3 ms·

This is possible but this is highlighting the music INDUSTRY, not the music HOBBY. The industry exists to make money and always has done. It doesn't exist simpl

This is possible but this is highlighting the music INDUSTRY, not the music HOBBY. The industry exists to make money and always has done. It doesn't exist simply for the joy of playing music, in the same way that the software industry doesn't exist simply for the joy of writing software. It exists to make money. Sure, people can write open source software or play instruments at home but it isn't enough to live on by itself (ie it pays zero). This scenario is highlighting the problems with the INDUSTRY, since the artists are effectively now volunteers and won't even make a fraction of the minimum wage for their work. There are multiple problems with the current set up: 1. In the past, record labels would promote individuals they thought could sell. People would look to the record labels and charts for "popular" music. Since there are so many ways to decide how to listen to music, so the labels have less control to "dictate" or push specific artists. 2. The availability of everyone to release their own music has diluted the market so now there is so much volume, nobody gets heard. eg. everyone shouting the news in the street instead of a newspaper. 3. The cost of streaming music is WAY WAY WAY too low. They priced an entire month of music at about £10, the same as a CD. That's 720 hours (30 days) for the same price as just over an hour of music. This works out at £0.013888888888889 per hour, or just over 1p for an hour of music. This is then SPLIT between the streaming company, the label (if one), the artist's manager, and the artist. 1p for an hour of ANY service is not sustainable, let alone if you split it again. 4. The streaming services are independent commercial entities that can charge what they want and negotiate payout fees with the record labels. Despite not being a cartel, no invididual company can charge more than their competitors or they will be seen as poor value. No record label wants to set up their own streaming service, so they are at the mercy of the streaming service for the price, to some extent. 5. Nobody values music. Maybe this is because some people have the radio on as background noise (like the noise of a fridge or household appliance), or because nobody would pay at least £40 a month for music (eg. 1 CD a week), it is now disposable, so the pricing of streaming has been a race to the bottom. Maybe it's because they think that music artists are billionnaires and don't understand the time costs of learning an instrument, buying an instrument + gear, recording a song, mixing a song, mastering a song, pressing a CD or uploading to different platforms, promoting the release and believe they are only paying for the 4 minutes of audio they've just heard. This doesn't even start to cover the costs of distribution or touring (van/truck driver, local roadies at venue, mixing engineer, monitoring engineer, sound engineer to ensure the output of the mix is appropriate for the venue since each venue is very different, equipment techs for larger bands, insurance for gear, insurance for venue, food for staff, accommodation for staff, publicity agent) so everyone thinks it's dirt cheap and a band is driving round a country and magically having equipment appear for them to play. In short, the industry is dead.

csunbird 6y ago
> 3. The cost of streaming music is WAY WAY WAY too low. They priced an entire month of music at about £10, the same as a CD. That's 720 hours (30 days) for the same price as just over an hour of music. This works out at £0.013888888888889 per hour, or just over 1p for an hour of music. This is then SPLIT between the streaming company, the label (if one), the artist's manager, and the artist. But, unlike movies or any other service, the music service is repeatable and potentially generates infinite value over the years, with very minimal cost of maintenance. Once it is submitted to spotify, it is there forever, generating revenue, without you doing anything at all.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  But that IS the same as movies and any other service - once it is available on iTunes does the film producer need to do any more work to make revenue? No. Once someone has written their software and hosted it somewhere, do they need to do any more work to extract money from it? No. Yet the film industry saw sense to charge £7 - £13 for a film rental or purchase PER FILM and not charge £10 for an entire month of cinema films. This isn't true for Netflix since they get old films, but it isn't true for "just at the cinema" new releases.
  - csunbird 6y ago
    But, usually*, people do not re-watch the same film more than once or twice (except when you like it very, very much :) ). I usually listen to a song multiple times each day.
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      It still doesn't reduce the initial price/cost of the film simply because you choose to watch it only once. You still paid a reasonable price for it, and can rewatch it many many many times if you want. This isn't the same with the music cost - you paid a tiny amount; they made a tiny amount of money - that's the unsustainable bit. I'm the opposite to you - I will watch a film a few times, but only if I enjoyed it (as you said). I don't listen to the same song multiple times per day, let alone multiple times per week.

csunbird 6y ago

> 3. The cost of streaming music is WAY WAY WAY too low. They priced an entire month of music at about £10, the same as a CD. That's 720 hours (30 days) for the same price as just over an hour of music. This works out at £0.013888888888889 per hour, or just over 1p for an hour of music. This is then SPLIT between the streaming company, the label (if one), the artist's manager, and the artist. But, unlike movies or any other service, the music service is repeatable and potentially generates infinite value over the years, with very minimal cost of maintenance. Once it is submitted to spotify, it is there forever, generating revenue, without you doing anything at all.

72deluxe 6y ago
But that IS the same as movies and any other service - once it is available on iTunes does the film producer need to do any more work to make revenue? No. Once someone has written their software and hosted it somewhere, do they need to do any more work to extract money from it? No. Yet the film industry saw sense to charge £7 - £13 for a film rental or purchase PER FILM and not charge £10 for an entire month of cinema films. This isn't true for Netflix since they get old films, but it isn't true for "just at the cinema" new releases.
- csunbird 6y ago
  But, usually*, people do not re-watch the same film more than once or twice (except when you like it very, very much :) ). I usually listen to a song multiple times each day.
  - 72deluxe 6y ago
    It still doesn't reduce the initial price/cost of the film simply because you choose to watch it only once. You still paid a reasonable price for it, and can rewatch it many many many times if you want. This isn't the same with the music cost - you paid a tiny amount; they made a tiny amount of money - that's the unsustainable bit. I'm the opposite to you - I will watch a film a few times, but only if I enjoyed it (as you said). I don't listen to the same song multiple times per day, let alone multiple times per week.