Support NeoGAF

[kiguel182]

Yeah.. and the point is.. that those looking at things like Spotify and Pandora for exposure kind of miss the point... those guys are getting about the exact payout as they did from Oink! back in the day.. NOTHING.

Spotify and Pandora, especially when paid for.. are like a way for people to still torrent music and not feel bad about it.. but in the end the results are the same for the artist.

No one has found that level of compensation that's fair across the board.

Do I need to bring on the math again?

They are being paid.

 

[Zoned]

Yeah.. and the point is.. that those looking at things like Spotify and Pandora for exposure kind of miss the point... those guys are getting about the exact payout as they did from Oink! back in the day.. NOTHING.

Spotify and Pandora, especially when paid for.. are like a way for people to still torrent music and not feel bad about it.. but in the end the results are the same for the artist.

No one has found that level of compensation that's fair across the board.

That tag really suits this post.

 

[sometimes i game]

She'll have to see how this turns out in the end. I am the type of person to only listen to Spotify and it's offline feature, it makes music easy and legal.

Plus...how much money is she making from radio, soundcloud and youtube uploads?

Needs to get with the times. I turn on the radio and it is free. I'm actually paying for Spotify.

 

[Christine]

People who spotify are basically worse than pirates because the veneer of legitimacy surrounding the transaction helps to normalize the devaluation of music.

People like me who aren't even listening to the music we're told we're supposed to be buying are even worse criminals, though.

 

[NervousXtian]

Do I need to bring on the math again?

They are being paid.

That tag really suits this post.

Small acts are getting fairly compensated for their music?

Show me where that's backed up by facts? Getting paid, as in a couple bucks a month?

 

[And_Gignac]

There are two points that utterly dismantle this argument:

1. Admitting that a lack of payment would severely impact the art form - why would we even entertain the notion that "art should be free" if we know as a fact that the outcome would be negative? People cannot dedicate their life to an art if they are not able to sustain themselves. What this is proposing is art as part time - nothing more than a hobby.

Hobby is a concept that arised since the historical introduction of industrialization to diminish every activity that wasnt directly productive to the creation of capital. So yeah, art should be a "hobby".

"Art should be free" doesnt not equal to "the artist should not get a reward for their art". If you read throught my comments I never implied such non sensenical notion. Spotify and ad-revenue via Youtube are steps in the right direction to make music free to the people

2. Following the above - that art without payment would be reduced to a part-time hobby - and arguing that "art" is different from "traditional work" because people would elect to do the former for free and not the latter is patently false. Unless you despise your line of work, I would argue most everyone would gladly volunteer or take up their line of work intermittently for free - even assembly line workers (hard to imagine volunteering to assemble a car, but the concept of doing assembly line work for free exists in food banks as an example).

Except that they are not doing it for free, they do it for food (a tangible reward, like money).

I am not going to get into arguing whether "art is work" as that is a blatant deflection from "art should be free." Regardless of the argument, however, art is an outcome of work - and you cannot dedicate full-time to any work without being paid; and anyone that has worked a day in their lives would not even entertain the notion that work should go unpaid.

Are you still trying it with the unemployed shade? Lmao.

The purpose of incorporating concepts of "capitalism" is redundant since there is no permutation of society that would lead to art unrelated to the concept of monetary value. Not in a capitalist society, not in a communist society, not in anything in-between. Not in the present, or in the past.

The closest we have gotten to art being separate from monetary value, ironically, is the one related to piracy - the utter THEFT of someone's property.

Art has always been deached from monetary compensation in many forms throughout history. Artists were rewarded with status, for instance. But still this is beside the point, since, again, I am not arguing against the compensation artists should get.

Also, piracy is a way more complicated phenomenon than just "theft". When art becomes culture you cant deny society their right to consume it. Some people will have the means to consume it with standard economical rules (set by the privileged conditions of first world countries and the wealthy elites of emerging economies), some will not.

Another incredible irony given that "first world" conditions is the only thing making us entertain the notion of art without pay. Some would-be artists in poorer countries don't even have the energy to lift an instrument because of an utter lack of basic humane conditions.

That really has nothing to do with what I was addressing. My point was that not everyone can afford a $12 cd (yes, even if they have a PC and an internet connection sometimes a $12 cd can be too much) and yet they cannot be denied their right to enjoy it. The former solution for this was straight out piracy, now with Spotify no such problem exists anymore, at least not in that amoral magnitude. Art becomes technically free and artists are still getting paid. What Swift says is reactionary, clueless of social injusticies and greedy.

But I'm not done:

You are done for. You have been rightfully dragged.

 

[Mau ®]

I don't think Taylor cares too much from what she could potentially be making off Spotify. Whatever she stands to gain from the music sales off the 1989 album pale in comparison from what she'll make from endorsements and her tour.

This is basically about the value of music. The value people place on an album in 2014 is very different from 2004 and certainly way more different from 1994 and 1984. Spotify and other streaming services do nothing to contribute to grow the "value" of music.

Which is not to say they're wrong for it. it's the way times and consumers are changing. Millenials are growing with these kinds of services. There's no changing their behaviour IMO. But what can be changed is the way artists get paid for their work on these services. I'm sure Spotify knows this is a hot topic.

Also, I'd like to add that I use Spotify for free and wouldn't mind paying a subscription, but being in the marketing industry, I actually enjoy seeing which brands are advertising on Spotify and what's their strategy there.

 

[kiguel182]

Small acts are getting fairly compensated for their music?

Show me where that's backed up by facts? Getting paid, as in a couple bucks a month?

Did you read my post?

Again, it's not like they are making tons of money but it's also not like they aren't getting any. This isn't a black and white issue and saying it's like piracy is dumb.

EDIT: But you don't have to go by my extrapolations, you can use Spotify's data that I also posted in this thread that estimated small indie band's earnings at 3000 dollars a month in 2013. That royalty is probably higher now too.

So, by every metric we have, this isn't anything like piracy. Unless somehow bands make 3000 dollars a month off torrents.

 

[Matt_]

Art has always been deached from monetary compensation in many forms throughout history. Artists were rewarded with status, for instance. But still this is beside the point, since, again, I am not arguing against the compensation artists should get.

Also, piracy is a way more complicated phenomenon than just "theft". When art becomes culture you cant deny society their right to consume it. Some people will have the means to consume it with standard economical rules (set by the privileged conditions of first world countries and the wealthy elites of emerging economies), some will not.

That really has nothing to do with what I was addressing. My point was that not everyone can afford a $12 cd (yes, even if they have a PC and an internet connection sometimes a $12 cd can be too much) and yet they cannot be denied their right to enjoy it. The former solution for this was straight out piracy, now with Spotify no such problem exists anymore, at least not in that amoral magnitude. Art becomes technically free and artists are still getting paid. What Swift says is reactionary, clueless of social injusticies and greedy.

What? Art has never been detached from monetary compensation.
Artists sell painting, writers sell books, actors are paid for being in films. Artists have always been paid a commission for what they do.

Do you also think people shouldn't have to pay to go see films or plays, or see musicians live? Because they are both art forms that cost significantly more than what a single album could cost and according to you people not being able to afford the price of commission is a social injustice

 

[DragonSworne]

Music should be free.

 

[KidGalactus]

Welcome to being a content creator in the twenty-first century, lady.

All art is trending toward free-ness of some sort. And it will continue to do so until the (majority of ) people find the proposition revolting.

This will never happen.

So, welcome to being a content creator in the twenty-first century.

 

[v1oz]

Actually Spotify is bad for artists. It only pays out $6,000 to $8,400 per 1 million listens. Unless you're a big artist you're not going to get more than a million listens. Most indie artists on Spotify only get paid a couple dollars for the entire year. And many people have stopped buying music altogether since subscription streaming services became popular.

Whereas with album sales, selling a few thousand copies is enough to turn round a profit for most music groups. For an indie artist with low overheads if you sell 10,000-20,000 copies of an album you have done quite well. It is far more lucrative.

 

[Warm Machine]

Art is not free no matter how you want to slice it. Art costs time effort and money to create and that art is no more to free public consumption as any other skill that requires time money and effort.

 

[GameGuru59]

What? Art has never been detached from monetary compensation.
Artists sell painting, writers sell books, actors are paid for being in films. Artists have always been paid a commission for what they do.

This is wrong. I'm not going to I shouldn't bother listing examples again, but its wrong. Yes, some people get paid to create art. But not all, or maybe even most artist get paid. There's plenty of fan art on the internet. Nobody paid for it, and nobody expects to get paid for it. They do it for the sake of it.

Art is not free no matter how you want to slice it. Art costs time effort and money to create and that art is no more to free public consumption as any other skill that requires time money and effort.

*In the non-existent world of theoretical capitalism

 

[kiguel182]

Actually Spotify is bad for artists. It only pays out $6,000 to $8,400 per 1 million listens. Unless you're a big artist you're not going to get more than a million listens. Most indie artists on Spotify only get paid a couple dollars for the entire year. And many people have stopped buying music altogether since subscription streaming services became popular.

Whereas with album sales, selling a few thousand copies is enough to turn round a profit for most music groups. For an indie artist with low overheads if you sell 10,000-20,000 copies of an album you have done quite well. It is far more lucrative.

Modern Baseball has more than 1 million listen on one song and they had third billing on a pop-punk tour. They are hardly a big band and that was only one song.

Also, according to Spotify, most indie bands actually earn 3000 dollars a month. So even if that is infatuated your 2 dollars a year statement is probably bullshit.

EDIT: Of course some artists will make more or less money but they can choose to opt out of the service if they think it's hurting them. Doesn't make the "nobody makes money from it" argument true.

 

[v1oz]

Music should be free.

It costs money to make quality music. And like being a pro athlete you need to do music full time as a profession to get the best out of it. At the end of the day Singers, Session Musicians, Writers, Producers, Recording Engineers, Mastering Engineers, Managers, A&R and Record Label employees all need to get paid.

 

[Warm Machine]

This is wrong. I'm not going to I shouldn't bother listing examples again, but its wrong. Yes, some people get paid to create art. But not all, or maybe even most artist get paid. There's plenty of fan art on the internet. Nobody paid for it, and nobody expects to get paid for it. They do it for the sake of it.

And maybe they are doing it to get their foot into a door where they can be getting paid for it. Fan art exists because a picture of Darth Vader will usually illicit more eyes than a picture of thier own creation.

If some people want to give away a creation of theirs or make it available to view then great. What you see is essentially an advertisement for the skill of the artist

If you wanted any of those artists to create you a specific image I think you would find that they would be quick to ask for payment.

 

[Sobriquet]

How much did they make touring because of all that exposure?


I read a story about the band Iron Maiden and how they basically thought they'd fallen to obscurity or something. They found out that their music was being torrented like crazy in South America and so they booked a tour and made a shitload of cash.

Here's the article

http://www.theverge.com/web/2013/12/25/5244204/iron-maiden-responds-to-piracy-by-planning-tours

That story turned out to be false.

Also, according to Spotify, most indie bands actually earn 3000 dollars a month. So even if that is infatuated your 2 dollars a year statement is probably bullshit.

Most? Source?

 

[Warm Machine]

It costs money to make quality music. And like being a pro athlete you need to do music full time as a profession to get the best out of it. At the end of the day Singers, Session Musicians, Writers, Producers, Recording Engineers, Mastering Engineers, Managers, A&R and Record Label employees all need to get paid.

The thing is that they do get paid before the album release. In the old days the label would pay for the studio time, producer, engineers back up musicians, and all. Also, most anything made will have those disciplines ,inside or outside the label system, being paid up front or upon completion of their duties before the record ever goes on sale. This is why bands and records start in the red before they ever get into the black.

I can't go get studio time for free right now to record me reading NeoGAF into a microphone.

 

[Matt_]

This is wrong. I'm not going to I shouldn't bother listing examples again, but its wrong. Yes, some people get paid to create art. But not all, or maybe even most artist get paid. There's plenty of fan art on the internet. Nobody paid for it, and nobody expects to get paid for it. They do it for the sake of it.

Yes but they're not people that do it for a living as an actual job, they do it for a hobby because they enjoy it.
Taylor, and a multitude of other artists ranging from global starts to small unheard of bands do their art as a profession and they feel their art has a value and as such should cost money. I'm not going to criticise Taylor for thinking that spotify doesn't value her art adequately. And I really don't understand people that think music should be free. Do they also think that graphic designers and architects should work for free? It takes months of time, resources and talent to produce a decent body of work and people should absolutely be rewarded well for it

 

[Joeki11a]

Kanye and Beyonce made her dont forget the stages mtv incident, where she ended up as the star of the show being reintroduced to the world in a red dress, swiff pitty tour began.

 

[v1oz]

Modern Baseball has more than 1 million listen on one song and they had third billing on a pop-punk tour. They are hardly a big band and that was only one song.

Also, according to Spotify, most indie bands actually earn 3000 dollars a month. So even if that is infatuated your 2 dollars a year statement is probably bullshit.

Modern Baseball are actually big now. They have a huge fanbase. And they are in no way representative of the plight of the majority of indie musicians. The band Grizzly Bear for example only got paid $10 by Spotify last year.

 

[hidys]

Really? I don't use Spotify anymore so I wouldn't know.

Thom Yorke has been one of the most adamant voices against the streaming model.

Though it seems to be for different reasons to Swift namely that he wants to remove large corporations from music distribution, hence putting his latest album on bit torrent bundle.

 

[DragonSworne]

It costs money to make quality music. And like being a pro athlete you need to do music full time as a profession to get the best out of it. At the end of the day Singers, Session Musicians, Writers, Producers, Recording Engineers, Mastering Engineers, Managers, A&R and Record Label employees all need to get paid.

99% of the context these people make sounds awful and samey.

Quality issue aside, music is art and should be free.

These people can get paid through other avenues, but paying directly for their music is wrong.

 

[GameGuru59]

And maybe they are doing it to get their foot into a door where they can be getting paid for it. Fan art exists because a picture of Darth Vader will usually illicit more eyes than a picture of thier own creation.

If some people want to give away a creation of theirs or make it available to view then great. What you see is essentially an advertisement for the skill of the artist

If you wanted any of those artists to create you a specific image I think you would find that they would be quick to ask for payment.

Or maybe they weren't doing the art to advertise themselves at all. Maybe they just like Star Wars? I have two aunts that can sew very well, and create dresses and upholstery type stuff for our family cost free. They're not getting paid. They're doing it for other reasons. There is value in art beyond the exchange of something immediately quantifiable.

 

[v1oz]

99% of the context these people make sounds awful and samey.

Quality issue aside, music is art and should be free.

These people can get paid through other avenues, but paying directly for their music is wrong.

Therefore Video Games and Movies should be free. They're art.


Do you have issue with buying video games?

 

[DragonSworne]

Therefore Video Games and Movies should be free. They're art.

You won't hear me complain.

 

[Matt_]

99% of the context these people make sounds awful and samey.

Quality issue aside, music is art and should be free.

I don't understand why you'd value the time, talent and effort a musician put into their work as worthless

 

[EricTheCleric]

Actually Spotify is bad for artists. It only pays out $6,000 to $8,400 per 1 million listens. Unless you're a big artist you're not going to get more than a million listens. Most indie artists on Spotify only get paid a couple dollars for the entire year. And many people have stopped buying music altogether since subscription streaming services became popular.

Whereas with album sales, selling a few thousand copies is enough to turn round a profit for most music groups. For an indie artist with low overheads if you sell 10,000-20,000 copies of an album you have done quite well. It is far more lucrative.

how much does artists get payed for a million listens on broadcast radio?

 

[GK86]

Great move. Now please take your crappy music off the radio waves too. Thanks.

 

[hidys]

You won't hear me complain.

Short of tearing down capitalism how are those things supposed to be free?

BTW that includes music which as stated above by another user has a costly production process.

 

[kiguel182]

Modern Baseball are actually big now. They have a huge fanbase. And they are in no way representative of the plight of the majority of indie musicians. The band Grizzly Bear for example only got paid $10 last year.

C'mon Modern Baseball are not big. They are going well but they are a band that's gaining some momentum on a kind of niche genre.

For Grizzly Bear to make 10 dollars a year they would have to have just shy of 1 600 listens per year. I find that hard to believe when they have a song with 18 million plus downloads. So either the label took them a lot of money or they aren't as popular today.

And, as I said, I know they bands aren't making tons of money off of Spotify but it's a better alternative to piracy and the royalties should increase the more people use the service so this has a tendency to get better.

EDIT: It seems that Grizzly Bear said they that make 10 dollars for each 10 000 listens. So that whole "10 dollars a year" is not true. All of this misinformation doesn't help the discussion or the issue itself.

EDIT2: Also that Grizzly Bear comment is from 2012, with today's royalties 10 000 listens correspond to 60 to 80 dollars.

 

[kmag]

how much does artists get payed for a million listens on broadcast radio?

That's the silliest comparison anyone can make. Radio and Streaming just aren't analogous at all. On broadcast radio you can't select to play a particular track, then play it again it's a communal playlist and a such is complementary to album and song purchases. Streaming on the other hand can completely replace the album and song purchases as the only additional utility purchasing an album or song has is offline use.

Streaming is completely different to commercial radio due to the full control it gives the end user.

 

[Mau ®]

Kanye and Beyonce made her dont forget the stages mtv incident, where she ended up as the star of the show being reintroduced to the world in a red dress, swiff pitty tour began.

Nonsense. Taylor was huge by the time that happened. The Fearless album had sold circa 6 million copies by then. Did it raise her CELEBRITY profile? Yes. Did it make her a star? No. She already was.

 

[hidys]

Also people need to stop comparing Spotify to the radio.

They aren't the same.

 

[Sobriquet]

You won't hear me complain.

But I don't want to work 70-hour+ weeks for free.

That's the silliest comparison anyone can make. On broadcast radio you can't select to play a particular track, then play it again it's a communal playlist and a such is complementary to album and song purchases. Streaming on the other hand can completely replace the album and song purchases as the only additional utility purchasing an album or song has is offline use.

Streaming is completely different to commercial radio due to the full control it gives the end user.

Not to mention that one play on the radio can reach millions of listeners.

 

[DragonSworne]

But I don't want to work 70-hour+ weeks for free.

Then don't.

 

[Future]

That's the silliest comparison anyone can make. On broadcast radio you can't select to play a particular track, then play it again it's a communal playlist and a such is complementary to album and song purchases. Streaming on the other hand can completely replace the album and song purchases as the only additional utility purchasing an album or song has is offline use.

Streaming is completely different to commercial radio due to the full control it gives the end user.

Exactly. Also a core difference between spotify and other services

I was late to the party on spotify. Now that I use it I can't believe it exists haha. With occasional ad I can listen to whatever I want while I work in my computer. For 10 bucks a month I can do that with everything on the go. I mean I love it but it does bring to question why artists even put their music on there, heh

 

[Sobriquet]

Then don't.

Oh, OK. I'll let the whole entertainment industry know that we can shut 'er down because DragonSworne doesn't want to listen to music, watch TV and movies, read, or play games anymore. I'm sure everyone will be cool with that.

 

[Future]

99% of the context these people make sounds awful and samey.

Quality issue aside, music is art and should be free.

These people can get paid through other avenues, but paying directly for their music is wrong.

Music as art is so ridiculous. It's entertainment not art designed for a museum. You play it so you can get some entertainment while commuting, get people to dance, relax, whatever. People announcing it as art sound like extreme liberal hippies to me that are oblivious as to why people actually buy music and why it is a business

 

[GameGuru59]

Yes but they're not people that do it for a living as an actual job, they do it for a hobby because they enjoy it.
Taylor, and a multitude of other artists ranging from global starts to small unheard of bands do their art as a profession and they feel their art has a value and as such should cost money. I'm not going to criticise Taylor for thinking that spotify doesn't value her art adequately. And I really don't understand people that think music should be free. Do they also think that graphic designers and architects should work for free? It takes months of time, resources and talent to produce a decent body of work and people should absolutely be rewarded well for it

You're not understanding the argument I and others are trying to make. I'm not saying that they should be giving away free music now (or ever, really). I'm saying that what Taylor is complaining about is outside the purview of music alone. It has to do with how society is structured, and how things will be organized in the future. The government cannot stop all music privacy without compromising other basic freedoms. The same goes with movies and print art. Thus, a new paradigm must be negotiated. The same digital environment that reduces music production and distribution costs will be utilized to the greater benefit of the public. Music production will, and already is being democratized. That means megastars like Taylor will make less money (she'll still be rich), but everyone will be able to make a little bit of music so long as their product is decent.

Think about how 3D printing will democratize manufacturing. Eventually, large manufacturers will be regulated to only manufacturing complex items, while local manufactures with 3D printers will create customized things that are relatively simple in function. A similar phenomenon is already happening in music, and will only continue to happen. Society has become so productive that it can afford to not pay high prices (or no price at all) for music. It's simply a public good. To sustain this state without compromising the quality of our music, we should introduce the mincome and guaranteed housing. We can afford to implement that policy (thanks to productivity gains), and should for a whole host of reasons beyond maintaining low priced art- namely, because it's more efficient than having people waste their talents trying to feed themselves and afford housing. When any person is working only to survive, their talent is wasted in a society that can easily afford to pay for everyone's housing and basic needs.

 

[kiguel182]

That story turned out to be false.



Most? Source?

Here: http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#specific-payment-figures

EDIT: It's actually not most, just a sample indie album. My bad. But if you had the same amount of listeners as that sample record you would earn the same obviously. Still, I misquoted it.

 

[Sobriquet]

Here: http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#specific-payment-figures

Oh yeah, I've seen that. It's not an average, though. One (unnamed) "niche indie album" made $3300 in July of '13.

edit: Just saw your edit. No worries my man.

 

[kiguel182]

Oh yeah, I've seen that. It's not an average, though. One (unnamed) "niche indie album" made $3300 in July of '13.

edit: Just saw your edit. No worries my man.

We obviously don't know what they mean by "nice indie record" but that would correspond to a little bit over half a million listens on an album.

So not exactly unknown musician but someone that is probably well known in their scene.

 

[MoodyFog]

Music as art is so ridiculous. It's entertainment not art designed for a museum. You play it so you can get some entertainment while commuting, get people to dance, relax, whatever. People announcing it as art sound like extreme liberal hippies to me that are oblivious as to why people actually buy music and why it is a business

Music is one of the arts, there's no denying that.

 

[kiguel182]

We know a conversation has run it's course when people start discussing if music is art.

 

[Sobriquet]

We obviously don't know what they mean by "nice indie record" but that would correspond to a little bit over half a million listens on an album.

So not exactly unknown musician but someone that is probably well known in their scene.

Yeah. I posted a friend's monthly take earlier in the thread:

I wonder why they didn't use this niche indie record?

 

[King_Moc]

Music as art is so ridiculous. It's entertainment not art designed for a museum. You play it so you can get some entertainment while commuting, get people to dance, relax, whatever. People announcing it as art sound like extreme liberal hippies to me that are oblivious as to why people actually buy music and why it is a business

Please define art for me.

 

[JJDinomite]

Y'all complain about the 1% but this is okay? I can't even begin to fathom how much money she has. She could wipe her ass with hundred dollar bills every day for the rest of her life. According to Google her net worth is around 200 million. Can you even imagine what you could do with that money? She could buy a private 100 acre island in the Caribbeans, where she could fill an Olympic size swimming pool with all of her money.

Can't say I feel sorry for her.

 

[And_Gignac]

What? Art has never been detached from monetary compensation.
Artists sell painting, writers sell books, actors are paid for being in films. Artists have always been paid a commission for what they do.

When you see street artists doing a play with a public that has no compulsory obligation to pay them you are experiencing art detached from $. When you see a graffiti too. Such art forms have not the double intention of self expression and monetary compensation, so yes, it is detached.

Do you also think people shouldn't have to pay to go see films or plays, or see musicians live? Because they are both art forms that cost significantly more than what a single album could cost and according to you people not being able to afford the price of commission is a social injustice

That would be ideal, yes. I love government-sponsored free concerts. But I do understand our current historical context does not allow for such a thing to be possible without hurting the overall well-being of artists. I can make a case in the price of concerts and et al, but thats another discussion.

In the case of streaming, you dont have this problem. The artist is getting paid and the public can get access to their art without paying for it. A great solution tbh.