5 ms·

> So tired of young musicians telling me that streaming is where the audience is. I’m only a music consumer, not a producer, but I found some of my favorite ar

> So tired of young musicians telling me that streaming is where the audience is. I’m only a music consumer, not a producer, but I found some of my favorite artists (small, less than 20k monthly listeners) via streaming and bought their merch and tickets to live shows. So these young artists aren’t exactly wrong in my opinion.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
The audience is streaming, no question about that. The question is where is the paying audience ? The answer to that is a bit less clear. Also, given how many musicians and music fans appear to NOT know about Bandcamp, it's tricky to gauge the extent to which that model is an alternative or not.
- JoshGlazebrook 3y ago
  It is the same audience. At the end of the day, if your music isn't good, unique, or worth my time, you're not getting my money spent on merch, vinyls, and tours.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    It is demonstrably not the same audience, but I do agree that one is a subset of the other. Also, notice that the usual line about "it's the merch, touring, etc that really makes money" is only true because of streaming. It's precisely because you make essentially nothing from "the music" anymore that the revenue stream from other things now matters more than ever. But with systems like Bandcamp, where the artist is collecting 85% of the gross per digital album download (which could be on the order of $4.50-$11.00 per sale) the balance between these things can shift quite a bit. Of course, if you've got dedicated merch buyers, cooking up new merch is generally easier and faster than another album (though for some, maybe not).
    - mjr00 3y ago
      > Also, notice that the usual line about "it's the merch, touring, etc that really makes money" is only true because of streaming. Given that "bands make all their money from merch and touring" has been true since at least 1970, I don't think you can blame it on streaming, no. Before Spotify was paying out fractions of a penny per stream, you just had record labels taking $11.99 out of every $12 CD sale instead.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Right, and that's why systems like bandcamp are different. The artist doesn't need a label to start with, and BC takes just 15%, and the artist controls pricing strategy. But you're right that label robbery of artists played a big role in the significance of merchandise. It just wasn't true to the same extent in (say) the 70s, because revenue from actual music sales was larger. That was particularly true for musicians who had significant merch sales - they also had really significant music sales revenue. As I noted elsewhere here, the one upside of label thievery was their ability to cross-subsidize artists. Even tiny (in terms of general sales) labels like ECM got a huge hit every once in a while (e.g. Jarrett's Koeln Concert) that enabled them to keep working with artists whose albums barely broke even. That model has essentially ended now.
- fragmede 3y ago
  The paying audience is listening to Taylor Swift play at the closest stadium. The days of making a CD and living off those sales have gone the way of the, well, CD. The money now is in getting popular streaming, then going on tour.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    The audience for, e.g. ambient soundfields, is not at the Taylor Swift concert, and they never were. Neither are the bluegrass fans. Ditto for every other highly developed genre. It used to be possible to make a modest living as a genre musician; accepting and adopting streaming has destroyed this for (almost) anyone not already established. My point is this: most people who want to be musicians will NEVER make a living from sales of anything related to their music. Not from streaming. Not from touring. Not from merchandise. So why settle for an absolute pittance from streaming sales, when you could instead adopt a strategy that accepts the (likely) limits of your success, but maybe gets you a couple of hundred dollars a month extra, at least some of the time ?
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Because, like you said it's an absolute pittance. What's the difference between $50 from Bandcamp vs $1 from Spotify? You can't live off of that, you're not quitting your day job, regardless. So then it's about the music, and not about the money. If money is the only thing driving you to make music, that's fine, but that's a thing. There are those that need to make music, to express how they are and how they feel and the urge to create won't let them go. They need to share their gift, tell their story and just want people to listen. If you could get everyone in the world to listen to you for 3 minutes, what would you say or sing or play? Some people just know what their answer to that question is and have uploaded it to SoundCloud. Success would be nice, but if, instead, people have heard my music and appreciate it? Listen to it over and over again? I'd take that over beer money. Beer money would be nice though.
    - RussianCow 3y ago
      > My point is this: most people who want to be musicians will NEVER make a living from sales of anything related to their music. Not from streaming. Not from touring. Not from merchandise. So, if I understand correctly, your point is that people shouldn't try to make a living off music, period. That's fine, but art has always been a difficult road for a career; the advent of streaming has little to do with this. > So why settle for an absolute pittance from streaming sales, when you could instead adopt a strategy that accepts the (likely) limits of your success, but maybe gets you a couple of hundred dollars a month extra, at least some of the time ? That's not unlike asking, "Why start a business when you could instead work a 9-5 and probably make more money?"

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

The audience is streaming, no question about that. The question is where is the paying audience ? The answer to that is a bit less clear. Also, given how many musicians and music fans appear to NOT know about Bandcamp, it's tricky to gauge the extent to which that model is an alternative or not.

JoshGlazebrook 3y ago
It is the same audience. At the end of the day, if your music isn't good, unique, or worth my time, you're not getting my money spent on merch, vinyls, and tours.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  It is demonstrably not the same audience, but I do agree that one is a subset of the other. Also, notice that the usual line about "it's the merch, touring, etc that really makes money" is only true because of streaming. It's precisely because you make essentially nothing from "the music" anymore that the revenue stream from other things now matters more than ever. But with systems like Bandcamp, where the artist is collecting 85% of the gross per digital album download (which could be on the order of $4.50-$11.00 per sale) the balance between these things can shift quite a bit. Of course, if you've got dedicated merch buyers, cooking up new merch is generally easier and faster than another album (though for some, maybe not).
  - mjr00 3y ago
    > Also, notice that the usual line about "it's the merch, touring, etc that really makes money" is only true because of streaming. Given that "bands make all their money from merch and touring" has been true since at least 1970, I don't think you can blame it on streaming, no. Before Spotify was paying out fractions of a penny per stream, you just had record labels taking $11.99 out of every $12 CD sale instead.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Right, and that's why systems like bandcamp are different. The artist doesn't need a label to start with, and BC takes just 15%, and the artist controls pricing strategy. But you're right that label robbery of artists played a big role in the significance of merchandise. It just wasn't true to the same extent in (say) the 70s, because revenue from actual music sales was larger. That was particularly true for musicians who had significant merch sales - they also had really significant music sales revenue. As I noted elsewhere here, the one upside of label thievery was their ability to cross-subsidize artists. Even tiny (in terms of general sales) labels like ECM got a huge hit every once in a while (e.g. Jarrett's Koeln Concert) that enabled them to keep working with artists whose albums barely broke even. That model has essentially ended now.
fragmede 3y ago
The paying audience is listening to Taylor Swift play at the closest stadium. The days of making a CD and living off those sales have gone the way of the, well, CD. The money now is in getting popular streaming, then going on tour.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  The audience for, e.g. ambient soundfields, is not at the Taylor Swift concert, and they never were. Neither are the bluegrass fans. Ditto for every other highly developed genre. It used to be possible to make a modest living as a genre musician; accepting and adopting streaming has destroyed this for (almost) anyone not already established. My point is this: most people who want to be musicians will NEVER make a living from sales of anything related to their music. Not from streaming. Not from touring. Not from merchandise. So why settle for an absolute pittance from streaming sales, when you could instead adopt a strategy that accepts the (likely) limits of your success, but maybe gets you a couple of hundred dollars a month extra, at least some of the time ?
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Because, like you said it's an absolute pittance. What's the difference between $50 from Bandcamp vs $1 from Spotify? You can't live off of that, you're not quitting your day job, regardless. So then it's about the music, and not about the money. If money is the only thing driving you to make music, that's fine, but that's a thing. There are those that need to make music, to express how they are and how they feel and the urge to create won't let them go. They need to share their gift, tell their story and just want people to listen. If you could get everyone in the world to listen to you for 3 minutes, what would you say or sing or play? Some people just know what their answer to that question is and have uploaded it to SoundCloud. Success would be nice, but if, instead, people have heard my music and appreciate it? Listen to it over and over again? I'd take that over beer money. Beer money would be nice though.
  - RussianCow 3y ago
    > My point is this: most people who want to be musicians will NEVER make a living from sales of anything related to their music. Not from streaming. Not from touring. Not from merchandise. So, if I understand correctly, your point is that people shouldn't try to make a living off music, period. That's fine, but art has always been a difficult road for a career; the advent of streaming has little to do with this. > So why settle for an absolute pittance from streaming sales, when you could instead adopt a strategy that accepts the (likely) limits of your success, but maybe gets you a couple of hundred dollars a month extra, at least some of the time ? That's not unlike asking, "Why start a business when you could instead work a 9-5 and probably make more money?"