Friday 11 October 2013

Stream Music Online Income leftovers for Artists

"The boom in digital streaming may generate profits for record labels and free content for consumers, but it spells disaster for today's artists across the creative industries.
There are a number of ways to stream music online: Pandora is like a radio station that plays stuff you like but doesn't take requests; YouTube plays individual songs that folks and corporations have uploaded and Spotify is a music library that plays whatever you want (if they have it), whenever you want it. Some of these services only work when you're online, but some, like Spotify, allow you to download your playlist songs and carry them around. For many music listeners, the choice is obvious – why would you ever buy a CD or pay for a download when you can stream your favourite albums and artists either for free, or for a nominal monthly charge?
The amounts these services pay per stream is miniscule – their idea being that if enough people use the service those tiny grains of sand will pile up. Domination and ubiquity are therefore to be encouraged. We should readjust our values because in the web-based world we are told that monopoly is good for us. The major record labels usually siphon off most of this income, and then they dribble about 15-20% of what's left down to their artists. Indie labels are often a lot fairer – sometimes sharing the income 50/50. Damon Krukowski (Galaxie 500, Damon & Naomi) has published abysmal data on payouts  from Pandora and Spotify for his song "Tugboat" and Lowery even wrote a piece entitled
pandora one million times and All I Got Was $16.89. For a band of four people that makes a 15% royalty from Spotify streams, it would take 236'549,020 streams for each person to earn a minimum wage of $15,080 a year.
In future, if artists have to rely almost exclusively on the income from these services, they'll be out of work within a year".

Source: theguardian

Popular Posts