[HN Gopher] Global music market grew by 18.5% in 2021, driven by... ___________________________________________________________________ Global music market grew by 18.5% in 2021, driven by paid subscription streaming Author : giuliomagnifico Score : 97 points Date : 2022-03-24 19:15 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.ifpi.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.ifpi.org) | birdyrooster wrote: | Art is best when it's unpaid. I don't want you paying me for my | music and I won't pay for yours. I am tired of corporate rent | seeking in the art space. Yes this is historical for art of all | kinds, but I think that was to the detriment of art rather than | its benefit. The talent of artists has been used to ingratiate | and inflate the perception of some truly awful people and ideas. | BaseballPhysics wrote: | Based. | | Okay, fine, I suppose I should actually respond. | | The problem with this view is that truly high quality art | requires time and attention that few can afford without some | level of compensation. | | If we lived in a non-capitalist society where people didn't | have to work to survive, I might agree with you. Heck, even a | basic income could make a life as an artist possible. | | But that world doesn't exist. | | So your idea would do one thing and one thing only: it would | relegate the creation of art to the domain of the wealthy. And | that is not a world I'd want to live in. | bitwize wrote: | How do you expect artists to keep doing what they do and put | food on the table? | ProAm wrote: | Like every artist throughout history has? | bitwize wrote: | Patronage? I'm sure you can see how that doesn't scale. | fullshark wrote: | By getting paid for it? | aeyes wrote: | By using music/art as promotional material to sell | tickets to your live shows. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | I am far more than happy to pay artists who create the music | that I love to continue to create that music. | | No one demands a purity of purpose from software developers. | drpgq wrote: | "The USA & Canada region grew by 22.0% in 2021, outpacing the | global growth rate. The USA market alone grew by 22.6% and | Canadian recorded music revenues grew by 12.6%." | | I wonder why the big difference. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | My guess is that performances have _just_ started opening up | again in Canada. | | That's usually a big part of revenues. From what I've seen by | watching recording performances, there have been many places | throughout the US to perform live in that time. Varied state- | by-state even. | ProfessorLayton wrote: | I am having a hell of a time adjusting to a streaming-focused | music world. On one hand, I love having access to pretty much all | the music I want, and have discovered a lot of new artists | (through no help of the apps themselves, however). On the other | hand, having my library randomly switch on me with songs | disappearing, album covers swapping out or renamed is driving me | NUTS. | | Not to mention the general buggyness that's on iOS Music. I feel | like maybe it's just me because people generally enjoy it, but | the app is a pretty terrible experience overall (Slow, buggy, | messy). It sometimes refuses to play a song! Maybe I'm just | getting old. | | I'm on a family plan where the cost per person is negligible, so | I can deal with it most of the time, but I do sometimes miss the | ipod days. | 8bitbuddhist wrote: | This is why I host my own personal streaming service. I'll buy | music, copy the files to my server, and use Airsonic to stream | it to my laptop, phone, etc. It's a lot more work, but I'd | rather have full control than use something like YouTube Music, | where I can only hope that the songs I like don't get pulled or | the service itself doesn't get shut down. | digitalnomad91 wrote: | You can use youtube-dl-gui to grab mp3's from many different | platforms. | | I also grab mp3's using ymusic and a hacked pandora app on my | phone. I miss the days of what, waffle, and oink though. Still | haven't gotten into orpheus yet. | | Also op above is right, bandcamp is awesome. | Adraghast wrote: | I encourage you to check out an app called Marvis. It's a | frontend for Apple Music (iOS only) that eliminates a lot of | the default client's issues. Until recently, I was paying for | Tidal despite having Apple Music as part of my Apple One | subscription, but switched back once I discovered Marvis. | gentleman11 wrote: | Where can you buy (drm free) music these days? After google | play shut down, I haven't known where to go | djkoolaide wrote: | Bandcamp. A lot of artists just sell their stuff directly on | their Bandcamp page now, and you get the choice of format | when you download (MP3/WAV/FLAC/etc). | warp wrote: | iTunes still has a store where most music is DRM free, and | available in a lot of countries (as opposed to Amazon MP3, | which is only available in a few). If you have a Mac it's | fairly easy to right-click a purchased, downloaded song in | Music.app and click "open in finder", so you can copy it (or | the entire album) to some self-hosted music server/app. | | There are sites like bandcamp, boomkat, beatport, bleep, | 7digital, but they all have smaller collections, so may not | have what you're looking for. | | There's also budget options of questionable legality hosted | in countries with a more flexible approach to music | licensing, like e.g. mp3va.com. | mr_mitm wrote: | Amazon has MP3 downloads, at least where I live. Last time I | bought a CD there, the corresponding MP3 download was | included. | navbaker wrote: | I'm still irrationally hanging on to those days. I usually buy | mp3 albums on Amazon and download them, then transfer to my | iPhone. Occasionally I run across an album that just will not | copy over, it just silently fails in iTunes when I try to drag | and drop. I think the latest is Dave Brubeck's Time Out, I have | to play that via the Amazon Music app. | rapsey wrote: | What is supper weird to me is how billie eilish songs very | often don't start playing. I can click on anything in my | library and it is fine. Trying to play billie and the app | just sits there waiting. | bredren wrote: | Simple music discovery has not recovered from just perusing the | top daily or weekly on oink. | BaseballPhysics wrote: | So stop streaming and start buying. That's still an option. | | I use streaming services for taste testing, but if I really | like something and want to own it, I turn to a DRM-free | platform (e.g. Bandcamp) to buy from the artists, then use my | own solution for playing that music on my devices (in my case | Navidrome). | | And as a bonus you'll put a lot more money in the pockets of | the artists you love. | bocytron wrote: | Oh man. Navidrome looks awesome. Never thought about doing | that. Will start buying from bandcamp tomorrow. Thank you | tons for the suggestion. | ProfessorLayton wrote: | I've purchased plenty of music, but the problem is that at | least on iOS, the music app will still swap out | song/album/info/art, or mismatch them altogether. The app | itself is optimized for streaming, with everything else being | an afterthought. | | My favorite way to support artists I love is to go to their | tours and buy their merch, including vinyls that are too | cumbersome to actually listen to :D. | BaseballPhysics wrote: | > I've purchased plenty of music, but the problem is that | at least on iOS, the music app will still swap out | song/album/info/art, or mismatch them altogether. | | I wonder if another app might solve your issues? Certainly | my combo of Navidrome + substreamer (on Android) doesn't | have any of those issues. My music is tagged and has | embedded artwork and the app just uses what's there. Then I | just use MusicBrainz Picard to ensure my tags are clean and | in good shape. | | > My favorite way to support artists I love is to go to | their tours and buy their merch, including vinyls that are | too cumbersome to actually listen to :D. | | This is the way! | jjulius wrote: | So the artists themselves saw some of this growth, too... right? | [deleted] | bryans wrote: | The self-congratulatory nature of the article and quotes actually | betray a self-reassurance, because in reality, record labels are | rapidly becoming irrelevant. They're scrambling to figure out how | they fit into the TikTok era, where artists no longer require | years of financial incubation to succeed. The music industry is | growing because independent musicians are finally figuring out | how to navigate it without any need for those traditional | industry services. They deserve the credit for (most of) this, | because they are working their asses off (including bringing new | streaming users to the fold) and getting no recognition | whatsoever from industry reporting. | | Sometime in the next year or two, we will see the first truly | independent music superstars achieve household-name status. Once | that veil is broken, then the jig is up and labels are going to | be panicking -- if they're not already. | davtbaum wrote: | Disagree hard - every major label I follow is embracing TikTok | and encouraging their artists to leverage the platform for | growth. Also, labels have so much infrastructure for marketing, | merch, booking shows etc. The need for this support doesn't | magically go away with new distribution channels. It just helps | newer artists get signed quicker :p | nemothekid wrote: | > _They 're scrambling to figure out how they fit into the | TikTok era, where artists no longer require years of financial | incubation to succeed_ | | Before this was the Napster era, then the MySpace era, then the | SoundCloud era, and now the TikTok era. Somehow those damned | labels keep figuring out. | bryans wrote: | You're giving them far too much credit. They're still very | much trying to figure out the Napster era, as to this day | they are suing pirates left and right because they genuinely | see that 0.01% of the market as a threat to their security. | skinnymuch wrote: | What do you mean by pirates? RIAA is suing the distributors | and creators of pirated content. They are not suing | individual pirates much at all. You said "to this | day...left and right" which indicates your average person | as that was the most know thing they were doing before in | the 00s. | | That's not true any more.[0] | | 0. https://jolt.richmond.edu/2018/03/15/has-the-riaa-given- | up-o... | Paianni wrote: | We've lost Polygram, BMG and EMI in the last 30 years, that's | three out of the six major labels that were current in the | 90s. The remainder are slowly becoming dinosaurs. | phphphphp wrote: | There's lots of independent artists that are successful, you're | about 5 years late on the "...independent musicians will kill | labels..." prediction which hasn't been borne out. Musicians | are actively choosing to sign to labels, even when they don't | have to... make of that what you will. | milesward wrote: | Macklemore did that already. | shadowgovt wrote: | The dark side to this is that artists are learning that the | things labels did for them are things _someone_ really does | have to do, and some hate it. I 've seen a couple artists talk | about what a pain it is to maintain a social media presence | (especially on platforms they hate) because the alternative is | obscurity. | | My prediction is that there's a pendulum back-swing in progress | as people figure out how to offer brand-management-as-a-service | without just becoming a label. | Melatonic wrote: | Until the Ticketmaster monopoly goes away I think independent | music superstars are gonna be in for a hard time. | bryans wrote: | That is a fair point on the touring side of things, but every | city still has theaters and large clubs which are not | beholden to Ticketmaster. So, while an independent artist may | not have access to a Beyonce-level stadium production, they | can still be extremely successful in literally every other | capacity. | IMTDb wrote: | I think labels are _more_ relevant than ever. In a world where | it 's easier and easier to create music, and distribute it, how | do you discover music ? Through curators, podcasts etc. And | those are managed by - you guessed it - labels. | | Thing is that - in order to be relevant, and play that role - | labels need to actually develop a style and expertise in the | specific genre/type they want to operate in. | bryans wrote: | > In a world where it's easier and easier to create music, | and distribute it, how do you discover music ? Through | curators, podcasts etc. And those are managed by - you | guessed it - labels. | | That's simply untrue. The vast majority of curating and | playlisting is through bloggers or social media personalities | and not through labels, so I'm not sure where you got that | from. | colinmhayes wrote: | > The vast majority of curating and playlisting is through | bloggers or social media | | Not sure about this. Maybe for big music fans, but most | casual listeners aren't reading music blogs. They're | throwing on spotify playlists which allow artists to pay to | get boosted. Guess what, it's the major label artists that | can afford those payments. They're seeing that their | favorite tiktoker made a video with some new band. Guess | what, the tiktoker was paid by a label to use that music. | bryans wrote: | You have entirely misunderstood the conversation and how | playlisting works. We were already literally discussing | Spotify playlists. The curators (bloggers and social | media personalities) use their platform to solicit | submissions, which they filter and then add to their | Spotify playlist. Nobody said anything about Spotify | listeners reading blogs to find music. | | You're also being very conspiratorial by pretending that | all playlists and TikTok users are being paid to place | music. It does exist, but is not even remotely as | ubiquitous as you're pretending. | basisword wrote: | Who has access to those bloggers and social media | personalities? Labels. Otherwise you're just sending your | demo to a blog and hoping it might get listened to in the | same way you would have sent it to a college radio staton | 30 years ago. | bryans wrote: | That's a conspiratorial and untrue claim. The most | popular curated playlists (i.e. ones that aren't | algorithmically produced by Spotify under the guise of | curation) don't actually have label influence. Anyone can | contact those curators directly, and if presented with | something palatable, they will most likely put it in | rotation. | | > Otherwise you're just sending your demo to a blog and | hoping it might get listened to in the same way you would | have sent it to a college radio staton 30 years ago. | | What do you think the record label is doing when they | contact a curator or radio station? It's the exact same | as if a musician had contact them. It's an email to a | person, who makes a decision based on the content. | basisword wrote: | >> What do you think the record label is doing when they | contact a curator or radio station? It's the exact same | as if a musician had contact them. It's an email to a | person, who makes a decision based on the content. | | It's their job to have existing relationships with the | bloggers, they aren't just sending cold emails. And I'd | they don't have relationships they can built them thanks | to the credibility they have naturally compared to Jim | for some cool indie band sending random emails. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | Maybe, maybe not. There's a larger variety of business model | behind record labels than what people usually mean when they | refer to record labels. | | They're not all middlemen trying to take a cut out of artists. | Those exist, and artists have always railed against the | model... and then start their own label. | | Labels are mainly a house for all of the logistics behind an | artist. No artist wants to spend 90% of their time marketing, | merchandizing, booking, etc, etc, etc. They want to create and | perform. The label is supposed to enable that. As long as the | label does so, then it's worth it. Plus it's a great way to | work with your less musical friends. Corporate isn't the only | option. | shams93 wrote: | From my experience going back to 1990 everything is actually | MORE controlled by the majors than ever before. Its so easy | for google to bury you, all the so called "discovery" | platforms are a pay to play scheme. Once pay to play became | the norm in southern california the music scene died and that | was back in the early 90s even before the internet. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | That's too bad. It's a big world. There are a lot of small- | mid-sized artists making a living with smaller labels. | | Not everybody needs to be the next Lizzo or else its abject | failure. | EMIRELADERO wrote: | Do you think this could have an effect on copyright in popular | culture? | basisword wrote: | Do you have any evidence of this? People have been saying | labels are irrelevant for a decade or two at least now. It's | never true. To succeed you need to get noticed and for that you | need a marketing budget and the labels provide that. Artists | can get much further than before but going viral on TikTok is | not a viable career strategy for most artists. | mikepurvis wrote: | Tessa Violet is example of an artist who has blown up on | TikTok and I believe has parlay that into real world success | in terms of shows, merch, etc. | | First 2 Eleven is a YouTube cover band who I believe are | still fully independent and | | On the streaming side, musicians like Danielle Allard are | killing it, though sometimes in a scenario like this it's | unclear if it's even the goal of the person to "go | mainstream" vs just carving out a cozy and sufficiently | monetized space to achieve financial stability and practice | their craft. | CharlesW wrote: | > _Tessa Violet is example of an artist who has blown up on | TikTok and I believe has parlay that into real world | success in terms of shows, merch, etc._ | | I've not heard of the others, but Tessa is on a label, | T[?]G Music, which has a global distribution deal with a | subsidiary of Sony. She launched her career on the Make | Music label as well. | basisword wrote: | I'm not saying it's impossible, it happens for sure. But | the death of labels has been predicted for the last 20 | years and somehow they've managed to continue to make | themselves relevant. | karmasimida wrote: | Most artists don't have a career. | | How many self sustained artists in the music industry are | there, comparing against the self-claimed ones? | xmprt wrote: | I think that while it's been "technically" possible to have | an audience without labels for at least a decade, it's been | incredibly difficult because of all the barriers to entry | that labels have put on the industry. YouTube has Vevo. | Labels have deals with companies like Spotify and Apple that | indie artists can't make. | | Your options have either been to fight and more than likely | fail (or succeed with one viral song and then fail) or give | in a join them. However recently, the tide has been turning | because labels haven't figured out how to gatekeep things | like TikTok (yet). | CharlesW wrote: | > _Labels have deals with companies like Spotify and Apple | that indie artists can 't make._ | | You don't need a label to distribute your music on major | music services. https://www.tunecore.com/ | colinmhayes wrote: | Pretty sure indie artists get paid less by the streaming | services, but the much bigger deal is getting onto the | playlists. Spotify sells playlist/discover spots, and the | only artists who can afford the fees are the ones who are | backed by labels. | mjr00 wrote: | Yep. I'm a verified artist on YouTube, TikTok, Bilibili, | Spotify, etc. and all it took was a $15/year Distrokid | subscription. | | That being said, the real challenge for independent | artists is getting "blessed by the algorithm," so to | speak, where they actually start showing up in Song Radio | and Discover Weekly algorithmic playlists. I'm not keen | on the details of the Spotify algorithm, but I imagine | labels _do_ help with this, and being on the same label | as a popular artist would increase your chances of | showing up on that artists ' song radio. | bryans wrote: | > That being said, the real challenge for independent | artists is getting "blessed by the algorithm," so to | speak, where they actually start showing up in Song Radio | and Discover Weekly algorithmic playlists. | | This mindset is unfortunately why most musicians fail to | gain traction. Relying on an algorithm for success is | fallacy, because all of these algorithms are based on | input, not random chance. If you're not steadily | supplying new listeners through your own direct efforts, | then the algorithm isn't going to perceive value and you | won't get any benefits from it. Playlisting represents | approximately 1% of the independent music industry | puzzle. | nicd wrote: | You're right that getting music onto DSPs has been | commoditized. | | Parent may have been referring to promotional deals | (getting onto official Spotify playlists, Discover | Weekly, etc) or special royalty rates. The major labels | have tons of leverage, and they definitely cut deals that | entry-level artists don't have access to. | bryans wrote: | Yes, I have tons of evidence for this, and for why all of | your claims have no foundation. Allow me to provide one | example of the hundreds that I personally know of or worked | with (which is a tiny fraction of the numbers finding success | independently). | | In late 2020, a band called Sub-Radio had a couple thousand | followers on each social media platform and around ~15k | monthly listeners on Spotify, and this was after many years | of working extremely hard and even touring the US. Among many | things, my primary advice to them was to start live | streaming, particularly on Reddit. By the time 2021 arrived, | they had more than tripled their social media presence and | doubled their listener count. The continued to stream on | Reddit throughout the year before recently switching to | TikTok, and in the process garnered over 1 million new | followers, 150k monthly listeners, sold out an entire US tour | and their music is being licensed left and right. | | That's just one example of countless many, and it's the way | the entire industry is moving. If you're not on board with | that, then you're behind the times, because you don't need a | million dollar music video budget to become famous and you | never did. Financial support has always been a very well- | understood con by the record labels, as it allows them to | assume ownership over music rights under the guise of | "necessary promotional activities." | KaoruAoiShiho wrote: | Same with software, books and manga and video games I | think. The only digitalized industry where indies still | don't really have a place is tv/movies | finiteseries wrote: | Outside narrative driven / sports / blue planet level | stuff, isn't a huge part of TV just YouTube/Podcasts/etc | now? Curation and everything built in. | | I was led to a oddly human travel show and watched it go | from a few thousand to millions of subscribers over the | past couple years, they were recently on the Ukrainian / | Russian border the day before the invasion talking to | locals and ended up leaving on a refugee train in | 1080p60, 3+ million views. | | Questionable character I don't want to promote and some | of the episodes I don't want to be associated with, but | that's tvesque isn't it? | | Repeat for true crime, history, cooking, children, | educational, political commentary, informercials... | mikepurvis wrote: | There are loads of people _making_ indie movies /docs out | there, I think, it's more a question of exposure-- | there's a long tail of them that get uploaded to Vimeo or | YouTube and then just die there. There's some limited | curation going on with aggregator channels (eg https://ww | w.youtube.com/channel/UC7sDT8jZ76VLV1u__krUutA), but it's | not mass-market in the way that a Netflix series is. | | Which definitely does seem like a missed opportunity for | the streaming platforms. Maybe one of them needs to step | up with the equivalent of Stream's Greenlight programme-- | an opportunity to temporarily have your stuff listed | alongside the AAA content, and if it hits whatever the | numbers are, they'll buy it from you? | lotsofpulp wrote: | Is it possible this method was doable for them without the | backing of bigger money because it's sort of novel? | | If everyone starts live streaming reddit and tiktok, what | will make certain groups stand out versus others? I would | guess there would be an opportunity for paid promotion, | maybe by Reddit or TikTok themselves. | bryans wrote: | That's an argument which could be made for any market or | industry. There are obviously a finite amount of people | in the world, and those people have a finite amount of | time to find and listen to music, so there is always | competition and certain artists are going to stand out | among others -- that's the nature of human preference. | But that doesn't automatically mean a few are successful | and everyone else fails. It's a spectrum of success | which, as it turns out, is directly proportional to the | effort invested toward getting better and producing more | attractive content. | skinnymuch wrote: | If things in life were directly proportional to effort | and similar things. We'd be living in a meritocracy. | Society doesn't work that way. There are most certainly | people who failed while putting in more and better effort | than others who succeeded. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I think it has more of an effect on markets where the | marginal cost of an additional sale (or attention) is | effectively zero, which results in very bimodal winner | (or top few winners) take all type situations. | | Not that there is anything wrong with considering success | to be whatever you achieve without outside funds trying | to promote you, it all simply depends on personal goals | and what you are willing to give up to gain an edge. | alfiedotwtf wrote: | > Financial support has always been a very well-understood | con by the record labels, as it allows them to assume | ownership over music rights under the guise of "necessary | promotional activities." | | This. Just look at TLC, one of the biggest R&B groups of | their time, and yet they were personally broke. | basisword wrote: | How long does that work for though and for how many | artists? If you get on a new platform early you can find | success, but once the platform becomes swamped with content | it's impossible to stand out without creativity, luck...and | funding. Unless you're lucky enough to find the next | platform. | | Additionally - 15k monthly listeners on Spotify is a pretty | great starting point. Most indie artists, regardless of | quality, will struggle ever even reach that without a lot | of outside help (or luck). | SapporoChris wrote: | I think I get the point. Advertising has merits, so does | being a first adopter. It's possible to make it without | advertising or being a first adopter, it's also possible | to get swept under the rug. | | I think the goal from the artists perspective is to reach | the most people while reducing advertising costs. | | The goal for the consumer is to be able to easily get the | music they like at low costs. This is getting met, but | I'd like to see the costs lowered. (consumer bias) | | Currently the environment is benefiting early | entreprenuers of streaming platforms. The costs are | lowering for artist which is also good. | | I'd like to see the balance to continue to shift more to | the artists, but not to the point where one artist can | dominate over another. | bryans wrote: | I think you're maybe putting too much emphasis on the | platforms, particularly on them being a single | opportunity that goes away at some point. Every platform, | regardless of whether it's a specific function like | Spotify or a content hub like YouTube, is a separate | venue representing a series of opportunities, not a | singular event. If you need evidence of that, you can | find countless new YouTube channels finding success in | the same markets which have been "saturated" for years -- | some since the beginning of the platform. | | And specifically to your emphasis on needing funding, | that's just not the case anymore. Everything is cheap. | You can live stream from your phone in 480p with a $20 | ring light, and fans of the content will still throw | money at you. It happens all day long on Twitch. | | > Additionally - 15k monthly listeners on Spotify is a | pretty great starting point. Most indie artists, | regardless of quality, will struggle ever even reach that | without a lot of outside help (or luck). | | Again though, that was after almost a decade of gigs and | touring and marketing. All it took was opening their eyes | to those series of opportunities that platforms provide, | and then applying all of their effort toward those | instead of pursuing the traditionally prescribed music | industry path. | skinnymuch wrote: | > countless new YouTube channels finding success in the | same markets | | This is seeing the survivors. Even if there are 100 new | big YouTube channels per year for some saturated niche. | That number might practically speaking basically mean | zero if 10 million people every year earnestly try to | succeed in that niche. The hit rate on this example is 1 | in 100K. | [deleted] | conradfr wrote: | There's great labels still, like Sargent House. | | Social platforms and digitalization can helped being truly | independent but there's still non-music work that a label would | do for you that you now have to manage. | | And even if the stories about the struggling musicians becoming | rock stars has always been embellished, it seems nowadays most | of the current ones had financial security before pursuing | their music career because of the low budgets available to | develop new artists. | bryans wrote: | > Social platforms and digitalization can helped being truly | independent but there's still non-music work that a label | would do for you that you now have to manage. | | Except that is rapidly becoming untrue, which is the entire | point. Self-management in the music industry is actually | quite simple if you have the tools and knowledge, and both of | those are now widely available to everyone. | te_chris wrote: | [citation needed] | | You're not wrong, people can do more themselves now...but the | labels can also do these things, while being globally | networked. You sound like you know what you're talking about, | but probably worth spending more time knowing your enemy if you | really want to destroy them. | candiddevmike wrote: | Doesn't say how much the actual artists are seeing of this | growth, and how spread out it is. These streaming services make | it really hard for smaller artists to stand out, almost everyone | uses the services "radio" equivalent which seems to play a very | narrow scope of similar artists (mostly more well known). | | Basically it seems like it's easier than ever to become a | musician with global reach/fans but harder than ever to make a | decent living off of it. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | That's exactly it. Streaming is the modern radio, it's not the | entire business. | BaseballPhysics wrote: | Yup. Listen to any smaller artist and they'll tell you | streaming services are only good for exposure and the real | money is in ticket sales, swag, and physical and digital sales | to buying customers. | LegitShady wrote: | I feel like this was true before streaming as well. smaller | artists would say 'the label takes so much of the record | sales, touring/swag is where I make money' | BaseballPhysics wrote: | I don't disagree, but streaming services have dramatically | exacerbated the problem. Any artist that's been around | before and after streaming will tell you that they make far | less money, now, than they did when they were selling | records, even after their labels and publishers and | distributors took a cut. | [deleted] | eikenberry wrote: | This is still a major win for smaller artists though as | exposure is the main thing they are missing. Pre- | streaming/internet they would have only had local scene, fan | clubs, etc. They always made all their money via fans buying | things. All performing musicians (as opposed to studio | musicians) make the majority of their money this way, the | recording industry was always primarily a way to get | promoted, it was never a good way to make money. | Adraghast wrote: | Yep. Straight from one such smaller artist's mouth: | | https://www.nodepression.com/the-wrong-haul-neil-joni- | have-y... | oh_sigh wrote: | This seems like a problem associated with how money is | apportioned out by the streaming services. As I understand | it, they basically throw all the user money into a big pot, | and throw all the streams into a big pot, and then apportion | it out that way. | | However, the problem with that is, if I don't listen to | Taylor Swift at all, why is a portion of my subscription fee | going to her? If, say, $10 per month of the money I give to | Spotify goes to artists, it should just go to who I listen | to. If I listen exclusively to Obscure Band X, then all of my | money should go to them. If half my streams are Taylor Swift | and half OBX, then they should both get $5. | [deleted] | zuminator wrote: | Money is fungible. If you do $5 worth of streaming OBX's | music, they'll get $5. Whether that gets transferred | directly from your personal Spotify account into theirs, or | initially put into a "big pot" and then the same amount is | given to them, what does it matter? Maybe I'm | misunderstanding your issue? | colinmhayes wrote: | Here's the problem. I've got a family spotify | subscription. For $15 a month we get 4 accounts. Each of | us listen to around 100,000 minutes of music a year. Lets | call that 100,000 songs for $180. If every song has the | same payout then my family is being subsidized by the | people who spend $10 a month to listen to 30,000 minutes | of music a year. We're effectively taking other people's | subscription money to pay the artists we listen to. | throw_m239339 wrote: | > However, the problem with that is, if I don't listen to | Taylor Swift at all, why is a portion of my subscription | fee going to her? | | Because Spotify needs to pay extra to have the right to | stream Taylor Swift, or Dua Lipa, not OBX. | | > If I listen exclusively to Obscure Band X, then all of my | money should go to them | | Well, that's the thing, some of your money will always go | to Taylor Swift or whatever label she is on, regardless of | whether you're listening Taylor Swift or not. | | As an musician myself I'm NOT on Spotify and actively | prevent my music to be on that platform. "Exposure" is | meaningless. I make 1000 times more money slapping ads on | my music on Youtube than these streaming services. | wwweston wrote: | > driven by paid subscription streaming | | If you look at the RIAA's revenue figures over time: | | https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ | | The story they sure seem to tell is that revenues in the music | markets over the last 40-50 years are driven as much (or more) by | favorable macroeconomic trends than any particular format. | | Hence the huge rise in CD sales in the irrational exuberance of | the 90s. Was there anything about CDs in particular? Maybe the | quality got people to pay more and boost revenues, but that | probably wouldn't have happened w/o increased disposable income. | CDs prominent heights in that chart are as much a function of | _when_ they were introduced (during boom time) as much as | anything else. They didn 't "drive" revenues themselves. | | Streaming is probably pretty similar. There's some particular | features: streaming increases convenience when it comes to | management/access and dramatically slashes the consumer cost (and | artist revenue). But I'm not going to bet it's driving revenue | over macroeconomic trends. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it has | actually hobbled revenue at some level, since it cannibalized | digital retail that was growing pretty handily even during the | last recession _and_ piracy options. | | Guess we'll need a recession like 2007 to find out. Streaming | might be stickier than other formats since cost is capped, but I | wouldn't rule out that paid subscriptions suffer. | browningstreet wrote: | I pay for Youtube Premium (Music) and Apple Music. | | I don't really _want_ to, but I listen to a variety of music, but | a lot of sleep sounds & ambient music, and I keep that on | Youtube. I listen to everything else on Apple Music, otherwise | all my recommendations become Ambient heavy. My "ambient" moods | and my "anything else" moods don't really overlap. | vikingerik wrote: | Keep this in mind: For every headline like this about economic | numbers from 2021, remember that the apparent "gain" is over the | artificially suppressed baseline of 2020. | gen220 wrote: | Looking for pointers on a music industry question. | | For an up and coming musician (e.g. Billie Eilish in December | 2015, after it was clear she had potential and after she had | signed with an A&R in January 2016, but well before she signed | with Interscope Records in August 2016), | | What is the primary motivation to sign to a record label? | | Assuming they have a solid understanding of the financial and | copyright aspects of the transaction (which I'm sure Eilish had | through her brother/producer, who had worked in the industry for | years), what are the primary factors that influence the decision? | | The ones that occur to me are marketing/PR/general exposure, | access to artistic collaborators (visual, musical, etc.), and in | the case of "advances" on future albums, an insurance/put option | against the unpredictability of their future career. | | But I have never worked in the industry, so I'm seeking wisdom | from the HN crowd! | 52-6F-62 wrote: | Labels often have established logistics for merchandizing | (including design, QC, fulfillment, etc etc), websites, digital | distribution through the higher-end channels, _physical_ | distribution deals (that one is even more work to get set up), | connections to producers, mixing engineers, mastering houses, | studios and so on. | | There are a lot of resources in the industry that are not | available to the public. You have to build those connections | over years, in some cases decades. | | When promoters are doing things like trying to pay you in | stolen blue jeans (love you, T.O.) it can help to have more | people in your corner. | | The music industry is segmented, and man some parts are the | Wild West. Total fun, but you will struggle to make enough for | cab fare at times without support. | cloutchaser wrote: | I wonder how many of these X market grew by X% last year will | take account of inflation? My hunch is not many, because it | sounds better without it, and these numbers need to sounds good. | | But looking at year to year dollar growth at 8-10% inflation is | not accurate. This headline is probably only an 8-10% grow rate | in real terms. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-24 23:00 UTC)