Royal Blood and "Real" Music

darthed1981 · June 2023

roberty said:

darthed1981 said:

The biggest problem is that your tenner a month is not distributed based on who YOU listen to, but who EVERYONE does, so if you listen to all independent artists, 95% of your money still goes to the majors...

It sounds silly but this is a problem that blockchain could solve, with revenue distributed on an open ledger. I think there is a good case for Web3 content delivery. Tokenised economies could be a halfway house between service subscriptions and media ownership. I'm not a crypto evangelist but I think there are some legit use cases

The issue isn't technical, Spotify knows EXACTLY how many listens a band gets and from who, for example they implemented an algorithm to fish-out small bands getting all their friends to loop a song some years ago.

The problem is business related, it's simply in the label's interests to run a "superstar economy" rather than the much, much fairer method artists and songwriters are pushing for.

I think streaming is a fantastic deal for the consumer in a world that offers few fantastic deals, so I'm a strong supporter. Also the "discovery" options of having all the world's music a key press away is for me, ideologically, a wonderful thing.

The simple change I outlined would also make streaming much fairer for artists.

roberty · June 2023

darthed1981 said:

The problem is business related, it's simply in the label's interests to run a "superstar economy" rather than the much, much fairer method artists and songwriters are pushing for.

So disruptive change would be good. And algorithmic peer to peer revenue distribution would be a sensible way to implement it

Blueingreen · June 2023

darthed1981 said:

darthed1981 said:

The biggest problem is that your tenner a month is not distributed based on who YOU listen to, but who EVERYONE does, so if you listen to all independent artists, 95% of your money still goes to the majors...

Is this a genuine distinction? To take an admittely highly simplified example, let's say there are 9 subscribers paying a tenner and they only listen to major label artists. Income £90 and it all goes to the majors.

You join, and you only listen to independent artists. Now the income is £100. Now 10% of total listening is to independent labels so they get 10% of £100, the same as you pay.

darthed1981 · June 2023

Blueingreen said:

darthed1981 said:

darthed1981 said:

The biggest problem is that your tenner a month is not distributed based on who YOU listen to, but who EVERYONE does, so if you listen to all independent artists, 95% of your money still goes to the majors...

Is this a genuine distinction?

Yes, because your example didn't take into account how many streams are made by each user.

This link explains it quite well.

https://blog.anotemusic.com/how-do-streaming-platforms-distribute-royalties-to-music-rights-holders

Reverend · June 2023

ALR said:

It's not the first time a completely inappropriate act has been booked for an event. I can still remember seeing U2 at Leeds Roundhay Park on the PopMart tour in 97 and along with with 60000 other people enduring a DJ Set by Howie B that just seemed to piss everyone off. During the U2 set, Bono thanked Cast (big cheer), and Howie B (silence). In the case of Royal Blood, the blame must be shared between the band management and whoever booked them. What either party was thinking that that crowd in particular would like that band, I don't know.

The Guardian article was typically condescending, but did make some good points. That whole rock scene has been as artificial as pop for years, but they've been on the losing side since the decine of landfill indie, emo and Nu-Metal 15-20 years ago. Occasionally I tune into Planet Rock and hear some of the awful modern rock acts and I'm not surprised it's died - wannabe attention seekers churning out lowest common denominator budget value dirge with the connections to get exposure. It has even less authenticity than the current pop scene, but as things stand they're two sides of the same coin.

Planet Rock is not exactly where you go to hear good modern rock.

There are amazing bands but they will not get played there.

Philly_Q · June 2023

Does Planet Rock play anything recorded after 1990?

Blueingreen · June 2023

darthed1981 said:

Blueingreen said:

darthed1981 said:

darthed1981 said:

The biggest problem is that your tenner a month is not distributed based on who YOU listen to, but who EVERYONE does, so if you listen to all independent artists, 95% of your money still goes to the majors...

Is this a genuine distinction?

Yes, because your example didn't take into account how many streams are made by each user.

This link explains it quite well.

https://blog.anotemusic.com/how-do-streaming-platforms-distribute-royalties-to-music-rights-holders

Having skimmed your linked article I'm not convinced it's making the same point you are. It's saying that there's that payment per stream allocates more money to artists favoured by heavy users than those users are putting into the pot. (Compared to other methods of calculation which may or may not be fairer: I'm not entirely convinced they would be, but that's a separate debate).

This would (arguably) benefit artists whose fans spend most hours listening to the streaming service, ie those who are enthusiastic music fans rather than casual listeners. I might be contradicted by research, but it would seem to me counter-intuitive that they were more likely to listen to major label artists than more occasional listeners.

darthed1981 · June 2023

Blueingreen said:

darthed1981 said:

Blueingreen said:

darthed1981 said:

darthed1981 said:

The biggest problem is that your tenner a month is not distributed based on who YOU listen to, but who EVERYONE does, so if you listen to all independent artists, 95% of your money still goes to the majors...

Is this a genuine distinction?

Yes, because your example didn't take into account how many streams are made by each user.

This link explains it quite well.

https://blog.anotemusic.com/how-do-streaming-platforms-distribute-royalties-to-music-rights-holders

Having skimmed your linked article I'm not convinced it's making the same point you are. It's saying that there's that payment per stream allocates more money to artists favoured by heavy users than those users are putting into the pot. (Compared to other methods of calculation which may or may not be fairer: I'm not entirely convinced they would be, but that's a separate debate).

This would (arguably) benefit artists whose fans spend most hours listening to the streaming service, ie those who are enthusiastic music fans rather than casual listeners. I might be contradicted by research, but it would seem to me counter-intuitive that they were more likely to listen to major label artists than more occasional listeners.

Well it is making the same point, but as the article explains it pretty well, it explains it pretty well.

You asked for a clarification, I gave one, you are going "I think you said something else", so I get the feeling whatever I say you might have an issue with, so at least I know I'm still on the internet.

To put it simply... what's in the article is what artists are asking for, I support it, the end.

Blueingreen · June 2023

For avoidance of doubt I have no beef with you personally. Nor am I putting words in your mouth.

You said, “if you listen to all independent artists 95% of your money still goes to the majors”.

You then linked to an article that you implied supported your proposition.

My difficulty is that as far as I can see it doesn’t.

Even if you believe the existing model fails to direct some users’ subscription money in a way that is fair to the artists - and I think that’s debatable - those users are not characterised by their taste they are characterised by being light users.

This would only support your claim if you also have evidence that people who listen to independent artists are overwhelmingly very light users. This seems pretty unlikely to me but I’d be interested in the evidence if you have it.

roberty · June 2023

Blueingreen said:

For avoidance of doubt I have no beef with you personally. Nor am I putting words in your mouth.

You said, “if you listen to all independent artists 95% of your money still goes to the majors”.

You then linked to an article that you implied supported your proposition.

My difficulty is that as far as I can see it doesn’t.

Even if you believe the existing model fails to direct some users’ subscription money in a way that is fair to the artists - and I think that’s debatable - those users are not characterised by their taste they are characterised by being light users.

This would only support your claim if you also have evidence that people who listen to independent artists are overwhelmingly very light users. This seems pretty unlikely to me but I’d be interested in the evidence if you have it.

Spotify pay 0.3c per stream, and subscribers pay $9.99 a month. So if you only listen two songs in a month the extra $9.983 is unaccounted for. A fair distribution model would divide your $10 equally between streams. I pay a sub but I hardly use it because I prefer records. Would be nice if that money was going to the artists I actually listen to

It's a myth that Spotify operate at a loss, if this is anything to go by: https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/spotify-stats

Reverend · June 2023

roberty said:

Blueingreen said:

For avoidance of doubt I have no beef with you personally. Nor am I putting words in your mouth.

You said, “if you listen to all independent artists 95% of your money still goes to the majors”.

You then linked to an article that you implied supported your proposition.

My difficulty is that as far as I can see it doesn’t.

Even if you believe the existing model fails to direct some users’ subscription money in a way that is fair to the artists - and I think that’s debatable - those users are not characterised by their taste they are characterised by being light users.

This would only support your claim if you also have evidence that people who listen to independent artists are overwhelmingly very light users. This seems pretty unlikely to me but I’d be interested in the evidence if you have it.

Spotify pay 0.3c per stream, and subscribers pay $9.99 a month. So if you only listen two songs in a month the extra $9.983 is unaccounted for. A fair distribution model would divide your $10 equally between streams. I pay a sub but I hardly use it because I prefer records. Would be nice if that money was going to the artists I actually listen to

It's a myth that Spotify operate at a loss, if this is anything to go by: https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/spotify-stats

I also prefer vinyl but struggle to fit a turntable in my gym bag,

Blueingreen · June 2023

roberty said:

Blueingreen said:

For avoidance of doubt I have no beef with you personally. Nor am I putting words in your mouth.

You said, “if you listen to all independent artists 95% of your money still goes to the majors”.

You then linked to an article that you implied supported your proposition.

My difficulty is that as far as I can see it doesn’t.

Even if you believe the existing model fails to direct some users’ subscription money in a way that is fair to the artists - and I think that’s debatable - those users are not characterised by their taste they are characterised by being light users.

This would only support your claim if you also have evidence that people who listen to independent artists are overwhelmingly very light users. This seems pretty unlikely to me but I’d be interested in the evidence if you have it.

Spotify pay 0.3c per stream, and subscribers pay $9.99 a month. So if you only listen two songs in a month the extra $9.983 is unaccounted for. A fair distribution model would divide your $10 equally between streams. I pay a sub but I hardly use it because I prefer records. Would be nice if that money was going to the artists I actually listen to

It's a myth that Spotify operate at a loss, if this is anything to go by: https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/spotify-stats

Yes, I get all that. My point is that no-one has offered any evidence that this disadvantages independent artists.

It seems to me at least possible that the reverse is true, namely that people who seek out less well known artists are more likely to be heavy users, which would mean that less well known artists would do worse under a different arrangement.

darthed1981 · June 2023

Blueingreen said:

roberty said:

Blueingreen said:

For avoidance of doubt I have no beef with you personally. Nor am I putting words in your mouth.

You said, “if you listen to all independent artists 95% of your money still goes to the majors”.

You then linked to an article that you implied supported your proposition.

My difficulty is that as far as I can see it doesn’t.

Even if you believe the existing model fails to direct some users’ subscription money in a way that is fair to the artists - and I think that’s debatable - those users are not characterised by their taste they are characterised by being light users.

This would only support your claim if you also have evidence that people who listen to independent artists are overwhelmingly very light users. This seems pretty unlikely to me but I’d be interested in the evidence if you have it.

Spotify pay 0.3c per stream, and subscribers pay $9.99 a month. So if you only listen two songs in a month the extra $9.983 is unaccounted for. A fair distribution model would divide your $10 equally between streams. I pay a sub but I hardly use it because I prefer records. Would be nice if that money was going to the artists I actually listen to

It's a myth that Spotify operate at a loss, if this is anything to go by: https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/spotify-stats

Yes, I get all that. My point is that no-one has offered any evidence that this disadvantages independent artists.

It seems to me at least possible that the reverse is true, namely that people who seek out less well known artists are more likely to be heavy users, which would mean that less well known artists would do worse under a different arrangement.

That isn't what the artists are saying though, they want the "user-centric" model. I'm not trying to SUPPORT a position I'm trying to DISCUSS it, openly and honestly. If you think that the current model is better for artists, great, however generally the associations supporting the artists, especially the songwriters, don't.

What might be a fairer statement is that a user-centric model will help bands with smaller but hardcore or obsessive fanbases over and above casual listenerships, this therefore tends to support independent artists, who build and develop a fanbase rather than people with playlists on at work listening to aural wallpaper.

It's a fair clarification to make that somebody who is "discovering new music" by listening to thousands of songs ONCE will not be by this model giving more to independents. It's likely they will be a mixed bag, but the majors have a lot of power over what goes on playlists as well.

So if Mr A sits streaming indie playlists all month long, and listens to thousands of different songs, but not any individual artist more than once, those artists might be worse off under the "user centric" model, but won't be doing that well without a hardcore fanbase anyhow.

For example, I'm in a Suede fan group and a lot of them listen to Suede about 70% of the time, so it could be argued a user-centric model will benefit them, but they also get picked up on lots of the "90s guitar rock" or "90s indie" playlists - so get a lot of drive-by streams. Ultimately, as a band with a big hardcore fanbase and also a history that gets them onto playlists, they probably do OK with either model.

This is an interesting article on a jazz website talking about the pros and cons - https://jazzfuel.com/user-centric-streaming-for-jazz for niche genres (like Jazz)

and of course Deezer (the only streamers to use user-centric, apart from Tidal Hifi) have their own article saying it's fairer
https://www.deezer-blog.com/how-much-does-deezer-pay-artists/

In a nutshell, the old model was because of technical limitations, and the major label's natural tendency to favour their old superstar-economy business practices. They made megabucks from the people who bought one or two CDs a year, and those big artists still drive streaming revenues, as far as they are concerned. They don't care which artists they receive revenue for, just that they receive revenue.

The "user-centric" model is far more focussed on the "new industry" - through gigging and social media, build your "1000 true fans" and grow from there. If your 1000 true fans stream your stuff 30% of the time, and £7 goes to artists, that's guaranteed monthly revenue of £2100... not going to make anyone rich, but a chunk of the way to paying the singer's mortgage.

The report on the outcome of the last enquiry is the most interesting summary going, and the government found little to blame the streaming services themselves for - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/music-and-streaming-market-study-final-report/executive-summary

Ironically, now they are having ANOTHER government enquiry because artists were not happy with those conclusions, but at least it gives the government something to do...

roberty · June 2023

There are about 3.4k individual plays accounted for in a $10 subscription, or 200 hours at 3.5 minutes per song. Up until that threshold artists would get more money per stream if subscriptions were paid based out based on what you actually listened to. Spotify would need to take a cut out of that which would change the numbers slightly. It would be better for all artists overall to get more $ per stream

euan · June 2023

At the 1000 true fans scale, with fans that are predominately listen to your music, you want to take them off the streaming platforms into your own ecosystem.

Philly_Q · June 2023

Reverend said:
I also prefer vinyl but struggle to fit a turntable in my gym bag,

And it skips like crazy when you're running on the treadmill.

LastMantra · June 2023

Philly_Q said:

Reverend said:
I also prefer vinyl but struggle to fit a turntable in my gym bag,

And it skips like crazy when you're running on the treadmill.

Not quite as bad as a discman though.

Jfingers · June 2023

PotentialDonkey said:

darthed1981 said:

Jfingers said:
Antonín Dvořák

Gives me an idea for another thread "post your favourite classical composer in a big font"

Dvorak is brilliant, but I prefer

Edward Elgar

I thought DVORAK was just a keyboard layout. Bummer. You learn something new every day I suppose

Sorry but I don't know how to get the accents in the correct places on my shitty laptop keyboard, I pasted the large font thing from Wiki and was in a rush so didn't have the time to make it acceptable to you.

darthed1981 · June 2023

Jfingers said:

PotentialDonkey said:

darthed1981 said:

Jfingers said:
Antonín Dvořák

Gives me an idea for another thread "post your favourite classical composer in a big font"

Dvorak is brilliant, but I prefer

Edward Elgar

I thought DVORAK was just a keyboard layout. Bummer. You learn something new every day I suppose

Sorry but I don't know how to get the accents in the correct places on my shitty laptop keyboard, I pasted the large font thing from Wiki and was in a rush so didn't have the time to make it acceptable to you.

Sorry mate all just meant in a good natured way no offense meant!

Blueingreen · June 2023

I'm not trying to support a position either. I have no views at all on what method of allocation streaming companies should use. I'd done no background reading on the subject prior to this thread. I was just trying to work out why people were drawing conclusions that didn't seem to follow from their premises. The article in Jazzfuel fills in some of the gaps but mainly leaves me with the impression that not enough research has been done to know what the consequences of user centric allocation would be.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Royal Blood and "Real" Music

Comments

Antonín Dvořák

Edward Elgar

Antonín Dvořák

Edward Elgar