KVR Audio

tedinmexico · Post by **tedinmexico** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:49 pm

Two events are driving the internet music subscription and streaming business towards collapse. First, a number of top acts like the Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, and many others are pulling their music from these sites. Obviously, offering $.006 per play greatly damages the revenue stream of the artist. It's completely predictable that many new and lesser known artists will follow. As these sites get pushback from BMI and ASCAP and hundreds of thousands of artists refusing to give them content, their game could be over. Their whole selling model depends on essentially free content.

The second event that could very well be the tipping point is: ITunes going subscription in June. If ITunes and the distributors who serve them REFUSE to allow the artist to NOT to participate in subscription/streaming, game over. Right now ITunes is one of the few sites left that sells music for a reasonable return for the musician. But if this method of selling is ended and replaced by subscription, this industry risks collapse. As an artist who has a new album ready for distribution on ITunes, I have decided to take a wait and see approach. I will not allow predatory companies destroy and basically thieve my work.

As the subscription/streaming music business goes away, I expect that a whole bunch of new companies will pop up, those that sell albums by download for the normal price and provide the 90 second demo of each song, selected by the artist.

What could keep the subscription business alive for a few more years is the shrinking pool of new artists desperate for exposure, and record labels that want to sell their old catalogs. There's no shortage of people who would literally give their music away for nothing, for a little bit of exposure. The internet is full of people who have done just that and then two years later, they're complaining that they got 60 bucks for ten thousand plays.

I expect people running the subscription business to repond with their self-serving arguments: "Oh, exposure is worth money." "Oh, you can make money performing live concerts." "Oh, if you really love your art, you'll do it for free." Try getting studio time for free. Try buying Omnisphere 2 for free. Try hiring a talented vocalist for little money. Their arguments are just a lot of self-serving BS nonsense.

Aleatoriac · Post by **Aleatoriac** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:59 pm

Democracy is a lie, doesn't exist.

Capitalism is a lie, doesn't exist. There is no free market.

Freedom doesn't exist. You have to earn it. So let's be honest about what life is: fascism.

It's OK - it's the way things are because we the inhuman race let it happen (our ancestors and us). We could all change it, but we're all too stupid and it's always been done this way so we have to keep doing it. Because... because... The infrastructure exists, yeah, that's it, it's too hard to change, it would cost too much, people would lose their jobs... because... excuse excuse excuse.

VariKusBrainZ · Post by **VariKusBrainZ** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:13 pm

The Apple platform is about selling hardware, the software, Apps and extras such as music is what helps to pull the punters.

So, if theyre clever Apple will sell the music with a profit margin the artists will prefer over other digital distributors and give Apple exclusive rights to distribute it......maybe.

Either that or distributors have to sell the music with artist profits in mind and make their money from some other revenue stream such as advertising.

But they cant survive using the old record/cassette/CD method in a digital download world, I certainly hope they all die a death selfish capitalist styled companies deserve.

Artists have always been slaves in the media world unless they make it big

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:18 pm

Just out of interest, for the artist how does $.006 per play compare economically to (say) $0.99 per downloaded track; taking away whatever the company (Apple or whatever) charge to host/produce it does the artist even get as much as half of that $0.99? (or I guess maybe even less?)

tremolounge · Post by **tremolounge** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:20 pm

aMUSEd wrote:Just out of interest, for the artist how does $.006 per play compare economically to (say) $0.99 per downloaded track; taking away whatever the company (Apple or whatever) charge to host/produce it does the artist even get as much as half of that $0.99? (or I guess maybe even less?)

You may remember this: Last year Zoe Keating released detailed figures from all sources of her 2013 income (iTunes, Bandcamp, Amazon sales; Spotify, YouTube and other streams). There's a link to the Google Docs spreadsheet in this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... be-payouts

Long story short: sales amounted to $75K; streaming $6K. That was 2013, so maybe things have changed slightly, but probably not drastically.

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:19 pm

Don't you love using hit words like "Collapse" and "Sooner than we think"?
Oh please.
A tiny tike who threw a little tantrum removing his music from a major streaming service isn't going to destroy the "streaming industry". Apple going to a sub-based system isn't going to "collapse" any buildings.

Flipping through your posts on KVR, you have entirely posted on music distribution and similar topics all with fairly negative responses.
So, where are you merits to make such dramatic claims as "Collapsing soon"? Cite sources, do research, because to me, using Jan's favorite word to describe this argument: This is nothing by a "straw man" idea from someone with little understanding of the industry with little evidence to back up his claims.

Firstly:
The internet is here to stay. Companies that take advantage of current technologies for distribution stay on top of the companies that try to strong arm people into receiving content via outdated methods. Internet speeds in most places are AT LEAST fast enough to adequately stream a high quality MP3, while there are some countries that have speeds that can support streaming 4k television. Point is: Streaming isn't going anywhere. The model might change, maybe it will follow Pandora's model, because more companies see that being at least somewhat inclusive of non-customers can make those non-customers into actual customers. Pandora allows free streaming with ads, but if you pay a sub fee, you can get the ads removed (plus a few other benefits)
So once again, saying that the whole industry is going to collapse is wildly inaccurate. Saying that the business model that we know will change would be more in line, but then again, that's pretty obvious. It's called having competition. If Spotify opens up a streaming model similar to Pandora, then Pandora could lose business thank's to Spotify's more extensive artist selection, so now Pandora will compete by perhaps doing some sort of incentive for artists to sign up with them, or change the structure of the site from a "radio station" style to an artist browser similar to LastFM

tedinmexico · Post by **tedinmexico** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:17 pm

Sorry Ntom. You can defend this subscription/streaming industry all you want. But with huge powerhouse artists like the Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, and many many others walking away from this business model, just from a judicious business point of view, I'd very worried. The facts are the facts. You can call me what you want. But the facts don't change. You can't possibly sell streaming or subscription music for long without the content of the star artists - unless you want to sell air. Further, anyone who expects an artist who works up to two years on an album to sell it for $.006 per play is offensive and predatory. Granted, you will get away with this gimmick for a little while. But this gravy train for these type of sellers will end, as it should. I know very many musicians. To a man, they have no sympathy for the internet fastbuck artists, popping up with their internet ideas to use other people hard work for their greedy ends. Get this in your head. The artist is the owner of the copyright property, not you. His or her efforts deserve absolute fair gain, not pennies. If you want to sell songs for bargain basement prices, go write them yourself!! Try it and see how hard it is to write a beautiful song. It takes talent and hard work. And further, your personal attacks on me are worthless. You have not heard my songs. And I probably understand the music industry far more than you. I've been around musicians for 40 years. I have witnessed personally, first hand, a number of talented musicians being victimized and cut down ruthlessly by greedy people in the music business. That's not negative. That's reality. The music business has a long history of stealing money from artists. Go Taylor Swift!!!

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:02 am

tedinmexico wrote:If you want to sell songs for bargain basement prices, go write them yourself!! Try it and see how hard it is to write a beautiful song.

Firstly: "...write a beautiful song." - this is subjective. What I find is beautiful could very well be vastly different to what you see is beautiful.
Secondly:
I guess you missed my signature that says all of my music is available for free?

tedinmexico wrote: It takes talent and hard work. And further, your personal attacks on me are worthless. You have not heard my songs. And I probably understand the music industry far more than you. I've been around musicians for 40 years. I have witnessed personally, first hand, a number of talented musicians being victimized and cut down ruthlessly by greedy people in the music business. That's not negative. That's reality. The music business has a long history of stealing money from artists. Go Taylor Swift!!!

Another strawman argument that really doesn't impress me. If you have been around for 40 years then why aren't you so proudly displaying your hardwork? Your username has NO information on music related to you when googling your name, so where exactly is the evidence you claim of being familiar with the industry with so many years in it?
And once again; first hand witness (or at least claiming it) doesn't contribute to a collective claim as "the entire industry of music streaming". I have had people, "first hand" have shitty experiences using services like eBay. Does that suddenly make ebay a shitty site? No. In fact, it's thriving quite well.
I, personally, myself, recently had a shitty experience with Amazon and their service, yes, because of that I use them a lot less, does that mean suddenly it's a shitty site? No. First hand experience when talking about a market share doesn't affect the total share, and in fact, hardly reflects on it's total success.

To me, what I see here is that your afraid of technology. You don't understand how the internet works. You don't understand how streaming works. And because of that, rather than embrace the positive nature it can bring to everyone as whole, you chastice it because of a few negatives it brings along with it. Nothing is perfect. That's the fact of the matter. If you are so concerned with how much money you make with your music to stress yourself out like so, maybe you should find a different career choice. My father who makes barely any money with his band doesn't stop doing it, and hasn't stopped since he first started his band back when he was 13 years old. Why? Because even though it doesn't even really pay the bills, he loves playing.
I work part time at a fast food restaurant because I want as much free time as I can get to argue strawman ideals and write music.
You almost epitomize the music industry over the past century, where every time there was a format change in the distribution of their product, the labels pushed back. "No, don't use cassettes, because piracy is bad, use Vinyl." "No, don't use CDs because sharing is too easy. Use cassettes." "No don't use MP3, we can't properly distribute it, use CDs" "No don't stream the music, just buy MP3s instead"

At this point I find itpointless to continue arguing beyond this point as I am certain it would equate to arguing with a door knob as you won't listen to anything I say and will just repeat the same, tired strawman argument with little evidence to back it up, which makes this entire thing futile, and I will leave you set with your backward ideas on music distribution because let me tell you about "reality": No one is "waiting" for you to release your album. No one cares if you decide to wait to see if it collapses or not. And whether it does or it doesn't: People still won't care. You're just holding your own self back. And frankly: I'm okay with that.

She Changed Her Mind · Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:23 am

Music is just highly overrated.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:38 am

I pay my 5 Euro a month for legal Spotify streaming, and I don't need neither Taylor Swift nor the Rolling Stones. There are a lot of less known bands and musicians to explore at Spotify!

Streaming services are the future but of course they'll have to raise the prices!

Youtube should rather stop all these free Youtube downloaders and ask for a subscription fee, too, (to listen to commercial music).

Nightpolymath · Post by **Nightpolymath** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:43 am

Tricky-Loops wrote:I pay my 5 Euro a month for legal Spotify streaming, and I don't need neither Taylor Swift nor the Rolling Stones. There are a lot of less known bands and musicians to explore at Spotify!

Streaming services are the future but of course they'll have to raise the prices!

Youtube should rather stop all these free Youtube downloaders and ask for a subscription fee, too, (to listen to commercial music).

Who's Taylor Swift?

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:50 am

Nightpolymath wrote:
Tricky-Loops wrote:I pay my 5 Euro a month for legal Spotify streaming, and I don't need neither Taylor Swift nor the Rolling Stones. There are a lot of less known bands and musicians to explore at Spotify!

Streaming services are the future but of course they'll have to raise the prices!

Youtube should rather stop all these free Youtube downloaders and ask for a subscription fee, too, (to listen to commercial music).
Who's Taylor Swift?

A top act, according to tedinmexico!

Wildfunk · Post by **Wildfunk** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:39 am

tedinmexico wrote:As an artist who has a new album ready for distribution on ITunes, I have decided to take a wait and see approach. I will not allow predatory companies destroy and basically thieve my work.

Seriously, how many albums have you sold in the past?

tedinmexico wrote:As the subscription/streaming music business goes away, I expect that a whole bunch of new companies will pop up, those that sell albums by download for the normal price and provide the 90 second demo of each song, selected by the artist.

Back to the roots? This will def not happen.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:53 am

7 years ago I went to the (public) library in Regensburg/Germany, loaned some CDs (with modern pop/rock/dance/electronic music, they even had electronic Arabic music and other gems!

), listened to them and gave them back two weeks later. I doubt that the artists got more money than via (online) streaming services...

Another thing is: I HATE 90 seconds demos. I want to dive into the songs in full length, and when I like them, I might buy the CD. But I would NEVER buy a CD after listening to 90 seconds demos...

She Changed Her Mind · Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:13 am

I don't care if no one will listen to my tunes.
What really disturbs me; my tunes probably have to listen to you!

Internet subscription and music streaming business may collapse sooner than we think