Partial List of heavyweight artists pulling their music from Streaming sites

[tedinmexico]

Out of curiosity, I spent 10 minutes on the internet and found quite of number of heavyweight artists in the music industry walking away from music streaming or criticizing it, or just fed up with it. Most of them have left it.

Taylor Swift
Pink Floyd
Garth Brooks
Jason Aldean
Justin Moore
Brantley Gilbert
The Sweedish Musicians Union
Amanda Palmer
Will.i.am
Thom Yorks
Nigel Godrich
David Lowery
Beck
David Byrne
Black Keys
Aimee Mann
Anssi Kela
Mikael Eldridge
Blake Morgan
East Ray Bay
Zoe Keating
That's just a partial list. It seems that the future for streaming will be that streaming customers will NOT get access to the star artists, at least not these. We'll see what happens. Newer artists will probably also follow and reject streaming.

[whyterabbyt]

Out of curiosity, I spent 10 minutes on the internet and found quite(1) of number of heavyweight artists in the music industry walking away from music streaming or criticizing it, or just fed up with it. Most(2) of them have left it.

That's just a partial list(3). It seems that the future for streaming will be that streaming customers will NOT get access to the star artists, at least not these. We'll see what happens. Newer artists will probably also follow and reject streaming(4).

1. 20 artists out of tens of thousands is a tiny number.
2. Ambiguous phrasing. Most of your tiny list, not most heavyweight artists, right?
3. How partial? As a percentage of artists in the world, do you think its above or below 1% ? What about 0.1%
4. How many newer artists do you expect to follow this? Do you think this list is more influential than the other, (clearly longer), list of artists who havent and wont reject streaming?

[foosnark]

Well, every one of those artists you listed have stuff on Google Play Music except for three (David Lowery, The Swedish Musicians Union, and Garth Brooks. Only one of which I've heard of, and whose music I would pay a bit NOT to have to ever listen to again.)

If that entire list disappeared from the service, I'd only care about Pink Floyd and Zoe Keating (and I already own some of their albums so there'd be no tears shed).

As a listener, I've found GPM has been great for discovering artists I haven't listened to before and listening to older stuff that I never managed to find on CD (or it's lost or buried in a closet somewhere).

[tedinmexico]

Hey industry guy: the question is will people pay for streaming if they don't have access to their favorite stars? ALso, if in two years, the vast majority of stars pull out, how can streaming survive? There's no way you can stop the stars and all the new artists from turning away from streaming, if they so choose. That's the basic problem. You've got to pay people a fair return on their talent and investment, or they're gone! It's a defective business model.

[Deep Purple]

That's a big "IF". I'd hardly call something that has a turnover of billions a flawed business model, even if a handful of artists don't participate.

[tedinmexico]

Here's a couple more stars rejecting streaming. The BEATLES and COLD PLAY. The sreaming model might be OK for older albums that have already been released in normal markets (downloading/CDs) for several years, or vintage albums. But paying the artist $.00015 or $.006 per play (for new songs) is not workable in the long run for a successful business. Flawed.

[whyterabbyt]

Hey industry guy

who exactly are you talking to?

: the question is will people pay for streaming if they don't have access to their favorite stars?

That's 'a' question. There's more than one question. And firstly, there' should be the question 'are significant number of artists going to pull out of streaming'.
You need more evidence for your assertion, it fails to compel as presented.

Also, if in two years, the vast majority of stars pull out, how can streaming survive?

Indeed. And if they all go into catering, then there'd be nothing to listen to anywhere.

So lets not propose arbitrary hypotheticals, and examine what's likely instead.

There's no way you can stop the stars and all the new artists from turning away from streaming, if they so choose. That's the basic problem.

No, a hypothetical thing isnt a problem.

You've got to pay people a fair return on their talent and investment, or they're gone! It's a defective business model.

Well, the history of the music industry actually shows a pretty massive history of not paying people a fair return for their talent or investment, so while I agree with the sentiment, Im not convinced that its actually a realistic expectation.
Not that that's specifically relevant to the proposition, though.

[justin3am]

Artist who chose to opt out of streaming services could end up seeing their sales dwindle (not just record sales; merch, concerts and endorsements as well). It's too early to tell.
The fact is, many casual listeners prefer streaming services because it doesn't require active interaction (similar to radio). They can hear some of their favorite artists and even discover new stuff without having to go looking.

Yes, royalties for streaming are meager, they often come from advertising income; less so from subscriptions (which I've heard add up to barely enough to maintain the servers). However, exposure is often much more valuable than royalties. Even for established artists.

The industry has changed. One cannot make money on royalties alone and even the mangers for big acts know this. When an artist's material is removed from streaming services, it's a calculated effort... not just based on royalties (or lack thereof). Perhaps these artists have stakes in competing services. Things like that can also have an impact.

I think artist who limit their exposure are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot. But what do I know? I insist on giving my music away for free.

[SirkusPi]

I don't think I agree with your assessment that "most of them have left it." Just checking on Spotify right now, I've confirmed that Beck, Pink Floyd, David Byrne, and Aimee Mann (except for her most recent album) are all there. I know that Taylor Swift and Garth Brooks are not, and I haven't bothered checking the others (many of which I've never heard of, and certainly aren't "heavyweights").

Although you largely imply an 'either-or' world, where artists who are not streaming will be able to sell their music and get fairly paid, you don't discuss the other possibility: that music piracy (which I believed was on the downswing since the rise of streaming services, although I may be mistaken) will surge again, and so artists still won't get paid. My understanding is that part of the appeal of streaming to artists (to the extent there is an appeal) is that at least they get paid something rather than nothing. Again, I'm far from an industry insider, but I don't think that any discussion of "streaming is bad for artists, therefore they should (or, as you seem to think, will) all pull out" can be complete without some discussion of why you believe all that money will flow back to artists. The fact that the biggest ultra-mega-superstars (like Ms. Swift) might be able to pull it off (because their sales are so immense they don't care, in some sense, what they lose to piracy, especially when they have lots of subsidiary revenue streams like concerts, merchandise, etc.) doesn't mean everyone -- or most acts -- will.

I understand, based on the various threads on this same theme you've posted in the last few weeks, that you have a strong interest in justifying your decision not to stream, but only sell, your own album. And I respect your position. I also respect the viewpoint -- regardless of whether I agree with it -- that streaming is not good for artists. But attacking streaming over and over does nothing, in itself, to promote the sales of your own album, or to solve the problem of piracy.

And in that regard, I am genuinely curious as to how your own "no-stream" strategy is going. I have no idea whether you perform live or not; if so, that's obviously a viable marketing avenue, even if you don't stream. But if you don't perform live, and you also decline to do streaming, I do wonder how you are going to promote your album. Do you have a marketing budget? Make YouTube videos? How am I supposed to discover your music to consider purchasing it if it's not on Spotify or Bandcamp or other social or streaming sites?

In another thread, you commented that I'm going to be missing a lot of great music if, as a general matter, I generally don't bother investigating albums from unknown (to me) artists who only make 30- or 90-second "samples" available (on iTunes, for examples), but who don't make their entire albums available to me to preview on a streaming site. And, as far as you go, you are undoubtedly correct. But there is a lot of equally wonderful music out there that does let me stream and sample in full before I purchase -- more than I could ever listen to anyway. So in that sense, I'm not missing anything at all. And I know lots of consumers, for better or for worse, are like me.

[foosnark]

Here's a couple more stars rejecting streaming. The BEATLES and COLD PLAY.

Coldplay has 37 albums on Google Play Music (counting the variations and EPs and singles and whatnot).

As for the Beatles, I don't think at this point they'll be releasing any new albums, and I'm doubtful that their revenue (wherever it's going) is relevant to the industry as a whole.

[thecontrolcentre]

Out of curiosity, I spent 10 minutes on the internet and found ...

[Deep Purple]

You've got to pay people a fair return on their talent and investment, or they're gone!

I saw someone else quote this and when I saw it again it reminded me of something that Ayn Rand would have one of her characters say.

[Tricky-Loops]

...the question is will people pay for streaming if they don't have access to their favorite stars? ALso, if in two years, the vast majority of stars pull out, how can streaming survive? There's no way you can stop the stars and all the new artists from turning away from streaming, if they so choose. That's the basic problem. You've got to pay people a fair return on their talent and investment, or they're gone! It's a defective business model.

I don't need no stars, good music is all I need! If some of them aren't available anymore at Spotify, that's fine, there are more than enough other great artists...

But I won't pay $50 a month for Spotify just that some rich "stars" can finally buy their mansion in Santa Monica... They should rather pay unknown artists more than those who are already rich!

But that's the main problem in this world: the rich people are getting richer, and the poor people are getting poorer!

[Numanoid]

East Ray Bay

East Bay Ray, finally recognized as a heavyweight

Take this job and shove it, I aint working here no more

[Gonga]

I already try to buy directly from the artist via their own website. Most of the smaller artists I like have their own site set up and use CDBaby or similar. The artist survives. The question then as always is how to find out about new artists? That's why I still use the free version of Pandora, and listen to the local college radio stations, etc.

I refuse to subscribe to any sites that pay artists poorly. OK, I refuse to subscribe to much of anything at all. I don't even get digital TV, hate FB, abhor Google, etc. But try to look up info on me - it isn't there...and I'm an old guy with three old web sites...