see more people being able to do it.


    Playing for a living would sure beat a day job!


    I think success is a real long-shot when it comes to niche genres. But stranger things have happened, look at a band like Nirvana, for example, no one could have predicted they would become so big. Or Dire Straits.


    But that was all in a different era, where people actually bought music. There are so many other factors involved now, including piracy.


    I think success in music is probably a 100 million to one kind of moonshot. :D

    I read somewhere recently that back catalog sales last year for the first time ever beat new release sales...


    I think that speaks volumes to the quality of music now. I'm middle-aged (44) so growing up and turning on the "oldies" radio station was obvious because the sound was poor. That music was recorded in the 1940's - 1960's.


    When my kids turn on the oldies station and hear Van Halen or AC/DC, they don't know it's 30 year old music because it doesn't sound appreciably "worse" in quality to them. It's a level playing field.


    So teenagers and young adults today might be just as likely to want to purchase something from a band that is 30 or 40 years old as they are to want to purchase something made in the last 4 years... that's where streaming services do have an advantage. And the way I see it, streaming services like spotify or whatever apple is calling theirs is simply the new radio. Royalties will be low but something is always better than nothing.


    Personally, I'm excited to see new artists emerge with new ways of monetizing their music. I don't think it's wise to either rely on the old model, or even care too much about it. If you make your music (which "anyone" can do now,) and get it into the hands of your music buyer directly (which can also be done fairly easily these days,) then the industry won't mean much to you one way or the other.


    Keep in touch with your fans, let them know what you're doing, and build that bond. People will always want to bond with people, not industry. That's the way people are made and I don't believe it will ever change. Artists like Rush and Metallica knew this back in the 80's when they couldn't get played on the radio to save their lives. They persisted and connected with fans and those fans followed them until they created their own mainstream. I don't know who will do that now, but it will be fun to watch.

    Maybe the reason back catalogue sales exceeded sales of new releases is due to more people moving to streaming, and us old farts being the only ones buying physical albums (and I, for one, is much more likely to buy music from the 90s than current stuff, haha)...


    Personally, I'm fairly skeptic of this "new ways of monetizing music" in the long run (well, apart from licensing original songs for popular TV shows etc - I see a golden opportunity there).


    I mean, yes, you need to think a bit outside the (old) box, especially as far as fan interaction goes. But I also think that the MAIN driver is good ole live shows; preferably ones with a lot of exposure. Contests like Emergenza music festival (sort of like "battle of the bands", I think) are a golden opportunity to reach new ears. Then it's a matter of capturing the human beings those ears are attached to. Today artists need to be their own marketing department.


    It's much more unclear to me where artists will get income from.


    I think aside from the audio fidelity, it's also the fact that a lot of the old music had a timeless quality to it. You could listen to it 40 years later and not think it was dated.


    With today's pop music, a few lyrics might get caught in your head, you might even groove to it a little bit, but 5-10 years down the line, you'll just feel cold listening to it.