3 ms·

Lots of my friends are musicians. I have every sympathy for artists that can't live off their art (because that's the dream, right?). But I'd be curious how any

by iamben 6y ago

Lots of my friends are musicians. I have every sympathy for artists that can't live off their art (because that's the dream, right?). But I'd be curious how any of this would compare to record sales and artists that made money in the past. Arguably your chances of "getting heard" now are far, far greater than previous generations when you'd actually have to get out and play (or sign a deal with a label). Now you can have fans without ever leaving your bedroom (assuming you understand a little bit about marketing), you can operate completely without a label, or distributor, or manager, or anyone but yourself - if you choose. I think the trouble is a lot of people are literally equating streams to record sales, a bit like an extension of the old MP3 argument (every download is instead of a sale, but now every stream should equate to a sale). A rough google reckons a PRS royalty for a Radio 1 play to be about £38 for the song. The Radio 1 breakfast show is 5.13m listeners. I'd hazard a lot of the plays on Spotify are just as passive as the radio (and it's probably replaced the radio for a lot of people). If you're working to the same metrics, Spotify pays considerably more per play (again, based on some Googled numbers). Not everyone is going to make a living from music. Even in a world of hyperconsumption there's still more music being shared than ever before and can ever be heard. And I keep seeing this argument about how awful Spotify is (and YouTube, and streaming etc etc), but personally I think it's fantastic. And I say this will a box of unsold "I was in a band once" records under my bed.

ratww 6y ago
> A rough google reckons a PRS royalty for a Radio 1 play to be about £38 for the song. The Radio 1 breakfast show is 5.13m listeners. I'd hazard a lot of the plays on Spotify are just as passive as the radio (and it's probably replaced the radio for a lot of people). If you're working to the same metrics, Spotify pays considerably more per play (again, based on some Googled numbers). I don't disagree with your whole point, but I have to point out that Radio used to be a marketing channel for a product (a record), and any profit was secondary, while Spotify streams are the end-product itself, which replaced both the marketing channel and the previous products.
- iamben 6y ago
  Sure, it's not a precise equivalent, but then Spotify pays more - and it's (again, arguably!) easier to end up on some Spotify playlists than it was/is to get played on the the radio in any significant promotional sense. But I get your point :-)

by iamben 6y ago

ratww 6y ago

> A rough google reckons a PRS royalty for a Radio 1 play to be about £38 for the song. The Radio 1 breakfast show is 5.13m listeners. I'd hazard a lot of the plays on Spotify are just as passive as the radio (and it's probably replaced the radio for a lot of people). If you're working to the same metrics, Spotify pays considerably more per play (again, based on some Googled numbers). I don't disagree with your whole point, but I have to point out that Radio used to be a marketing channel for a product (a record), and any profit was secondary, while Spotify streams are the end-product itself, which replaced both the marketing channel and the previous products.

iamben 6y ago
Sure, it's not a precise equivalent, but then Spotify pays more - and it's (again, arguably!) easier to end up on some Spotify playlists than it was/is to get played on the the radio in any significant promotional sense. But I get your point :-)