7 ms·
A friend once explained this to me a decade ago. I would buy albums, but he would torrent everything. In his eyes, music has shifted to the public domain now. H
by 7thaccount 6y ago
A friend once explained this to me a decade ago. I would buy albums, but he would torrent everything. In his eyes, music has shifted to the public domain now. He said the best way to support a band now would be to buy t-shirts and go to as many concerts as you can. I still buy all my albums, but finally see his point. I mean now, all artists have their entire collection of music on YouTube. If everyone almost always has an internet connection, is buying music even necessary? Does Taylor Swift make more money off of the albums my wife buys from her or the 8 t-shirts and yearly concert she goes to?
- shakezula 6y agoYour friend was absolutely right. I never cared if people pirated my bands music (or later the bands that I was managing) because the real thing I wanted was them showing up at shows, buying merch, posting us on facebook, asking events to bring us on, etc... At a certain point, Taylor Swift and larger artists _do_ make a good chunk of change from their actual music sales, but it isn't a feasible strategy to rely on that for indie and DIY artists.
- chrisseaton 6y agoI listen to a lot of music but I’d never go to a live show (can’t think of anything worse) and I’m not going to wear a branded t-shirt. How do they capture revenue from people like me in your model? Now I think about it I did once buy a video log of the production of an album. But that’s one artist from the thousands I listen to.
- shakezula 6y agoTo be honest - they don't. You're not the target demographic for them, and that's fine! But for this approach is optimized for the audience that will wear those shirts, go to those shows, buy the posters, follow them on instagram, etc...
- ksec 6y agoI think these people may still provide some value in the form of Retweet, Gossip, Views, Media, Hype, Clicks that helps marketing. In the world of Social Media just having your name known is better than totally unknown. And will funnel back to other places.
- gen220 6y agoIt's been mentioned a few times in this comment graph, but just in case: Bandcamp is where you should be putting your money. 80-85% of revenue from goods sold go to the artists [0]. [0]: https://bandcamp.com/about https://bandcamp.com/about
- ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago>How do they capture revenue from people like me in your model? It's not like bands stopped selling CD's/BluRays's, collectible box-sets, stickers, pins, access to behind-the-scenes videos and mailing lists. But the most someone like you can do for an average band/performer is promote their art through any channels available. The most valuable resource you have is your attention.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> selling CD's/BluRays's, collectible box-sets, stickers, pins Hmmm... it's a shame they're trying to sell stuff like this. I want to support artists but the last thing I want is junk.
- sukilot 6y agoThis is silly. If you want to support an artist, give them money.
- lmm 6y agoSo set up an organised way for me to do that, e.g. Patreon. Some artists already do.
- wwweston 6y agoThis is crazy but we used to have this scheme where you actually just paid them for access to the recording. Weird, right? Then we Spotifyd and that was the end of that and people got a new hobby coming up with justifications for why it's good that we replaced a revenue source for musicians with ... maybe giving them money? Or maybe having them run a T-shirt business?
- olyjohn 6y agoMaybe they can work for a living. Like go on tour and perform live. Selling tickets and such. If they are any good, people will want to go see them live. Look at the Grateful Dead, they allowed people to copy their music. There are massive sites dedicated to archiving all of their music recordings and you are free to download and listen to it. Yet they made a fortune on touring and performing. Not playing the song one time and then trying to sell copies of it.
- burntoutfire 6y ago> Your friend was absolutely right. I never cared if people pirated my bands music (or later the bands that I was managing) because the real thing I wanted was them showing up at shows, buying merch, posting us on facebook, asking events to bring us on, etc... This model breaks down for people like me who are neither interested in merch nor in going to concerts. I just like the music.
- brandonmenc 6y agoYou can always send money to your favorite musicians.
- err4nt 6y agoCan confirm! I've sent tips to musicians who put up music under free/Creative Commons music! My theory is if you want to see something tomorrow, the best insurance you have it is to make it profitable for the people doing it today, so giving my money to musicians means a better chance there will be more music in the future <3
- jokethrowaway 6y agoTotally agree! That's also why I don't give money to homeless (but my country support for homeless is outstanding; when I lived elsewhere I donated to a homeless organisation - which hopefully meant that money didn't go on drugs).
- lubos 6y agoYou always represent value even if you don't pay. You might introduce the music to someone who will pay. It's freemium model applied to music industry.
- ganfortran 6y agoEven Taylor Swift releases the full new Album on youtube the first day, which is unthinkable even 5 years ago. I think the industry already accept it is the way forward.
- ksec 6y ago>I think the industry already accept it is the way forward. Yes but this sort of makes me question, if it is on Youtube for free, why are we paying for it on Spotify and Apple Music?
- Ma8ee 6y agoBecause on YouTube we pay for it with time and attention to ads. Most people on HN have much more money that time and attention to spend.
- joombaga 6y agoDon't most people on HN have an ad blocker? My intuitions on this are weak.
- ClikeX 6y agoBoth Youtube and Spotify allow you to listen for free with ads. But to humor you. Youtube is for video content primarily. Youtube Music is a premium service that costs as much as Spotify does and has a whole lot less content. As someone who listens to a lot of music. Spotify offers me a way better UI/UX for consuming music than Youtube Music does.
- orthoxerox 6y agoThe model breaks down for people who write purely electronic music and are thus composers, not performers.
- ClikeX 6y agoOr just bedroom musicians.
- redwall_hp 6y agoThe simple truth is that success in any creative field is based more on chance and mass appeal than any creative merit. For every JK Rowling there are hundreds of published novelists who barely make a living, and thousands who a publisher wouldn't even take a chance on. If you're in it for the passion, you'll do it whether you make money or not. Big successes are an anomaly, regardless of which mechanism the industry chooses to split up the loot. (Always in the favor of the publisher/label/whatever.) If we want to encourage creativity, UBI is a better deal than worrying overmuch about trying to shoehorn creativity into revenue models. Because then at least the extra money, however much, would be extra on top instead of wholly inadequate.
- britr 6y agoA lot of electronic musicians perform at clubs and parties
- erfgh 6y ago> I mean now, all artists have their entire collection of music on YouTube. No they don't.
- gen220 6y agoI would say this is definitely true for big-label musicians. For independent or smaller-label musicians, they still have a large upside potential from certain retailers, like Bandcamp [1]. If you really care about them and they're listed on Bandcamp, it's pretty trivial to sign up for email announcements at an artist level, so you don't miss an opportunity to support them financially whenever they release new material. Many big musicians don't even have bandcamp accounts, which (1) amazes me (2) implies that they make most of their money through other means, e.g. touring, private performances, etc. [1] From their website: When you buy something on Bandcamp, 80-85% of your money goes to the artist, and we pay out daily. The remainder goes to payment processor fees and Bandcamp’s revenue share, which is 10-15% on digital items, and 10% on physical goods.
- lukeh 6y agoBandcamp is great. If you're with a major, though, you will likely be contractually prohibited from selling through anything but the label's online store (I am).
- thirdsun 6y agoI think that only applies to very few labels. Bandcamp isn't some kind of exclusively niche underground store. These days all kinds of big, critically acclaimed labels and artists sell through them.
- jimmaswell 6y agoI feel like they must make a decent amount of money from ads on free streaming sites.
- dchest 6y agoCorrect! I’m not sure why comments here equate music on YouTube with giving it away - while it devalues it by making it free to listen, artists still get royalties from advertising.
- TheOperator 6y agoBuying the albums mostly supports the music industry when you do the accounting and does little to support the actual band directly. The middlemen mostly exist to build a machine to allow people to profit from music... Which is an arguable indirect benefit to the content producers. Yet it does lead to the counterintuitive situation where a merchandise buying pirate is actually directly contributing to a bands coffers more than a law abiding citizen may be.
- stiglitz 6y agoTaylor swift likely makes major ad revenue from YouTube.