Album Sales Continue to Plummet

Sure it would have. A product ceases to sell as well as it once did, eventually you reach a tipping point where the profit margin no longer warrants the manufacturing cost. You cease production on that line.

Oh, let me have my stupid joke. I'm in mourning over my iPod classic.

I kept telling you dang kids, them pod-eyes were a passing fad, didn't I?? Them and your loading down your 3PM's off the interwebs -- it's all the devil's work, I tells ya!!

You mean I was doing wrong by plugging my pod-eye into a lightning rod to pull songs from the cloud?

It's officially official; Taylor Swift's new album went platinum.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6304536/official-taylor-swifts-1989-debuts-with-1287-million-sold-in

Taylor Swift wins at everything. I for one welcome our new blonde and leggy overlord. All hail Taylor. We're not worthy!

Personally, I'm pretty stoked with the fact that she (or her management, same diff) gave Spotify the finger and Spotify went all "sad faced ex-boyfriend" on her and tried one of those public open-letter campaigns to get her to come back.

Bottom line is that there are more likely than not fewer downloaders than there are streamers at this point (because it seems like most people torrenting are MY damn age or older and the younger set aren't as tech savvy as they're made out to be) and that's what's really crushing album sales.

Interesting move. Will other big artists now jump on the bandwagon and pull their stuff from Spotify to try and drive actual sales?

First Taylor Swift, then Beyonce, then (insert big country star here). A few big names do it and the rest follow suit. Are we seeing the first chink in the armor for streaming services?

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Interesting move. Will other big artists now jump on the bandwagon and pull their stuff from Spotify to try and drive actual sales?

First Taylor Swift, then Beyonce, then (insert big country star here). A few big names do it and the rest follow suit. Are we seeing the first chink in the armor for streaming services?

Fingers crossed. Some of the deals that have been brought to light (mostly label-negotiated, surprise surprise) have been the worst kind of legal theft from the content generators.

I have asked a few bands about getting paid from Spotify. One told me is wasn't much (Saint) and Scott (Ultimatum) says he's never gotten anything and they have quite a few spins. Even if it is only a couple of bucks Ultimatum should've seen something by now.

Reports seem to differ, but it looks like artists get between $.004 and $.007 per stream of a song. Even popular artists are getting royalty checks for like $34. It's only a matter of time before other artists wise up and start pulling their music. It's not worth it.

It's one of those deals where you get paid on paper, but what you actually see is so negligible that you can forget about it.

Though I also wonder how Spotify pays out and how the payout is split. I mean, if you get 1,000,000 plays, even at $0.004 per play, you should still see $4,000 out of the deal. If that was going directly to the artist, that wouldn't be the worst deal ever - though nowhere near what 1,000,000 iTunes downloads would fetch you.

Quote :

I mean, if you get 1,000,000 plays, even at $0.004 per play, you should still see $4,000 out of the deal.

But clearly that isn't the case. From what I'm reading on-line, no artist is getting a check for $4000. Somebody is getting that money, either the record company or Spotify, but NOT the artist. If the artist were getting that kind of payout, there wouldn't be this issue.

Quote :

a Spotify spokesman confirmed that the 70% of the company's revenue paid out "goes to rightsholders who then pay out to artists based on individual deals."

That says to me, everyone gets to take a bite out of the hot dog (that was already 30% eaten) as it gets passed down the aisle to the artist at the end, who gets no actual hot dog and a tiny scrap of bun.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

I mean, if you get 1,000,000 plays, even at $0.004 per play, you should still see $4,000 out of the deal.

But clearly that isn't the case. From what I'm reading on-line, no artist is getting a check for $4000. Somebody is getting that money, either the record company or Spotify, but NOT the artist. If the artist were getting that kind of payout, there wouldn't be this issue.

Quote :

a Spotify spokesman confirmed that the 70% of the company's revenue paid out "goes to rightsholders who then pay out to artists based on individual deals."

That says to me, everyone gets to take a bite out of the hot dog (that was already 30% eaten) as it gets passed down the aisle to the artist at the end, who gets no actual hot dog and a tiny scrap of bun.

That's why I cancelled my subscription. It was only 5 bucks a month but it WASN'T going to the artists I was listening to so I cancelled and went back to the free version (which I rarely use anymore).

From that perspective, that makes it so I'm even more behind sites like Bandcamp, that allow for streaming, BUT which require that you pay the artist for the work as if you were buying a physical CD. It allows the benefits of the new tech with a lump payment to the artist (minus the BC takeaway, 'natch).

In Spotify's "open letter" to Taylor Swift (which was actually a pretty genius P.R. move on their part), they claim that 70% of their revenues go back to the artist(s). I guess with it being spread out over so many artists/bands/labels, tho, by the time everything is done trickling down, 70 percent of nuthin' is still nuthin.'

I use the free version of Spotify a lot when I'm at home on my PC, and to be honest, it's been a Godsend for my broke ass... this past year has been a rough one for us financially so I haven't had the $$ to go out and buy many CDs (aside from occasional cheap sh*t used stuff from the local thrift store) ... so when there's a new release I'm dyin' to hear, I can at least listen to it on Spotify till I have the time/$$ to pick up the actual disc.

Taylor Swift is a huge artist that has control over how/where her music is used.  That is not the norm, she's a rarity.  Most bands have no say whether their music ends up on a streaming service, that decision is made by their record label.

Spotify is the new radio.  Royalty payments should not be compared to *sales*, they should be compared to the amount of money an artist receives when their songs are played on terrestrial radio stations.  It ain't much.  

The labels are still getting paid.  Big time.  70% of Spotify's operating cost goes to pay royalties to the record labels.  The split the artist gets is negotiated by the label. If the artist is getting screwed, it's their record label that bent them over the table when they negotiated the deal.

S.D. wrote:

Spotify is the new radio.  Royalty payments should not be compared to *sales*, they should be compared to the amount of money an artist receives when their songs are played on terrestrial radio stations.  It ain't much.  

The labels are still getting paid.  Big time.  70% of Spotify's operating cost goes to pay royalties to the record labels.  The split the artist gets is negotiated by the label.  If the artist is getting screwed, it's their record label that bent them over the table when they negotiated the deal.

No argument, but I think the fact that you can choose to hear something on Spotify makes it a totally different beast from Radio. As the old lore goes, you WAITED and HOPED a song would come on radio before you could tape it.

The only thing that is going to eventually kill the streaming services is as of right now they don't make any money, in fact they are losing millions per year. The only reason Spotify is still around is because they have a large pool of investors keeping them afloat. How long that lasts is anybody's guess.

I just find all of this both fascinating and frustrating. I mean, people still talk like Napster (as a symbol of ALL illegal downloads) is destroying the sale of recorded music while labels STILL scalp the hell out of their artists and drop them like used napkins, Spotify and Youtube are doing none of these content generators ANY favors, and bands like U2 pull stunts like giving away a major label album "for free" as far as consumers are concerned. All of that, and nobody sees the ever-present corporate abuses undercutting creators while bands in a position to do so devalue the perception of recorded music by GOING ALONG WITH the false impression some folks got when downloading came around that is was something that SHOULD be given away and ultimately demanded no recompense to the artist.

I mean, it's not like one could simply knee-cap the streaming services to put real money back into the recording industry at the expense of companies like Google (a government fave) and their advertising revenue. Just sayin'.

Fat Freddy wrote:

In Spotify's "open letter" to Taylor Swift (which was actually a pretty genius P.R. move on their part), they claim that 70% of their revenues go back to the artist(s). I guess with it being spread out over so many artists/bands/labels, tho, by the time everything is done trickling down, 70 percent of nuthin' is still nuthin.' .

Here's Spotify's quote:

Quote :

That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community

Music community? That's a pretty broad spectrum, isn't it? In my previous quote, they used the term "rightsholders". Neither one says anything about the artist. Typical P.R. spin doctoring, if you ask me. They know they are screwing over the artists and don't care one bit.

A more truthful quote would be:
"Hey, listen, we're paying royalties to someone. Once we sign the checks, it's not our f**king problem".  

If you google spotify + artists, you won't find too many glowing reviews or positive statements. Most responses from huge artists to small independents is that it's more of a sign of the times thing or a necessary evil and you have to roll with it, for better or worse. Noone seems to be overwhelming happy to have to rely on streaming.

This move by Taylor Swift could potentially have a big ripple effect.

Rightsholders = The entity that owns the sound recordings Spotify is using. 99% of the time that means the record label. The other 1% are artists like Metallica who purchased all of their masters from Elektra so they have total control. Metallica could decide not to work with Spotify, because they actually own their own recordings. That is extremely rare, very few artists signed to a record label retain control over their masters.

Why do you think smaller artists are re-recording albums they released on major labels in the 80s? Because they don't own them and the asking price by the record labels to purchase them are astronomical.

People want to assign all blame to Spotify and sure, they're just a bunch of greedy corporate suits as well, but the real villains now and always...are the record labels.

S.D. wrote:

People want to assign all blame to Spotify and sure, they're just a bunch of greedy corporate suits as well, but the real villains now and always...are the record labels.  

You can get an "amen" to that.

Sadly, the best labels of the past have all long since been swallowed up by the crude operators...

S.D. wrote:

The only thing that is going to eventually kill the streaming services is as of right now they don't make any money, in fact they are losing millions per year.  The only reason Spotify is still around is because they have a large pool of investors keeping them afloat.  How long that lasts is anybody's guess.  

As a matter a fact, Chase just announced a partnership with them just last month

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

In Spotify's "open letter" to Taylor Swift (which was actually a pretty genius P.R. move on their part), they claim that 70% of their revenues go back to the artist(s). I guess with it being spread out over so many artists/bands/labels, tho, by the time everything is done trickling down, 70 percent of nuthin' is still nuthin.' .

Here's Spotify's quote:

Quote :

That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community

Music community? That's a pretty broad spectrum, isn't it? In my previous quote, they used the term "rightsholders". Neither one says anything about the artist. Typical P.R. spin doctoring, if you ask me. They know they are screwing over the artists and don't care one bit.

A more truthful quote would be:
"Hey, listen, we're paying royalties to someone. Once we sign the checks, it's not our f**king problem".  

If you google spotify + artists, you won't find too many glowing reviews or positive statements. Most responses from huge artists to small independents is that it's more of a sign of the times thing or a necessary evil and you have to roll with it, for better or worse. Noone seems to be overwhelming happy to have to rely on streaming.

This move by Taylor Swift could potentially have a big ripple effect.

I was FB friends at one time with the guitarist from King Kobra, and he posted a royalty payment he received from one of those streaming companies, they sent him a check for a penny, he even posted a pic on it on his wall.