The system may be broken, but I'm not sure going back to the old system is the right approach.
The system may be broken, but I'm not sure going back to the old system is the right approach.
For example. I only listen to smaller indie bands on Spotify for a month. I give Spotify my £10 for the month.
Does my £10 go to those smaller bands? No. It gets given to Lady Ga Ga because she got 100 bazzillion listens that month. Even though I never listen to her music.
Spotify should work out who you’re listening to and give them a direct slice of what you have paid, rather than putting everyone in a pot together and dividing by number of plays.
It would be fairer, but it would mean the bigger bands earn less, and expose the fact that streaming really isn’t making anyone enough money.
How could it when I’m now paying only £10 a month for what used to cost hundreds?
But it’s better than piracy!
If you listen to smaller indie bands more than the average person listens to Lady Ga Ga, the indies artist you listen to actually get more than £10 worth and Lady Ga Ga gets less.
Some people think it is less fair than a "one subscription one vote" system. It is up to debate, but the payment system does not favor celebrities, network effects combined with good marketing do.
- Patrick Carney (of The Black Keys)
I have no qualms with Spotify's business model: a 30/70 split seems fair. But their incentives are absolutely aligned with the record labels and the huge artists, not the smaller artists.
The promise of the golden era of music piracy was that it'd be a force to level the playing field for all artists and give the little guys a fair chance to compete with the bigger guys.
Spotify should give a subscriber's money to the artists one listens to. It's not just what's fair; it's common sense, and it would absolutely breathe a new life into the music industry.
It doesn’t many fans at all giving them a larger slice of subscription pie to put them over that £200 a month
Representation based on number of plays
Problem is, suppose you listen to almost nothing but some indie band all month, and you happen to land on Lady Ga Ga just once or twice by accident somehow. Now since proportional representation by number of raw plays has been replaced by number of deduplicated plays tabulated to the artist, £5 goes to Gaga.
Squashing repetitions probably won't make much difference, because some people who like unpopular music listen to it repeatedly like crazy, just like people who like popular music. The big stars are not winning due to more plays; it's really due to just being more popular.
Suppose every Spotify subscriber streams music 24 hours a day. Then is it still unfair to go by plays?
By the way, no mater what, I suspect out of any £10 subscription, something like £9.95 goes to Spotify itself.
Also I don’t know the exact amount of money but it is substantially more than 5%. I don’t know where I read it but I have a memory that involves me hearing or reading that Spotify takes about 30%
I'm not sure this is really fairer, or practical.
Listeners that listen to less music (well, fewer artists at least, but that feels like its often going to correlate) being more valuable feels like it creates weird patterns and incentives.
If you only listened to one song in a month, should that band get your full subscription cut? What if you listened to no songs, but didn't cancel?
In any case, I imagine there's an aggregate effect where the whole pool of spotify listeners habits ends up being something that approximates a normal distribution and paying per-user vs paying per-stream would end up basically the same. You listen to 40 niche artists one month, 10000 other people listen to 40 popular ones, the popular ones get 10000x the revenue... There are bands with thousands of monthly listeners, and then ones with tens of millions of monthly listeners. The few in the latter bucket are gonna dominate the payouts.
Or if you want Spotify could do it over the year rather than the month so it’s less extreme. I just want my money to go only to bands I listen to. Is that so crazy?
If I listen to no music, maybe then it can just go based on my average listening history, or last month.
Don’t let a few edge cases put you off a much fairer way of distributing the money in general.
The opposite of that is strange to me. Seems akin to buying a record at a record store and having my money go to other artists because people usually buy their records.
When you spell it out like that it shows just how insane it is!
I don't understand why this hypothetical would be an argument against user-centric payments. If you only listened to one band in a month, what claim does any other band have on your (net of Spotify's cut) payment?
If not, then you're somehow going by number of plays.
(Definitely though, only those two artists should get any of your money, no matter how it is sliced.)
Going by ratio of plays of bands I listened to makes total sense.
That being difficult, even a 50:50 between my 100 streams band and one I listed for 1 stream is still better that sending those money to third bands...
E.g. 10 plays of Ramones 2.5 minute songs == 10 unit's worth == 2 plays of an hour-long ambient piece.
The equivalency could be adjustable to something that most accept as fair.
If your money was split between what you listened to, wouldn’t it make sense to split by time listened or length of the tracks? That might start incentivizing musicians to create inordinately longer songs to try to get a bigger slice of your money... hmm...
David Byrne explains that quite well in "How Music Works", his take on the history of how music is made and how it sounds being correlated how it was usually played is quite interesting. Tribal music could be more beat/drum focused as those are played in open air, where the bass sounds can propagate without room interference. Going from there to the point where he talks about concert halls and how different architectures (from cathedrals to halls designed for orchestras) shaped how music was made to sound in that kind of room. And later on how recordings have changed all of that.
So music has been shaped and will continuously be shaped by how people listen to it. Nowadays music is a very personal experience, listening at home, on our headphones, we experience it outside of the context it's existed for millenia before good recordings were possible. Where the experience of listening live music was always attached to the place it was played. Now we listen to it completely devoid of space, this shapes the kind of music made, how it sounds and so on.
Yes, totally. That's why I pay my subscription.
>What if you listened to no songs, but didn't cancel?
Then the money from those should be put in a pool and handed to artists with actual streams that month, proportionally...
I just replied this to a comment below. Would like to get your take since you clearly know something about what’s happening.
The whole point of the article is saying 80% of bands only make £200 a year.
A band only needs a few hundred fans to easily get above that.
My attempt at some math:
100 fans listen to a band 5% of the time.
100 fans x £10 x 12 months = £12000.
Your 5% of their listening gives them £600.
3 X higher than 80% of bands. And with only 100 fans. And only listening to your music 5% of the time!
In real terms acquiring 100 fans - who listen consistently and repeatedly - could easily cost tens of thousands of pounds.
Here are some numbers plucked not entirely from thin air:
If you’ve got a band of four people who write and record enough music to drop out a new track every six to eight weeks (often required to build momentum and sustained engagement) then you’re probably talking about at least 50-60 hours of their time per track between them - and that’s a pretty conservative estimate going from initial song concept through rehearsal to recording in 15 hours - so four or five sessions per song. In reality it’s probably a lot more unless you are super focused, very talented and work well as a band.
If you take average UK wages then that’s a cost of around £920 per track. You’re looking at £10k just to write rehearse and record nine tracks - before any production, mixing, mastering, additional session musicians or anything else. Throw in maybe another £500 for those costs, per track. We are close to £15k now.
Add marketing, promo, photography, video, design and everything else you need to maintain a significant presence to attract and maintain engagement from fans and you’re easily looking at a year one total cost of maybe £30,000.
Sure you can do all of this yourself - but if so you’re going to have to give up your day job. And marketing and promo of music is HARD with lots of gatekeepers and lots of stuff you can easily get wrong, so it’s going to mean you move slower than hiring in someone who knows what they are doing.
Add in a tour - and for a lot of musicians, playing live is the best way to add new fans - and you’re looking at doubling or tripling that. For most artists playing live is a cost until you’re playing headline shows in decent sized venues. If you’re headlining a 500 cap venue where tickets are £12 then there is £6000 on offer. Take off the VAT and there’s £5000. Venue takes 20-30%, promoter a similar amount, there’s maybe £2500 left to pay three bands. Headliner gets the lions share - so maybe £1k. But that’s for at least four people - and likely sound operator and a tour manager/driver all of whom need to travel, sleep and eat. At this stage you probably have an agent taking 15% and a manger taking 20% so there is now maybe £700 to get you and your two crew to the gig, into a hotel, fed and back on the road. You need to pay your sound and you need to pay your tour manager - and you need to hire and fuel one - or more - vehicles. Sound is going to be £150-£200 per day - more if you’ve got complex requirements - and your driver will be similar. So now you’ve got £300 per show for food, beds and fuel for 6 people. You get some cash from selling merch but you have to front those costs. A good night selling 30-40 t-shirts brings you another £500 clear after costs. So for an artist big enough to headline a 20 date tour over six weeks (3 shows a week) in 500 cap venues they are going to walk away from that tour losing £120 a day each for lost wages and then the other out of pocket costs. Could be a loss of £1000 a day unless you’re crashing on floors and eating supermarket meal deals. Your tour just cost you £40k+
18 months in you’ve spent £100k.
Now, sure, after writing that music, effectively promoting it, and building your audience touring you’d have more than 100 fans. You’d hope.
Let’s say you’ve got 25,000 monthly listeners on Apple Music who have theoretically shifted to user centric payouts. (I’m choosing Apple Music because they are premium-only so it’s easier to model).
Subscription is £9.99. Take off the VAT. Take off Apple’s 30%. There’s £5.82 left to split each month, £70 per year.
If you are 10% of your fans listening then you’re getting £7 a year.
Your 25,000 fans are bringing you £175k.
Your manager gets 20%.
To maintain this, your operating costs are something like £100k a year.
I think this is what YouTube does with their premium subscription service for content creators. You get a chunk of the YouTube premium revenue based on how much people with the premium subscription watched.
Imagine Spotify only has 2 users. Both pay their £10 a month.
One listens to 2 hours a day of their fav band on their commute.
The other listens to Taylor Swift on repeat 18 hours a day.
Current system, Taylor swift gets £18 and the other band gets £2.
Use centric version I’m suggesting, both get £10, just as they would if it had been a CD they were listening to.
This seems more fair to me.
Imagine I only listen to one song in one month by one band who currently make ~0 on Spotify.
In my new system, they now make £10.
You could just as easily have an enthusiast who finds a few new indie albums per month and listens to them all the way through, or someone who leaves a top-40 playlist on in the background.
This just could not happen with what I’m suggesting.
Example: The band above, which earned < £200 must have at least 2 million streams a year = 166,666 a month
For simplicity let’s assume each of those 166,666 streams is a unique user. Each also listens to 1999 other songs that month (about 5 hours a day of music seems average?)
So each owes the artist 1/2000 of their £10 subscription = $0.005
166,666 streamers * $0.005 = £833.33 a month = £10,000 a year.
Let the law of large numbers do its work.
A band only needs a few hundred fans to easily get above that.
Let’s do some math:
100 fans listen to their music only 5% of the time.
100 fans x £10 x 12 months = £12000.
Your 5% of their listening gives you £600.
3 X higher than 80% of bands. And with only 100 fans. And only listening to your music 5% of the time!
I am not sure how this works in regards to economies of scale. However all artists are free (except for contractual agreements) to release their art independently and keep the whole pie.
Let's take your £10. Now spotify has operational costs, staff salaries, operational costs. How much is your £10 worth now?
Well its not actually too hard to work out you could take a look at the balance sheet. But I gather your £10 is worth quite substantially less.
This does not include any further cuts like for the record label, song writers, produces, marketing etc.
TL;DR; your £10 is not worth £10 if you factor in other overheads.
Right now they get almost nothing, because the current model redirects his money to the major labels' biggest artists. Understand?
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/...
But that would be writing a lot of checks and a pretty big total overall. What else can you do? A lottery system? Round Robin? 3 years is a long time. Ultimately I think you need a bigger pool, and I have only suspicions what that might look like.
The difference I think is if 80% of professional musicians can't make a living & it's not clear that's actually the case (i.e. streaming isn't the only source of revenue). Similarly, music may have a higher "stickiness" for tenacity where people see it as a higher calling for them even if they're not making money (vs someone not cutting it as a lawyer/doctor to even pay the bills is going to quit & find something else if they weren't even weeded out during school).
[0] The call to "passion" tends to work the other direction too in that game developers are overwhelmingly young, fresh out of school, and the turnover ratio in the industry implies a huge turnover of skills and experience over time as well as consequent losses to institutional memory. There aren't a lot of safe spaces in games to build skills and game companies have fewer incentives to retain skilled workers than a lot of the, for instance, "dark matter" enterprise uses of backend developers where the backend developer becomes an institutional knowledge bottleneck.
It might hurt people's feeling, but most of those are not professional musicians.
I don't think it is judgemental to say that to claim oneself as professional, one need to demonstrate that they could make a living out of it. Otherwise, it is no different than a hobbyist, albeit much more time is dumped on it.
In case of streaming, now more people can declare themselves as musicians, since the barrier of publishing has been significantly lowered comparing to physical CDs. But that doesn't mean profit would follow.
To produce hit music isn't easy, and luck is certainly a factor of it.
The reality is that there is while there are a lot of hacks and untalented musicians alongside the professional musicians, there are also actually a ton of talented musicians that are working very hard to write, record, and release music, and just simply never get heard. They submit to pandora or Spotify or wherever and it never makes it into the algorithms. It's up to them to do all their own marketing. We're influenced by survivorship bias and it's easy to say "they should just tour and play out and submit to music blogs!" and it's difficult to communicate just how hard it is to find any traction at all.
It's entirely down to organised (guild) gatekeeping and managed perceptions of value, not actual value provided.
More, it's covertly about political power.
Fair or not fair is subjective. In my opinion you shouldn’t go into fields with heavy power law dynamics unless you’re comfortable with a very high likelihood of coming out a ‘failure’.
At least it’s gotten more meritocratic than in years past.
Should 80% of middle managers be able to make a living from their work? Politicians? Bankers? Investors? Backend developers?
The fact that there's no question that these people are somehow magically worth it, while musicians and artists somehow magically aren't, is a symptom of the covert beliefs that define value, not a cause of them.
Realistically this is just a different kind of social credit - and no less brutal than the Chinese kind, even though the values are (somewhat) different.
There’s a wide variety of outcomes even after the great filter that are MCATs and medical school.
For example, Thomas F. Frist Jr. is worth ~13 billion. Now granted at those levels he’s more an entrepreneur/businessman as all such people are. Still, the difference between his net worth and a regular GP making $400k is probably about the same difference as a musician worth $300 million and a musician making $200/year.
Not to say employees all make a lot of money. Janitor probably makes a fairly predictable minimum wage level in the US.
On the other hand an employed software developer or other engineer might have a 5-10x wage disparity (even within a given country) for various reasons. But it won't be an "actor" waiting tables versus an A-list celebrity.
Startups are a different situation, but in fact so different it seems silly to compare.
But the real reason this is on HN is because this is the consequences of applying technology (smartphones, cellular data, cloud scale web services) to an industry (music sales).
Both are risky, both Take skill and luck, both rarely work out.
I don’t agree
Think about all the tiktok'ers, OnlyFans, youtubers, instagram influencers, etc., who might have been otherwise dismissed as “the pretty face in the office”.
This is not to say any significant proportion will end up “rich”—no different than the rest of us—but there have never been more “exit ramps”.
A collective action by artists to force streaming services into a better deal seems like what is required, tho the general appetite for collective action in 2020 still seems a little lacking.
Musicians have existed far, far longer than recording technology has. In the past musicians got paid For performing. Maybe the odd thing is expecting to be paid for decades for a few weeks in a recording studio.
Also lets remember how we ended up with the $10/month all you can eat subscription. Pirating, CD rips, online MP3 sharing, Youtube music videos, etc. The majority of the people don't want to pay for music anymore. I feel people are more likely to value a physical good. For example: I feel somewhat balanced for paying $5 for that Starbucks coffee because I get a physical thing in the end. In the early 2000s, the computer and internet was the new thing, not everyone used it, and it was a bit complicated. So using it made me feel like I am "smarter", more frontier chasing, more elite than others. And there were ideals like internet freedom, free access to information. And then when I discovered there is MP3s, copy and paste, BitTorrent and Napster, I felt like I have just been bestowed special powers. Through my "hard" work with computers, I gained the rights to listen to music for free. I actually felt I was righteous to download music from the Internet and listen to them. Had content locked behind a paywall, had to pay for that? It was against internet freedom, it was an outrage. Then I remember when Steven Jobs later came out with Itunes and every song is 99 cents. I felt, 99 cents? alright, it's only a dollar and really not that much. That was the first time I started to actually pay for music. But the music industry and musicians were outraged because Steve Jobs is making their work worth only a dollar. Job's point was that if you charge people more than 99 cents a song, people would just pirate. I agree with him. The later "all you can streaming" subscription came out with the competitive advantage being even cheaper than Itune's a dollar a song purchase scheme.
But then everyone as the desire to seek for cheaper prices and better access. Maybe its just natural progression of things and we can't fault for that. Stakeholders have to adapt for change in behavior and landscapes. I believe the advantages nowadays for a musician is that "getting yourself known and advertise yourself" is cheaper than ever. And there are so many people out there that you can easily reach that even a niche artist can find audiences. Its much easier now to create a fanbase and consistently communicate and maintain a fanbase. And when you have a fanbase, you just have to figure out how to monetize that. Concerts, fan items, album sales, even sponsorship and advertisement, a Youtube channel makes you a lot of money already. Look at the amount of fans a Youtuber and TikTok star has and how much they earn money from the fanbase and popularity, they make a lot. Justin Bieber became a star on Youtube and that jump started his career. Lindsey Stirling became a star because of Youtube. Without the internet and "free access" to content the internet is providing, I don't think both will be as well known as they are now. Not sure if they would even stay as artists.
Of course, Spotify (and the likes) would give us much, MUCH more exposure to listeners all over the world - but buck for buck, it's a worse deal on the scale a lot of amateurs are operating.
The best way to support smaller acts is:
1. Go to their shows.
2. Buy their physical or digital copies.
3. Buy their merch, if there's any.
4. Donate.
Digital streaming services will pay them pennies. So one needs to actively support artists.
I think that's an important truth to keep in mind when discussing this.
> That was just as true 20 years ago as it is today.
Hmm. Let's consider 3 different periods of time.
1. Olden times before radio. To listen to music, you had to play it yourself, or go see it in person.
2. Radio and Records exist.
3. Internet streaming.
Each artist has a problem along the lines of: how much of my time do I spend figuring out how to make money, and how much making music or performing?
Obviously, after a certain point, it is way more efficient to let Warner Bros. do the marketing, etc.
However, the power dynamic of this new business model means that that "natural" power law (if each musician were doing all the business stuff themselves), is more like a power-power law. Each step above increases the max payout to the Mozarts and the Jay-Zs, but more importantly, it concentrates power in the hands of the rights-holders.
Among other things, now your cost of entry to the super-star lottery is to give up rights that would otherwise give you a better chance at a lower, but more certain return in another system.
I agree that we can't go back. But the fact that someone twice as good may get 10 times the attention is not the only effect at play.
In an ideal society, we get to choose how the market works. And it should probably work differently for businesses that have different functions in society. For example, some different classes might be Entertainment, the Internet, Power & Water utilities.
I partially disagree. The power law dynamics were present 20 years ago. However the DEGREE of inequality between the 'superstars' and average musicians has skyrocketed, possibly due to technological changes.
On one hand, ease of access lets a wider demographic become musicians (think of the proliferation of SoundCloud rappers and YouTube singers). On the other hand, popular artists are able to reach a wider audience and grab a wider slice of aggregate 'attention'.
Well, for millenias it wasn't that way. So not 100% "natural".
It happened because of the extra distribution power recorded and now streaming music allows.
When you didn't have recorded music, musicians all around the globe could make a living in their local communitities.
I disagree. The fundamental issue isn't power law distributions either, it's the fact that £200 won't even pay for a new guitar.
It's not hard to imagine that the distribution of earnings in other fields is lopsided too, but even average-earning teachers, corporate lawyers and secretaries make a wage they can get by on. Music as a whole might just undervalued.
Music is also very unequal. I haven't heard of teachers earning less than £200 a year, nor of teachers earning as much as say, Taylor Swift. The parameters of these two earning distributions are widely different.
It's interesting, since Music is and has always been very valuable in every culture since time immemorial. Is it undervalued because the post-industral world just tends to undervalue creative work in general? Is it not really that undervalued, and we just get that impression because such as small part of the industry captures such an insane percentage of profits? Could be both to be honest.
Music in this context is more like a business, where there may not be demand. You don't get to create a random business and expect a livable wage from it. Music as a whole may be valued, but music from any particular band may not be.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JMKSE2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
Even if the music industry dies, music itself is going nowhere. It sucks for people who really love making music and want to live from it but from a purely capitalistic perspective it just doesn't add up: there's a massive amount of offer and a fixed amount of demand. You can find dozens of incredibly gifted artists on Youtube, Twitch or elsewhere who'll never manage to live from their craft.
It's like becoming a pro footballer, it's amazing if you make it but it's not a reasonable long term career prospect if you're not incredibly gifted and incredibly lucky.