A bit tedious yet interesting read.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/record-companies-five-threats-842064/amp/

I will have to give this a read later, but I'm curious what points it'll raise! Thanks for sharing.

That was interesting. Thank you.
The article did not go into conditions in Asia, though. Asia, obviously, does not have a highly developed stigma against plagiarism like we do.
In general, I thought the article gave reason for optimism.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Seems to me to be “same old same old” when it comes to music/streaming/piracy/copyright...etc. Streaming cost per user is coming down, down, down. Floating towards “zero”.... consumers now visit illegal streaming sites (instead of illegal download sites).

The “business” of selling “art”, especially art that is by its nature highly scalable, is becoming more and more difficult.

Personally I think the reality is one of economics. Supply and demand. The cost and barriers to entry of producing the art are so low and coming down all the time.

I gave up trying to get a licensing deal when I heard, on a podcast, that one person submitted over two hundred tracks for one licensing opportunity!!! I also heard someone else had made some huge number of tracks (if I remember correctly it was in the tens of thousands...) and made these available on Pandora.

Excuse long rambling post

With few exceptions, the publishing/distribution people have made most of the money while the artists get the crumbs off the table.

For every rich star there are hundreds, perhaps thousands that never made a living off their recordings.

When our band was being courted by Motown, we made some money being the opening act at concerts, but the deal Motown was offering was typical at the time.

Negotiations fell off when our management wanted 2.5 cents a record minimum and Motown didn't want to pay more than 2 cents a record. Out of our royalties Motown was to deduct inflated recording costs, inflated distribution costs, and inflated promotional costs. Our management figured we would have to sell a million copies of our first LP to end up not owing Motown money. In the late 1960s it was difficult to sell a million copies.

Motown also wanted publishing rights to all our songs, which meant they got paid for our songs on every record they sold.

Well Motown quit talking to us, and hired their second choice, "The Sunliners", But Motown wants to own the band's name so they could hire or fire anyone they want, and so that they could have 2 to 4 bands with the same name touring the country, maximizing Motown's profits while paying the cover bands union scale. So the Sunliners changed their name to "Rare Earth".

Well the bright side of the story is that since I became a 'never was' I don't have to worry about being a 'has-been'.

This is why throughout the history of records, there have been so many one-hit wonders or one-CD wonders. The artists didn't make enough to pay the record company back, and never got a cent of their royalties. If they wanted to try again with a second recording, they would have to pay their debt first, if not the Label just writes it off as a tax deduction.

Of course there are unexpected releases that in today's language 'go viral' and make money for both the Label and the Artist. In that situation, the Artist has better bargaining power for their next record and gets a much better deal. They become the Elvis Presley, Paul McCartney, Nicki Minaj, Aretha Franklin, Mick Jagger, Mariah Carey type stars who stroll out of their limos on the red carpet while their bank account is over the top.

So why would it be any different with streaming? The gatekeepers keep the money, the artist does it for the love.

For me, most of my life has been playing music live to an appreciative audience and getting paid a livable wage for my efforts. I don't punch a clock. I don't say I HAVE to go to work today but instead say I GET to go to work today

"A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do." -Bob Dylan, singer-songwriter

In that case, I'm a success. I'm not rich by anybody's standards, I live modestly but I don't punch a clock or answer to some faceless corporate boss. I profit from my successes, and learn from my mistakes. What I do is more like foraging than work. I enjoy music, I enjoy making music, I enjoy playing music, so I guess without a single record success, I'm still 'living the dream'.

If you play music and want to make some money, if you are any good at it, odds are you will make more money playing live than recording anything at all.

Insights and incites by Notes

Notes: I think you have the right attitude. I agree, you are a success. I respect the life you have lived and the principles that forged your path.

Joanne: I like the way you analyze things. (Your day job is business analyst, right?)

I'm never sure where I fall on Rolling Stone articles. There is typically some good information in them; along with some portrayed with an agenda. Sometimes shock marketing, sometimes to gain agreement from their readers. That being said, I don't dislike them. I just really take their articles with a grain of salt.

To me, the article keeps going back and forth with good new/bad news. They also don't really cover how much more in profits are being gained from various activities in the music industry. I wish they would.



This is a prime example of a distortion. Their points boil down to...
-Drop in revenue of 9.9% for physical formats
-Falling by $127 million
-Streaming services grew
-BUT "only" by $113
-FAILING to makeup the "shortfall" from CDs' decline (physical format)

What a dumb comment. It's SO much more expensive to distribute physical media than stream. They should be happy that the more expensive choice is getting phased out in favor of a more higher profit option.

I'll go out on a limb and say I have a feeling that cassettes are way down from prior to CD's becoming dominant. Oh no!

There's just too much doom and gloom...and people getting rich. lol

ALL of that being said. I did actually enjoy reading the article. It's a good share for sure. It let's us know the perspective of the state of the music industry from a company that needs to get you to read somehow. I have to wonder if their physical magazines are down in sales? I noticed it was much easier to share this link without the physical media cost of printing a magazine. The argument of they just lost out on sales of the magazine to each of us doesn't really hold up; because I'm not thinking each of us would have gone out to purchase it. We did each, however look at the article, and as a consequence all of the ads embedded in it.

Business fascinates me. So I really enjoyed this topic!

Thanks Bud.

Interesting observation. Before the USA had a big corporate music recording industry, lots of songs were written and shared rather than sold. The folks making money off the music were the performers who had learned the songs and were hired to perform them at an event. So lots of music got passed along or "given" to each generation without much attention being paid to who wrote or owned the music. (Yes, I know there was a sheet music industry but prolly not a lot sold in places like Appalachia!)

Then we got technology that facilitated sharing music and a business model was quickly built to distribute music for a profit. With that business culture came much of the "stigma against plagiarism" because those hoping to sell you something are never too keen on you sharing it without them getting their cut!

Fast forward to today...With all of the music available for free or just a token amount I wonder if perhaps we are entering a new era of music that is written and passed along? Of course, Apple and Spotify and their ilk will always be looking to profit from it.

Hi pat. Yes. My day job is writing specifications for business software. So analyzing things is what I do...I work a wealth management company and have been in IT for over 30 years.

The gigging musicians have been the ones making a living playing music for almost all of history.

The recording industry is a mere blip of time in the history of music, and even then most musicians made their living playing live.

For every famous artist making the big bucks, there are thousands making a living, from buskers to lounge musicians to corporate event musicians to wedding musicians, to nursing home musicians, to private party musicians to whatever and wherever music is being played.

Don't take statistical articles too seriously.

Remember, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics (Mark Twain).

Second of all, physical or streaming sales may be big news, but they don't reflect the majority of music being made in the US or the world. The majority of money being made in music is by live musicians. Sure we don't get Paul McCartney type money, but we outnumber those people.

I've played music as my primary means of making a living for most of my life (I did have 2 short lived 'day jobs' while seeing what normal was like - and even then I was gigging on the weekends). I've recorded on other people's records, and was in a band that had a local 45RPM single hit many years ago (we didn't make any money from that). I've been in dive bars, on concert stage with major stars, and every venue in between. In our medium sized town I know many musicians who make their living gigging.

But the press needs something to write about, and celebrities and their money "sells newspapers and magazines".

True, live music isn't as popular as it once was, there are DJs making music doing what traditional musicians used to do, but gigging is still the way most musicians get paid.

Insights and incites by Notes