I have to say that during the early 2000’s my royalties dwindled greatly with the loss of physical sales. In the past several years as the popularity of streaming grows, the royalties are now as equal, if not greater than the heyday of CD and record sales… 90% from streaming, 10% from physical sales. That is all...
cheers … ed
Ed Stasium
_________________________________________
Here’s the one questions I’ve never received an adequate answer to from the naysayers. If streaming services are bad for the overall music economy, then how come the business grew from $6.7B to $11.1B (US sales) from 2015 to 2019, the EXACT same time that streaming was growing into the dominant way that people consume music? This tracks what happened in the Swedish music business in the early part of last decade by the way. If artists are not getting paid, then they should investigate the deals they are entering into, and not try to crucify the platforms that have resurrected the business (not that they are perfect, mind you). I don’t even want to think about where the recorded music business would be if it were dependent on transactional purchasing rather than the utility model of streaming during this pandemic.
Best-
David Macias
Thirty Tigers
_________________________________________
The real problem for most "non-star" musicians isn't streaming, it's the lack of live venues. There are few clubs like there used to be...no Cafe Wah, Bitter End, Electric Circus, etc. Bands could support themselves playing live, even if just locally in Boston, Philly, Chicago, etc. That was also a situation where the cream rose to the top, because there was a finite number of clubs, and the owners could pick the best bands. From there, it was a short step to getting a following, selling albums, opening for major acts, and moving up the ladder based solely on whether you were a draw.
There are still some live music venues like bars, but they're often a "tip jar" situation. Band members are lucky to make enough to cover the expenses of playing. Unfortunately the days of seeing a band like the Mothers of Invention or Cream in a club that holds 1,500 people, with a support act working its way up in the biz, are long gone.
Craig Anderton
_________________________________________
A smaller slice of a bigger pie that is bigger than, a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
Do you want 50% of a million dollars or 1% of a billion Dollars
Steve Hutton
_________________________________________
I feel I want to screen shot the Facebook convo I had today.. basically saying the exact same thing. I got into a lot of trouble at a conference once by saying “just because you make music doesn’t mean you have a right to make a living at it”. It’s so short sighted to say, “I make no money off streams”.. but at the same time are not making competitive music, or only making it for a small niche or only marketing locally or putting stuff out and waiting for the world to discover it. There is more opportunity than ever before but the number 1 problem I see is clients trying to do things the old way and expecting the same results as then. It’s just not possible. You have to stay educated. The music is just another tool for the brand. The money is all connected in one way or another. Music, merch, YouTube, ad money, touring. One feeds into the other. Bands that would never have a chance now get heard on Spotify and find fan bases. And the reality is.. you might yes indeed get to a point where you can’t make real money at it anymore and you might have to get a regular (or different) job.. just like many other people in many other fields. My friend was an architect for 20 years.. he and his designs are no longer in demand.. he is not as relevant and never got big enough for a legacy to see him through. So he is moving on and finding a new thing to do. It’s life. I read in the thread on Facebook by one person “ if we paid for 6 or 7 albums a month and spent 60 bucks why can’t Apple Music charge 49 bucks a month and give 30 to the artists. That statement says it all.
Chad richardson
@thesongspace
_________________________________________
It’s a tough ask. Artists want both - a song not to depreciate in value over time and also be purchased multiple times. The physics have changed. So has the job. Like everyone else’s. There are even more new jobs than streaming for them to perform with their art however. The future is big.
Mark Iannarelli
Endless Riff
_________________________________________
I’m with you on this one Bob, especially the moniker “wankers”. Making a living doing what you love – music or whatever – is a noble goal, but rarely achieved. Lots of people grow up with big dreams, but dreams are a lot different than reality, and just because one discovers that they possess musical talent, and are told that with practice, patience, and perseverance they can make a career for themselves, doesn’t mean it’s true. The basic problem is that the the idea that the world needs more working musicians is absurd.
If you were alive three hundred years ago, what would be the best job you could get as a musician? Forget rambling and carousing, you’d want a steady gig in the court of the king. Accepting the fact that you go on right after the jugglers and before the belly dancers is a humility lacking in most rock star aspirants. The ones who can accept it work in cover bands and have day jobs because even if they’re lucky enough to get a gig, they know there’s only so many kings and so many courts and tastes change. How many many talented people strung out on their own ego do you know?
This dovetails nicely with your piece last week about artists and songs that have a message and this piece today (yesterday). What’s the message? I want fame and fortune? Yawn. I want you to 'hear my music’ – puke! As you pointed out, what musicians really want today is devoted followers, subscribers, fan base, mailing list, and the accompanying income. And what are they willing to do to achieved their goal? Uh…anything boss, it’s the entertainment business. Lots of reverb (there days), awful-tuned vocals, posing, and spirit fingers. Pit Bull is on record saying that music is about fifteen percent of what he does. At least he admits it!
Everyone (thinks they) can be their own label, their own network, but despite some success stories, that’s less than one percent (calculated from personal experience) of everyone who pursues a musical career. The other ninety-nine percent, the reason Guitar Center exists (existed?), are on Spotify.
Victor Levine
Studio City
_________________________________________
I invested in Spotify about two years ago, post IPO. You were the primary reason why I bought $SPOT because of the way you described the potential it had to disrupt an antiquated industry. Today it's my second largest position and I've more than doubled my initial investment.
Thanks for your letters. Keep them coming. You should now put them on a podcast on Spotify or Youtube. I'll subscribe.
Cheers,
Arindam Das
(Note-As stated many times previously, I own no stock in Spotify nor am I on the company's payroll.)
_________________________________________
It's good to hear this. I feel bad for the old guard. I was one of them in age, but didn't start music until 1989 (I'm 69). The key for low level folks like myself is to own everything (Masters.publishing, copyright) so income isn't divided up. I have 108 million streams on Pandora and do less well w spotify (I don't understand how total streams are added there but I have about 7,000 followers a month (Or what ever U call it)
The bad thing for us is that if you have a weak left brain, controlling the massive amount of knowledge U need (Controlling all web sites, social media etc) is overwhelming at times
I tell friends that were on major labels and don't own all or part publishing to release independently free of the shiney shoes. Their old history will make finding followers easier than starting off new, and U keep all royalties
paul adams
_________________________________________
Pardon us for belly-aching. In the past five years, artists like me have watched their cash flow disappear almost completely. Niche acts used to be able to release a new album a year, hit the road and sell decent numbers of CDs after shows. 5000-10,000 of a release sold annually, plus whatever catalog on top of that created an income with which one could raise a family. The era of iTunes killed the single but the payout was still respectable. Now? Consumers of the world love free music and are happy to put the majority of musicians out of business while they are streaming away. Your examples below ring hollow…if no one was enjoying recorded music anymore, no one would be entitled to anything. But more music is consumed than ever. Now we have to be on the streaming services or we’re invisible. Ownership is over. For the time being, live music is over. .003 cents a stream? Us small-time artists are on the streets or considering other career paths.
All my kids are musicians. I’m not recommending this industry to any of them.
Sam Glaser
Glaser Musicworks
www.samglaser.com _________________________________________
I like when Bobby gets mad. I am a producer, drummer, keyboardist, performer, DJ. And one time manager. I am not in the top echelon of the music biz, but am a testament to the hard yards and hustle you must engage in to carve a career in the biz. You won’t hear me complain about streaming revenue, though mine is quite small, it amazes me every time when I see in my stats that someone in Russia, or freakin’ Zambia streamed or bought a track. This is something I couldn’t do by myself, and the reach of it is endless. Whereas that couple hundred cds I have left in the garage (I won’t be printing anymore runs..) has no chance of getting to a listener in Zambia. I love the potential, and I too get a bit mad at the smallfry’s who think they are owed a living playing music.
Thanks for firing me up Bob, back to mixing a track for a guy who will likely never be famous, but lives for playing, makes a bit of money and surfs in his spare time. That’s the life money can’t buy.
Matt Aitchison
_________________________________________
Thanks for the clear view from 20,000 feet of how to chart a course as a modern musician to share in the modern and future income streams available to musicians who know how to write, record, and control their intellectual properties, build a loyal Audience, a brand and share in the bounty that puts a writer or artist in the music BUSINESS, not just someone who "does music".
I’ve been a subscriber to your letter for 5 years now, have paid attention, and along with the many established artists who work with and for me, I am working to monetize my BRAND, Which includes books I write ( which still sell as print and eBook downloads) the apps I develop with Filemaker, the teaching I do, (songwriting, recording production, Pro Tools, entrepreneurship, small business start up, marketing, web content strategy) and social justice work with local and national MN politicians on causes that include Homelessness, Immigration, and criminal justice reform. It is and will be my OTHER non-music copyrights and services that comprise my near as far future income because they reinforce and build my music brand.
Best,
Zannman
Minneapolis
_________________________________________
As a struggling musician/songwriter in his 60s I get weary trying to explain to my younger colleagues why Spotify and other streaming platforms are good for ALL of us. I don’t recall ever hearing musicians singing the praises of record companies in the pre-Spotify era, either. There’s never enough; if it’s money you seek, look elsewhere. We can now record an album in our bedrooms, release it for free on streaming platforms and, with a little social media effort, have at least some people other than our parents and spouses and kids hear it. That’s a miracle if you were a musician 25 or 30 years ago! Focus on the music and the money will find you.
Jim Caroompas
Seattle, WA
_________________________________________
We can't turn back the clock, and anyway the "good old days" weren't so good. Forcing people to buy an album for two decent songs was a sucky model that was destined to die a deserved death at some point. Was having a handful of labels and maybe 2-3 decent FM channels in a media market choosing winners a better model than streaming/YouTube/satellite radio? Seems as if some are upset that something closer to a meritocracy has replaced a lottery.
"Not as big as you think you are" sounds like my grandmother, but she was right!
Adam Keller
_________________________________________
Two things that I point out to artists are these...
1- Spotify is revenue that artists never made, ever, in the history of recorded music. Revenue from people making mixed tapes/Cd's for fun and playing those endlessly. In fact it's revenue for unknown artists that never would have made a penny. I just don't think anyone born less than 8 years before Napster understands this. Why? Because they've never had to pay for music. These are the same people that were saying "music should be free" now they're saying "why don't I make more money from my streams?" These same people would still complain if they were making 10x. Why because they still wouldn't make money because they have no idea how to market.
2- Music is your business card to attract your fan base. As you stated, the real revenue is made everywhere else. Sync, merch, live shows (someday again), shoutouts, cameo, endorsements, influencer gigs, product placements, it's really whatever you can think of, you can monetize it.
There are absolutely no successfully monetized artist social media accounts that ONLY post about the music they are selling, none. The audience only cares a tiny bit about the music. What they really want is YOU, the artist, and to know and be a part of their lives. I do social media, I have very large artist accounts, and I can blow up anyone on social media that is interesting, the music is always secondary.
Any artist out there that thinks it's all about music, they're wrong and in the wrong business.
I'm Done!
Best,
James Lucente
Nashville
James Lucente, GSD/SMD
Lucente Social Media
Lucente Entertainment
_________________________________________
As a musician who plays, writes, and records music for my own fun and sanity, never trying to make it big or make it a career, just doing it because I love to do it, I never quite understood artists complaining about Spotify, especially if the artist has an audience that listens. Why? Because people are listening to your music! The point is for people to listen to your music. That's it, end of story. Making a living is secondary to the opportunity to have more people listen. I never understand artists and labels who would hold back from Spotify. I would go to the artist's page with a hunger to listen to their new album and...It's not there. So guess what I did? I didn't listen! Dollars should be less important than access because musicians want to be heard. I understand they have to make a living, but the paradigm has changed. The old ways are dead, so why not get as many people listening as possible? I would be filled with absolute joy and wonder if my music was heard by even a minor contingent. It's not my goal, but just imagine...sounds better than a million dollars, let alone a thousand or two...for a voice to be heard...for an album to be listened to...
-- Dan Grgas
_________________________________________
Hey Bob - the bigger point the entire industry is missing on this topic is podcasts and their long term effect. It is why the market has been driving the value of Spotify up after every recent announcement.
The artists get their share of plays, as a trickle down from the labels getting their share of plays, as you eloquently explain here. But as podcasts (ie owned content) become a larger share of plays (and they are 5-10x length of a song), the effective rev share to the labels goes down, and Spotify’s gross profit margin goes up.
Everyone said Spotify "could never be a label", by which they meant “own the content”. However they are now doing this through the backdoor, in a Netflix-like transition.
Patrick Murphy
_________________________________________
The elephant in the room is as they spend hundreds of millions on podcasts, they are diluting the recorded music royalty.
It’s all a meritocracy island on Spotify. Exclusive Podcasts are good for Ek’s stock but bad for the musical artists living on the island.
Ash Avildsen
--
Visit the archive:
lefsetz.com/wordpress/ --
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart:
ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj -Apple:
apple.co/2ndmpvp --
www.twitter.com/lefsetz --
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1 If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters,
Unsubscribe To change your email address
this link
