|
Post by jeromemason on Feb 18, 2014 14:11:48 GMT -6
I pull up the Top 100 country on Spotify just like I do every morning while I'm going over notes and preparing a mix or whatever I'm gonna work on. At the very top, #1 spot now, theres a track called "Hey Brother" by Avicii. I have no idea who that his. But if you guys have spotify I'd highly encourage you to go and give that a listen, like I said, it was at the top of Spotify's Country 100.
I know we all get on here and hash this stuff all the time and try to justify where it's going and all that, but this sucker may be the nail in the coffin if it picks up steam. It appears to be a collection of different singer, and it seems like someone is making the (can't believe I'm saying this) beats, and tracks for them. Go give it a little listen... Tell me if I'm being paranoid and need to shut up, I'll take a good bitch slap of just go with it Jerome.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Feb 18, 2014 14:18:48 GMT -6
BTW.... listen to the whole thing.... it'll deceive you in the front.... but you should immediately start vomiting around the 1:45 mark I think.
******I'm talking about Country Genre here. I have no issues with dance music... rock music...rap... I love all music. But I was raised on Country, and it's what I primarily work on and I hold that pretty damn close to my soul. Right now I'm not a happy camper about what's going on in it.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 18, 2014 15:53:05 GMT -6
Avicii is Tim Bergling, a Swedish DJ. He is apparently quite popular right now with the Ecstacy/Champagne/life's-a-party human sub-group. The title of his current tour is a hashtag (#TRUETOUR) which is all anyone should need to know about him. I'm sure his wallet could crush us all.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 18, 2014 15:55:23 GMT -6
You know Spotify is putting songwriters out of business, right?
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Feb 18, 2014 16:25:04 GMT -6
I know the payout is barely nothing. I use it like someone would use radio, to let me know what's at the top right now, and so I can listen as I'm doing certain things around here. My local radio stations are horrible, also, this let's me know what is trending. I think we all know that 40k handshakes to programmers still happens today, so how can I trust what they play is what the public is liking?
I don't agree with it John, I think the payout should be the same on there as it would be for radio. I know I pay a subscription for mine, I was told that when I listen to songs with the subscription the payouts were higher. Like I said, I don't agree with it right now, and how they are paying out, but I use it as a tool, and I pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Feb 18, 2014 18:12:30 GMT -6
You know Spotify is putting songwriters out of business, right? Could you elaborate on that? I've never even looked into Spotify
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 18, 2014 18:52:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 18, 2014 19:02:44 GMT -6
evolver.fm/2013/12/03/what-spotify-just-did-there-transparency-audaciousness-and-the-collective/December 3, 2013 at 9:51 amby Eliot Van Buskirk What Spotify Just Did There: Transparency, Audaciousness, and The Collective spotify_artistsFollowing thousands of articles about how Spotify pays — or doesn’t pay — enough money to artists, the company, again worth $4 billion after another round of investment, issued a mini-website on Tuesday to explain how it is not ripping off artists by streaming their music for free or for a monthly subscription to music fans in 39 countries. It’s not just a public relations move. Spotify is also giving artists direct access to their data (soon), assembled with the help of Next Big Sound. In a music industry where artists typically have to sue their labels for a chance to look at the books, this amounts to some fairly radical… Transparency By laying bare how it pays copyright holders — a group that includes not only recording artists, but songwriters, record labels, and publishers, too – Spotify can no longer hide behind its formerly-opaque royalty calculations. This is a major step forward for transparency in the music business, at least if Spotify and things like it constitute a significant portion of its future. Spotify wouldn’t do this to make itself look bad, especially when the company is already so polarizing in the artistic community, with some artists (Billy Bragg) coming to its defense and others (Thom Yorke) thinking of ever more clever ways to state their disdain for the service as they withhold their music from its catalog. This move could pit Spotify and artists, whom some see as enemies, against labels and publishers. After all, once recording artists and songwriters see how much Spotify is paying labels (and then publishers) on their behalf, they might notice how little of that money they’re actually seeing, even after waiting up to 18 months for their slice of the money to work its way through their label(s) and/or publisher(s). Their very next phone call could be to their label or publisher, wondering where all that Spotify money is going — or to their manager, to see about switching labels or distributing music without a label. That way, they’d get 100 percent of that Spotify loot. Audaciousness Spotify hinted that it could pay out a billion dollars to copyright holders in 2013. So far, Spotify says it has paid out half that so far ($500 million). Given that there are only four more weeks in the year, we don’t expect Spotify to hit that billion-dollar mark, although it has paid out over a billion dollars to copyright holders since 2009. According to Spotify, a niche indie album, presumably with a bit of traction, will earn $17K per month from the service. That would be an amazing world, but it assumes Spotify will hit 40 million paying subscribers. So far, it has announced six million paying subscribers, and The Guardian’s sources say that figure is approaching 10 million. Finding 30 million more people to pay $10/month for Spotify who don’t already have it will be no easy task, especially when there’s so much free music out there. But if that happens — if — Spotify promises that more artists will earn a decent living from the service. The Collective Finally, Spotify clarified a big source of frustration for anyone trying to write about or understand how much it pays per stream. The answer: Although Spotify pays copyright holder every time a song is streamed, it has no set figure for how much it pays out per stream, which is why previous estimated figures vary so much. The whole thing is a big collective. Some users pay, while others listen for free and put up with advertising that generates another little stream of cash. All of that money goes into a big pot, then gets split up among artists depending on who streams the most, with additional tweaks made for the country in which the listening took place. After all of these calculations, Spotify says it ends up paying out between $0.006 and $0.0084 per streamed song.Of course, the initial Spotify checks containing that money go to labels, then the money filters through to publishers, recording artists, and songwriters, according to how their contracts are set up. The biggest result of Spotify’s new transparency could be to affect artist contracts that have yet to be signed, with implications for how artists negotiate streaming rights (some of them are already suing labels about Spotify). Now that they will soon know how much money their music is generating from Spotify, they’ll have a better understanding of their fair share.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 18, 2014 19:07:06 GMT -6
So, using their HIGHEST rate...1,000,000 plays equals $6000...to be split between the copyright holders. That means split between Record label, Publisher and Songwriters. That - is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Feb 18, 2014 19:54:09 GMT -6
This is relatively a new technology. I still don't think the labels and artist fully understand it. I know that it's starting to become an issue and labels and artist are going to have to decide whether they want their content streamed or not. This is the way I see it, with streaming obviously the rate in which a song is spun is drastically higher. I think they need to figure out a formula that would equal the average payout that say iTunes or physical brings in and start paying the correct royalties. The streaming companies argument is that they are providing an exponentially larger rate of spins, and that because of that, the figure they have in place eventually levels out with what iTunes or physical would be, because the right to spin it is recurring. Obviously this isn't true, and they are only getting away with it because of lobbying to our elected officials to not have the rates hiked up.
I just want to know why this is available if no one is making anything? Why is it that I am able to go on this and listen to any song I want if no one is making any money, or if the record labels revenue is being so badly impacted by it. Why are labels allowing their content to be streamed? Is it because labels feel this would draw people away from illegally downloading the content? Is it because the a la carte of iTunes is decreasing revenue? Today's technology is all digital, that's the world we live in. Where do you even buy a CD anymore? At the artist shows? People will simply not buy CD's anymore because they want to eventually put that content on their media devices, and iTunes is the major player here. Allowing people to buy a single song off an album started this mess, but, this is how people want their media, they want it in their pockets. Radio stations are not getting the ratings anymore because auto manufactures have implemented bluetooth in cars, so when a person hops in their car, they don't flip on the radio anymore, they just load up their playlist from their smartphones and away they go.
I think everyone could be happy eventually in the new world of content delivery. But, it all starts with the labels, and them saying no money=no content. Some are doing this, but not the big ones, not the ones that could make a difference and get this changed. The end user isn't going to be responsible for making the change. Our society will always be selfish, and they want their content to be in the from they want it to be in. If the streaming companies cannot find a way to generate enough revenue to responsibly payout royalties they need to shut it down and let it go back to companies selling one license per song. But once that license is paid for it's theirs forever, if streaming companies could find a way to be competitive in royalty payouts then it would actually mean more money for labels,songwriters, artists. That's because the license to play the song is recurring, and because it's digital, the record for how many times those spins are happening can be tracked down. There's no one buying a CD listening to it for a while then giving it to their poor buddy who doesn't buy anything, or downloads it illegally, or rips it off and burns him a copy.
It's a new technology, changes have to be made, but it ultimately starts with the labels in making that change, and spending more money to lobby the public officials than the streaming companies are.
Just my opinion on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 20:15:10 GMT -6
So, using their HIGHEST rate...1,000,000 plays equals $6000...to be split between the copyright holders. That means split between Record label, Publisher and Songwriters. That - is ridiculous. As a consumer this is the best thing going but how much should I really pay to stream a song? It's not like Itunes where I have a file that goes with me. How much should I really be paying for services like Spotify and Rdio?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 18, 2014 21:20:36 GMT -6
How about this...1 cent for the first 99 streams. Then it's free thereafter...
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 18, 2014 21:22:34 GMT -6
Or how about itunes adding an option to stream a song for 5 cents. You get the single after 20 plays...Would this encourage single sales or discourage them?
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 19, 2014 9:28:48 GMT -6
I personally use these streaming services to see if I like an album before purchasing. I want to see if the album is worth my cash. I was recently trying to find a steam of the new Beyoncé album, but couldn't find it anywhere. I guess she's just not going to get my money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 21:51:16 GMT -6
Or how about itunes adding an option to stream a song for 5 cents. You get the single after 20 plays...Would this encourage single sales or discourage them? Hockey players are overpaid because the buying public chooses to pay high ticket prices (at least in Canada). When I hear people bemoan the salary of a player while he/she chugs a $10 beer in a $150 dollar jersey in a seat that cost him/her $300 (times 2, times 41) a year (times 5 as it's a five year contract) I just laugh. YOU THE DIPSHIT FAN ARE PAYING THAT! If the Jets made their return to people closing their wallets at $300 ticket prices they would have dropped the price and made some concessions. A lot of people purchase music legally and more would if it were convenient and streaming services offer that. As engineers/producers we need to consider what the music buying public is saying. - They don't care if it was tracked through an 80 series, if they did they'd all pay for it. They're not. - We don't need more gear, we need to be efficient and pass that on to our clients who in turn need to do the same, means no more sitting in the studio writing lyrics and other asshattery. It's all going to trickle down to gear manufacturers too who will forgo the shiniest enclosures and even assemble in China. Quality costs but the public isn't buying and there's no convincing them the same way you can't convince a season ticket holder they're wasting their money.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Feb 21, 2014 10:23:09 GMT -6
Or how about itunes adding an option to stream a song for 5 cents. You get the single after 20 plays...Would this encourage single sales or discourage them? Hockey players are overpaid because the buying public chooses to pay high ticket prices (at least in Canada). When I hear people bemoan the salary of a player while he/she chugs a $10 beer in a $150 dollar jersey in a seat that cost him/her $300 (times 2, times 41) a year (times 5 as it's a five year contract) I just laugh. YOU THE DIPSHIT FAN ARE PAYING THAT! If the Jets made their return to people closing their wallets at $300 ticket prices they would have dropped the price and made some concessions. A lot of people purchase music legally and more would if it were convenient and streaming services offer that. As engineers/producers we need to consider what the music buying public is saying. - They don't care if it was tracked through an 80 series, if they did they'd all pay for it. They're not. - We don't need more gear, we need to be efficient and pass that on to our clients who in turn need to do the same, means no more sitting in the studio writing lyrics and other asshattery. It's all going to trickle down to gear manufacturers too who will forgo the shiniest enclosures and even assemble in China. Quality costs but the public isn't buying and there's no convincing them the same way you can't convince a season ticket holder they're wasting their money. I really, really agree with your sentiment and it's an uncomfortable truth to the engineering community. The budgets are going to have to shrink, and we're going to have to do more with less in order to be able to exist. The "Which Neve console do I need" guys are dinosaurs. When someone can invest 1000 dollars and have a 16 input setup, some monitors and a couple of mics - why would he pay anyone that for an album? It has to be economic and the difference in results have to be clear enough that he looks like the guy buying a trowel and deciding he's going to plaster his own house. But the real cost is space. The real cost is lights and heating, security and rent. But in a world where no one maximizes the use of their spaces - why the fuck pay for one you're not going to be making money out of round the clock, either? Especially when any of the studios I've been to have fake/ineffective treatment and no isolation and have been far from "vibey". This is where the multimedia guys have us beat - they're happy to take a DLSR to just about anywhere that suits. It's why they're feeling the pinch and we're imploding. Small, versatile setups that are portable is currently what I'm looking at. No one at my level has millions to pay me, so a million dollar set up won't get me any more income than a cheap one. Good laptop, portable recording device, maybe a mixer, big of jack-of-all-trade microphones, portable acoustics. Move them into the venues the artist and yourself can find and realistically use. Churches, schools, disused commercial spaces, houses. Whatever. The cost is now just your labour, maybe some minor transaction for the space and transport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 16:16:22 GMT -6
Hockey players are overpaid because the buying public chooses to pay high ticket prices (at least in Canada). When I hear people bemoan the salary of a player while he/she chugs a $10 beer in a $150 dollar jersey in a seat that cost him/her $300 (times 2, times 41) a year (times 5 as it's a five year contract) I just laugh. YOU THE DIPSHIT FAN ARE PAYING THAT! If the Jets made their return to people closing their wallets at $300 ticket prices they would have dropped the price and made some concessions. A lot of people purchase music legally and more would if it were convenient and streaming services offer that. As engineers/producers we need to consider what the music buying public is saying. - They don't care if it was tracked through an 80 series, if they did they'd all pay for it. They're not. - We don't need more gear, we need to be efficient and pass that on to our clients who in turn need to do the same, means no more sitting in the studio writing lyrics and other asshattery. It's all going to trickle down to gear manufacturers too who will forgo the shiniest enclosures and even assemble in China. Quality costs but the public isn't buying and there's no convincing them the same way you can't convince a season ticket holder they're wasting their money. I really, really agree with your sentiment and it's an uncomfortable truth to the engineering community. The budgets are going to have to shrink, and we're going to have to do more with less in order to be able to exist. The "Which Neve console do I need" guys are dinosaurs. When someone can invest 1000 dollars and have a 16 input setup, some monitors and a couple of mics - why would he pay anyone that for an album? It has to be economic and the difference in results have to be clear enough that he looks like the guy buying a trowel and deciding he's going to plaster his own house. But the real cost is space. The real cost is lights and heating, security and rent. But in a world where no one maximizes the use of their spaces - why the fuck pay for one you're not going to be making money out of round the clock, either? Especially when any of the studios I've been to have fake/ineffective treatment and no isolation and have been far from "vibey". This is where the multimedia guys have us beat - they're happy to take a DLSR to just about anywhere that suits. It's why they're feeling the pinch and we're imploding. Small, versatile setups that are portable is currently what I'm looking at. No one at my level has millions to pay me, so a million dollar set up won't get me any more income than a cheap one. Good laptop, portable recording device, maybe a mixer, big of jack-of-all-trade microphones, portable acoustics. Move them into the venues the artist and yourself can find and realistically use. Churches, schools, disused commercial spaces, houses. Whatever. The cost is now just your labour, maybe some minor transaction for the space and transport. Furthermore, what $1000 gets you nowadays in the recording world is pretty damn phenomenal. If guys back in the 60s and 70s had this equipment they'd gasp at the noise floor and transparency. How much money used to be spent rewinding tape? The plugins are as good, the cheapest of gear now is as capable as it's ever been and this changes the business of it. If you want to stick to your guns be prepared to take a hit financially on it. Here's an article I was recently interviewed for about home studios. uniter.ca/view/hit-recordThe band was posted on here in the showcase section.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Feb 21, 2014 16:51:33 GMT -6
Nice!
I felt the dig at Cubase was a little petty of them. Came off a bit like some pro-tools fanatic in the back room kicking chairs in the office cause not everyone thinks you need a U47 to make a record.
|
|
|
Post by Rock Kennedy on Feb 22, 2014 15:03:50 GMT -6
Hey Brother" by Avicii. I have no idea who that his. But if you guys have spotify I'd highly encourage you to go and give that a listen, like I said, it was at the top of Spotify's Country 100." I am pretty sure the vocals are Dan Tyminski from Alison Krauss' Band, Union Station... same guy that sang the song "Man of Constant Sorrow."
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Feb 22, 2014 18:44:35 GMT -6
Hey Brother" by Avicii. I have no idea who that his. But if you guys have spotify I'd highly encourage you to go and give that a listen, like I said, it was at the top of Spotify's Country 100." I am pretty sure the vocals are Dan Tyminski from Alison Krauss' Band, Union Station... same guy that sang the song "Man of Constant Sorrow." That's definitely who it is.
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Feb 23, 2014 13:10:45 GMT -6
How about this...1 cent for the first 99 streams. Then it's free thereafter... I like this idea. It's like the "penny plan" for paying down the national debt. It would work and would be virtually painless. Now getting it to happen is another thing.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 23, 2014 13:25:08 GMT -6
Actually, it might have to be more expensive than a penny...That way, it would entice people to just buy it instead of stream it. Maybe 10 cents a stream, free after 20 streams.
|
|