Thought this tied in with some of the other discussions on the forum lately.

Extremely well stated.

He ended with "I don't see how that works long term." Hopefully that was a veiled threat. The odds are low but enough "big" artists refusing to place their music on the streaming platforms or removing it might get the attention of corporate. I'm assuming that a lot of major artists if they've been around a bit (and properly handled their income) could afford to sit it out for a while.

Interestingly there was a time when a situation like this would breed a union.

Bud

Unions negotiate with management, who's management?

Bob

Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify, Amazon, Deezer, etc., all have management structures...unless they are AI

In the long run, we tend to get what we deserve. Just me talking, but if someone says "things change" then seems to imply that things now must remain the same--illogical at best.

It's probably like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped at this point I guess, but not impossible if enough of the big names get together and threaten to pull their music.

When I was a kid in the 60's I used to spend pretty much all of my allowance on 45's, they probably cost around $1.00 or so back then. Then when I started working the first thing I would do when I got paid was head out to the record store to buy an album or two, about $20.00 an album. So I was spending a minimum of $80.00 a month on music and didn't think twice about it; I loved listening to music and that's what it cost.

We went on vacation a few weeks ago and I decided to finally bite the bullet and get a spotify account because I wanted to download some music onto my iPad so I could listen to music on the plane.

It costs $9.99 a month and I can stream or download as many albums as I want.

As Joe says in the interview, great for the consumer, not so good for the artist. For me it would maybe make more sense to charge a basic fee for the streaming service, but then charge more for the download, maybe $1.00 per album download, with most of that paid directly to the artist. I would certainly have no problem paying more.

But I would imagine there are relatively few situations where folks download to their device. We stream Apple Music at home and in our vehicles all the time but never actually download a file. I keep an old iPod in our vehicle that has 9000 songs on it in case we run out of cellular coverage. And we paid for everyone of those songs as they are all CD uploads! And I uploaded all of them years ago to iTunes so nowadays when we stream Apple Music we are listening to a fair amount of what we paid for.

BTW, my first album purchase was Elvis’ Golden Hits in 1957. I paid $3.98 for it and that was all my salary for a week of bagging groceries at my uncle’s store. My mother told me I made a big mistake because I’d never hear of that man again

Bud

Yeah, I'm sure you are right, Bud.

I'm very new to all this technology, just got my first smart phone a couple of months back and haven't used it for anything other than phone calls I need to look at getting spotify installed on that too I guess.

My first album purchase was Revolver by the Beatles, back in '66 or '67 I think. Forget how much I paid. Still have it!

Don't let me influence you too much...I'm a tech nut -- at least for my age. Apple Mac, two iPhones, iPad, Apple TV and an Apple Homepod. Mostly for music. I love Apple Music's curated radio stations...they have Janice and me nailed regarding what we like. Turn off the streaming in the house, step into the car and it picks up right where we left off.

I've got all my original Beatle albums...their whole catalog. Even a "butcher shop" cover.

But I stray from Joe's interview. I'm about as guilty as anyone for getting a LOT of music for very, very little money.

Well, I see this as the same issue as buying decent quality but cheap goods from China. Anybody here seriously giving that up to save local jobs?

I'm going to make a blanket statement here. Everybody reading this shops the crap out of every single thing we want to buy online for the best price before purchasing it. True or false?

Another statement. Despite paying lip service to the concept of saving local jobs nobody reading this really cares about that either. True or false?

It's all about the best price, end of story.

I don't know how it works, no idea whats the definition of an "album sale" when everything is streamed but the big names are somehow getting paid millions for album sales whatever that means. Plenty of money is there for household name superstars, everybody else fights for scraps. That sounds to me like it's the same as its always been since recordings were invented. The mechanism has changed but the bottom line has not changed at all.

Bob

"Despite paying lip service to the concept of saving local jobs nobody reading this really cares about that either. True or false?"

FALSE. "Nobody" is, shall we say, rather broadly stated. I know a lot of folks that go out of their way to support our local businesses. I have close friends who campaign successfully for this in our community. There are some things that e-commerce will hit the hardest...Walmart and Lowes comes to mind locally. But we have three local hardware stores that have survived e-commerce and Lowes/Walmart. We have a local bike shop (that we used to own I might add) that is surviving the net by very creative endeavors, e.g., venturing into guided tours, etc. We even have audio shops that are still alive. ETC.

Bud

Right. Lets say "nobody" means 5% cares? Pick a number. Not talking about supporting local businesses, I'm talking about products and online price shopping. You mentioned huge online retailers, Google, Apple, Amazon. Every day tens of thousands of shipping containers arrive at US ports with COSCO on them. Not Costco, COSCO. China Overseas Shipping Company. "Everybody" compares prices online. "Nobody" cares if they're US made or not.

Do you really think a 200,300,or 500% increase in the cost of online streaming would work? Especially given the ahem, other options that would pop up. You mentioned huge artists could afford to sit out for awhile. More likely they would simply sell direct using their own websites.

Bob

I hear that the cost of streaming is going down....inevitably....to zero? So Spotify etc may be making money now (ie charging users for streaming and not passing the "fruits" onto the artists) but I think that this on its way out...artists need to find another way (aka Amanda Palmer). For most artists, the days of going into the studio and recording a song/album and actually "getting" people to pay for that song/album afterward (be that through downloads/CDS/streaming/licensing/publishing), I think, are long gone.

I can sympathise with those hard working writers, musicians, producers et al but,I really believe nothing is going to fix the issue.

Saying “well I won’t put my stuff on a site that sells it cheap” is not an answer. All that happens is you end up with less exposure, which equals less income.

The loss in sales has been going on for many years now. Some of you guys spoke about buying 45s or albums. These were hard to copy in the early 60s. Then along came cassettes that made copying easier. Then the ability to copy CDs made it even easier to knock off someone’s hard work. Now there are many ways to copy and/or distribute music. Even easier to edit the stuff to suit yourself.

It is a sad fact but most people do not care. There is often comparisons made between music and other art forms, I ask “how many people spend countless hours painting pictures and get nothing”. The odd one gets through and actually makes a living.

My thoughts
Tony

Time passes and things change. It can turn on a dime or move at a snail’s pace. Music has been monetized for a very long time. I’m a data oriented person and am reticent to express my “beliefs.” But what the heck I believe that if a number of top artists (based on streams) demanded increased payment for all or “else” then the needle would move. The probability is, I suppose, low but I “believe” it is credible.

I guess that was circumspect enough.

Bud

Not sure where you heard that, but it's highly unlikely for one basic reason....they are still obligated to pay royalties. If they give it away, where is the money to pay them going to come from? Stock options are what they've relied on up til now, but that's not a long-term solution.

Also, the notion that music will become universally "free" is a false narrative. Too much money involved. Not just record companies/artists/publishers/etc. - it's a balance of trade issue, and the Federal government isn't going to let go of a tax/trade revenue cash cow like that.

This thread is pretty interesting...
But it sounds like one of those problems that has no a solution...
Unless all songwriters & artists banded together to create their own streaming & licensing services...
Bypassing the current system...

Unfortunately songwriters can't do that.

For every recording, there are actually two copyrights. The underlying work, the "words & music" song, called the circle-C; and the sound recording itself, which is the circle-R. Labels/artist operate in a more free market environment. When Taylor Swift pulled her music off of Spotify, for example, she pulled the circle-R's. She just happened to be the songwriter, so the underlying works went with them.

As a songwriter, I don't have the right to pull my songs off of Spotify, iTunes, or any other legal site or service, because the circle-C is a compulsory license. That means even if I don't agree with what they're paying me, I still have to license the songs (as long as it's at the statutory rate).

Because labels & artists have the autonomy of the circle-R rules, they have the ability to negotiate and, if necessary, pull music from content providers. The reason you don't see that happen more frequently is because if you look deep enough, you'll find out that much of the stock of the large streaming companies is owned by (wait for it) Sony, Warner Bros., Universal, etc.

The recently passed Music Modernization Act is a big step forward for songwriters, but it is far from the needed fix. It's sort of a deal where we say "well it's still terrible but it's better than it was".

The digital companies historically have undervalued and under appreciated the content they distribute. They believe (I've had someone actually tell me this) that their technology has more value than the music they distribute/stream. In actuality, they are a retail store, where consumers can get the product they want (music). But the retail stores don't want to have to pay for the products they are selling on a pass-through basis. They somehow think they should get it free, and then make all the money off it themselves (gross oversimplification here, but effectively accurate).

A recent ruling by the CRB (copyright royalty board) increased digital rates paid to songwriters over 40%, which is still woefully inadequate. The digital companies, led by Amazon & Spotify, are appealing that decision. It's a never-ending battle apparently.

As I said...
It sounds like one of those problems that unfortunately has no a solution...

Worth the read:

https://psmag.com/economics/is-streaming-music-the-final-note-for-professional-songwriters

I still don't get where the money comes from for "album sales". They talk about "platinum" albums and that apparently still translates to millions for big name stars. What is that, where does that money come from?

Bob

As physical product sales have diminished, they've created a hybrid to determine gold/platinum status. Short version is that it's a combination of streams, downloads and physical product sales. Believe it or not, some of the bigger acts still sell a lot of CDs (relatively speaking).

Streaming, being a hybrid, has both a performance and a mechanical (sales) component. They've also lowered the bar for what constitutes gold or platinum status. Back in the day, gold was 500K units and platinum was 1 million. I don't know the exact number, but it's lower than that now.

Damn, that's bad. The only way that I keep hearing about folks making good money are the performers themselves. They basically use all those millions of various streams and digital platforms like Youtube to leverage their concert ticket sales. That of course, has nothing to do with a non performing song writer.

I sure don't have any answers to this and note where it says that Spotify and others reported major financial losses. It doesn't look like there is any more money available from them.

When I just replayed Bonamassa's vid it got to the end and YT played his very cool song Evil Mama. I looked at the stuff below the video window and it's all about his upcoming shows with links to buy tickets.

Bob

I also watched again to see if I'd misunderstood the first go around. I don't think I did. Also read the article Bud and Janice posted. Depressing on the face of it, but may also have held the seeds of a new beginning.

Here's a wild thought from just me, here on the far-fringes of the music industry. Seems like now is the perfect storm for a new and stronger "union" to emerge, including the possibility of strike. Why? Because streaming income is so ridiculousness low, what is there to lose?

I'm curious if the same phenomenon has affected writers in the film and TV industries. It seems to me that the proliferation of TV/Video providers has not had the same effect on the creation of product in shows and film as has the ascendance of streaming services for music had for song-writers. With broadband, movies and TV are pretty much equally "download-able/stream-able" and that is the direction that consumption is taking. Aren't DVD/BluRay sales flat or down? I don't really know.

Along those lines, neither mentioned synching rights and payment (the use of music and (I'm guessing?) songs in film and TV productions. How do those people get paid, and what is the state of that? More importantly, WHY is the state of that what it is/is becoming?

As the article pointed out, these industries are unionized. Those unions have struck before. Who is "management"? Well...management is just the working wing of capital. Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and others are now in the business of producing (or at least financing the production of) content, not just streaming what others have produced. MAYBE a way forward for music streaming services is to supplant or partner with record producers.

The public at large basically doesn't even know much of anything about what either the Video or the article are talking about. But sometimes coordinated symbolic action brings on the beginnings of change. Pressure and effective action then have some traction. Think about the possibilities for protest on YouTube comment sections alone.

As for me, I don't have a Spotify account and I will not pay money to a music streaming service unless I have transparent evidence that they are paying song-writers a worthy amount. So far, I don't know of one. And if there is ever a song-writers Union, I'd be prepared to either join or support, even though I have no expectation this will add a dime to my bank account.

I haven't always been so "thoughtful" with other creators of digitizable content, but that's been my "position" concerning songs since the days of Napster. It's only gotten more firm.