I Run an Independent EDM Label. And Here’s Why Streaming Isn’t Our Enemy…

heroic3

The following guest post comes from Budi Voogt, founder of EDM label Heroic Recordings.

Streaming is huge. Bigger than ever. And growing.

Everyone’s on Soundcloud, YouTube, Spotify, or some other source where listening to tracks is just the click of a button away.

This surge has drastically impacted the music industry, by making content easily accessible (often for free), facilitating interaction between creators and consumers, and by giving creators the freedom to share and collaborate. Yet the impact of streaming is not nearly at it’s peak.

The next level is about how to successfully monetize it. Something that if done right, will truly change lives.

This realization hit home when I was rounding off our label’s second quarter royalty payments a few weeks back. It’s the time when we look at all the revenues we generated by selling or streaming music, via sources like iTunes, Beatport, Spotify, Bandcamp and others.

To make this a clearer story, I’ll elaborate on our distribution strategy first.

Heroic Recordings pushes mostly electronic music. We believe that that music should be accessible, everywhere, for everyone. We’re actively engaged in the music blogosphere and are very fond of free downloads. Especially when in exchange for social currency, such as Facebook likes and Twitter followers. However, we also believe in the intrinsic value of music – as our artists and us have to pay the bills. So we also sell – distributing to all major online music stores; iTunes, Beatport, Spotify and so on.

Yet we have to make an active choice on where we lead our customers. On whether in a new release’s marketing efforts, we direct them to Beatport, iTunes, a free download or elsewhere.

heroic1

The trade-off we have to make here is between the quick growth of social-currency via free downloads, versus extra revenue via distribution sales and streams. In a perfect world, we’d go for free downloads all the way – as growth is the quickest way to move up in the game as a starting indie. However we can’t give it all out for free – as the income, even if still relatively minor, covers costs and investments. The big hurdle to pushing our fans to buy via online stores though, are the absurd prices they charge. Beatport asks nearly $2 for an MP3 and even more for a WAV, iTunes $0.99 for a single. Now don’t get me wrong, music has value, and artists and labels put in hours which make a tune, even if an MP3, valuable, but those prices simply do not reflect reality anymore.

Five years ago charging $1 would have been reasonable, but with a target demographic of EDM lovers aged 15-25, mostly students, and the accessibility and variety of music via streaming (Soundcloud, YouTube, Spotify) and piracy (torrents, file aggregators), we don’t believe $1 is market value.

heroic2

 

The solution we’ve found is to make all of our content available via Bandcamp, charging fans just $0.50 for a track – but allowing them to pay more if they want. And we get to keep their email addresses. It’s where we direct all our traffic, and is a platform which fans experience to be closer to the ‘source’ than when shopping from an intermediary like Beatport or iTunes.  Still, we’re also distributing to all the online stores, as it’s all about being easily accessible.  There is just little reason for us to send traffic there, as besides being overpriced, they’re all about chart positioning – and competing against the majors and bigger indies, whom  can much better facilitate high rankings (via big existing fanbases, marketing budgets and sometimes even illegal chart-pushing activities) is time not spent best.

To come back to the point, when rounding off our latest quarter’s royalty statements, we found the following; 42% of income came in via Bandcamp, 29% via iTunes, 14% via Beatport and 13% via Spotify.

With no efforts to direct traffic to anywhere else than Bandcamp, they all generated revenue. But the most interesting here is Spotify, which made as much as Beatport did for us – while we’re a label focused on electronic music, and Beatport is the primary marketplace for DJs and electronic styles.

We ran the numbers; 170 streams on Spotify lead to a $1 net royalty, meaning $0.006 a play. Not bad at all. After a 10% administration deduction, 50% of that goes to the artist. In other words, just about 380,000 plays on a track brings in $1,000 in net royalties for an artist of ours. How cool is that. And the best thing is – this requires little effort nor expense on the user’s end. Because both subscribed and free Spotify users contribute to this revenue. While not huge, these figures will become much more significant when you include YouTube and soon Soundcloud revenues. Our label’s hooked up with a YouTube partner network, and via them, 800 plays on our channel leads to a $1 net royalty. And with Soundcloud just launching their advertising model and partner program, on which we’re soon joining in, monetized streaming promises to become very significant.
heroic0

 

I see the bigger picture being this; digital overtook physical, with MP3s and downloading replacing the necessities for CDs. Soon, streaming will overtake downloading. Soundcloud’s the perfect example – reporting 175 million unique users per month. Sure, there will still be people that buy CDs, vinyl or files (particularly DJs), but it’s definitely where things are headed on the grand scale. The rate will be determined by the accessibility of good internet, smartphones, how soon the music industry determines a true balance point between charging for these services and paying for use of music, and the extent to which copyright law will move to support all this.

This outlook put a big smile on our faces here. We fit perfectly in our own 15-25 year old EDM loving target demographic, and frankly, we stream all day. Soundcloud is our label’s primary medium, and we’re all running Spotify accounts – streaming from a huge catalog at 320kbps. None of us really download, perhaps incidentally for DJ sets, but that’s it. So to expect our fans to do so is absurd.

That is why those Spotify numbers are so exhilarating. With YouTube income catching up, and soon Soundcloud joining the mix, it is only a matter of time before monetized streaming becomes a real core income stream for our artists and us. Without screwing anybody in the process, or charging unreasonable prices.

Bring on the future.

67 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    “380.000 plays on a track brings in $1000 in net royalties for an artist of ours”

    …while 380,000 sold tracks bring in — wait for it:

    $275,000. 🙂

    And no, streams do not translate into record sales — not directly anyway — but we do know that you lose sales for every 1,000 streams you get. The only question is: How many? And the best answer anyone can give today is: Too many.

    Add the fact that audio-only streaming will die as soon as Google launches its video subscription service:

    YouTube Music Key offers all content from all the majors — not 3 weeks later, as is the case with Spotify more and more often, but on release day! Plus, it has video; interviews, behind-the-scenes, you name it…

    Meanwhile, Apple works on a new interactive multimedia format that allegedly can’t be pirated (and yes, by all means let’s have that discussion again), so here is the future:

    A new Apple format (again) vs. a new Google scam (again).

    Reply
    • Yep

      ‘Add the fact that audio-only streaming will die as soon as Google launches its video subscription service’

      What Google has a video service? Really? A new video service? Like the one they already have but you have to pay? That’s going to be popular.

      And how would this new service kill streaming, again? There video service has been going all the time Spotify has been growing. So when they ask users to pay, that will kill Spotify?

      I don’t think so.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “That’s going to be popular”

        Paid off-line access to and free streaming of UMG/Sony/Warner’s complete catalogs? Yes, that will indeed be popular.

        I’m not saying it’s good, though — in fact, I think it’s a disaster — but it’s just around the corner and it’s going to be the biggest thing you’ve ever seen. And yes, Spotify will be the first victim. Artists will be next…

        Reply
    • jw

      380,000 track streams would, in no existing reality, translate to 380,000 sales. That’s just a dumb thing to say. And it’s a perfect example of the illogical pseudo-mathematics that you base your propaganda on.

      The truth is that sales are going down year over year, regardless of streaming. Digital download growth had flatlined before Spotify even launched in the U.S…. the decline was inevitable. Let’s be honest here… You’ve got no way of determining what effect streaming actually has on sales. You’re blaming the death of a legacy format on the succeeding format. You act like you’ve done some sort of statistical analysis, but it’s all conjecture and anti-tech bias. And you ignore the obvious influencing factors, like the rise of apps, & the move away from dedicated music players, like the iPod (the Classic, the model aimed at the music downloader, was just killed off), to more sophisticated, more capable smartphones, & the growing slice of the consumer pie made up of millennials who never owned CDs, & approach music consumption in a completely different way (which is to say YouTube).

      I’m not saying that there aren’t consumers who have given up purchasing digital downloads, but there are also consumers who purchase more because of streaming (anecdotally, I’m one of these consumers). Looking at the numbers, it’s hard to say that ad revenue & subscription revenue aren’t padding the decline of the digital download decline more than they’re causing it.

      What’s interesting is that, if you look at the total industry, it’s been relatively stable since 2010 (compared to the aughts). Streaming pays out, the issue is that they’re splitting the revenue across too many artists & songwriters for the income to be livable. So the answer to that isn’t squash streaming (and try to sustain an industry on a dying legacy format), it’s to grow streaming & reach that critical mass where streaming becomes sustainable for artists.

      These are all very simple concepts.

      Reply
        • PiratesWinLOL

          Ad hominem arguments sucks and he says that he ACTUALLY buy those silly MP3 files. Can you believe it? He must be some kind of music/copyright fanatic. Modern pirates today don’t even care to download such obsolete treasure, Just look at the top 100 from the Pirate Bay:

          http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/top/all

          There are zero music torrents there. Zip, nada, nothing. We don’t want that stuff, not even for free. How could you even play such a thing on the phone? I have no idea. Streaming on the other hand made even me and of course millions of others, pay for music for the first time in 10 years. This will continue at least until a product just as great, will be available for free.

          Reply
      • SB

        Amen.

        In the heyday of the music industry (the late 90s), the average music consumer bought 2 CDs, for an average of $22ish/month. But that $22 also included about $6 in manufacturing, shipping, and retail costs. So we’re down to $16 when we’re talking purely digital. That means the goal should be either A, increase the average consumer’s spend to $16/month or B, increase the number of music consumers spending $10/month.

        I currently pay for Spotify, and I would gladly pay $16/month for Spotify if there were no artist holdouts. And I’m sure the number of subscribers would increase if all artists were on Spotify. Spotify is convenient, subscription streaming is the future, and paying $1 for 1 track is a thing of the past. Please, for the love of god, let it go so we can finally focus on growing streaming.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          “I would gladly pay $16/month for Spotify if there were no artist holdouts

          Yeah — but there is! And guess what? This is just the beginning.

          Reply
        • Versus

          You have to adjust those figures for inflation.

          $16 in the mid-90s, say 1995, would be $25 in 2014.

          Reply
    • IB

      You’re assuming all these people who accumulate 380.000 streams would all individually buy the track if there was no streaming option. That’s simply never going to happen.

      For an independent label, having 380.000 streams is far more realistic than ever selling 380k downloads!! Thus the artists making $1000,-, which is GREAT!

      Budi Voogt is hitting the nail on the head! I love this article and can 100% relate to it as an indie label owner

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “You’re assuming all these people who accumulate 380.000 streams would all individually buy the track if there was no streaming option”

        So which part of my statement, quoted below, didn’t you understand? 🙂

        “And no, streams do not translate into record sales — not directly anyway — but we do know that you lose sales for every 1,000 streams you get. The only question is: How many? And the best answer anyone can give today is: Too many.”

        At any rate, I can see from your comment that you’re not familiar with the main problem all artists have with streaming — often called cannibalization — and the most popular solution to that problem — often called windowing, so allow me to repeat my little crash course here:

        Most acts sell most of their music during the first weeks and months after release.

        Now, if you give your songs away during this critical period, you will suffer a certain amount of cannibalization (people don’t buy your music because they can get it for free without breaking any laws). Nobody knows the exact ratio, but you would lose money even if it were as low as 1 to 100 (it takes 100-140 Spotify streams to balance the loss of 1 sold song). And nobody claims it’s that low.

        So a lot of smart people thought about this for a while and the smartest among them — people like Adele, Coldplay, Black Keys, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and their teams — realized that windowing was the way to go:

        Windowing comes in all shapes and sizes, but it generally means that you keep your property away from Spotify, or similar services, during the most critical period in the lifespan of a record — and that you make it available on these services as soon as sales begin to drop.

        Hope this helps.

        Reply
    • Hippydog

      Quote ““380.000 plays on a track brings in $1000 in net royalties for an artist of ours”
      …while 380,000 sold tracks bring in — wait for it:
      $275,000. ”

      Did you go to school on the big bus, or the small bus? did they also make you wear a helmet?

      Your statement makes as much sense as ” a cat has a tail, a dog has a tail, ergo a cat must be a dog”..

      Reply
    • Concerned for our future

      This is a pristine example of the biggest issue facing the music industry…illogical logic, and a resistance to change.

      The music industry is changing. There is nothing we can do to stop this change in music consumers,

      Instead of wasting time arguing about how good the glory days were, how evil streaming is, or how poor artists now are, let’s come together and figure out how to adapt.

      Spend less time complaining, and more time educating yourself about the industry.

      Reply
      • Versus

        ” There is nothing we can do to stop this change in music consumers”

        Of course there is. Why take such a passive stance?
        If a group is being exploited, the key is to pull together to change the situation, whether through unions, labor or trade organizations, lobbying, boycotts, etc. An individual musician (even of Taylor Swift’s influence) may not be able to make much difference, but if a huge proportion of musicians and others in the industry push for change together, then anything is possible.

        Reply
    • vhprecords

      Honestly I think some people need to think things through before making ill-informed comments. We have all tried everything such as radio, previews, free downloads etc to stimulate sales and they have all FAILED. To sell 300,000 downloads you would need to be heard by at least 300 million people (agg listens). With fewer opportunities for AirPlay, most indies are permanently locked out. In fact the logical place to direct your audience is to a FREE platform. This should still be backed up with some sales platform (physical, downloads etc), but don’t hold your breath for many sales, or a paid subscription or interactive contact with the artist. Stop this disinformation regarding sales. How many people sell more that 1000 units? Very few. This is a brilliant article and everyone should read it.

      Reply
  2. lol

    lol. wise words from a label which has no youtube-views at all 🙂

    also the chart dont show real numbers…. just a comparision…. IF they would have 1 million listeners 🙂

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    “Everyone’s on Soundcloud, YouTube, Spotify”

    Except best selling acts like Adele, Coldplay, Black Keys, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, of course… 🙂

    Reply
    • Nina Ulloa

      Beyoncé is on SoundCloud. I’m definitely sure that Adele, Black Keys, Taylor Swift, and Beyoncé are all on YouTube.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        All of them are famous for their Spotify boycotts. So I guess it all comes down to this: Who do you trust?

        Adele, coldplay, Black Keys, Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, or — what’s his name again?

        Reply
          • Anonymous

            Hm, let’s see: Adele, Coldplay, Black Keys, Taylor Swift and Beyoncé have all voluntarily abstained from using Spotify.

            So what does Wikipedia have to say about ‘boycott’?

            “A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country”
            Wikipedia

      • Me

        They are all on Spotify, as well, and have a high number of streams there, and are most likely making significant $$$.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          “They are all on Spotify”

          See, what you don’t understand is the concept of windowing.

          So here are the facts — pay attention now, this is important:

          Most acts sell most of their music during the first weeks and months after release.

          Now, if you give your songs away during this critical period, you will suffer a certain amount of cannibalization (people don’t buy your music because they can get it for free without breaking any laws). Nobody knows the exact ratio, but you would lose money even if it were as low as 1 to 100 (it takes 100-140 Spotify streams to balance the loss of 1 sold song). And nobody claims it’s that low.

          So a lot of smart people thought about this for a while and the smartest among them — people like Adele, Coldplay, Black Keys, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and their teams — realized that windowing was the way to go:

          Windowing comes in all shapes and sizes, but it generally means that you keep your property away from Spotify, or similar services, during the most critical period in the lifespan of a record — and that you make it available on these services as soon as sales begin to drop.

          So it’s really very simple — and it works!

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            “So what’s your solution?”

            Well, we know today that audio-only streaming failed:

            Spotify loses money by the hour; nobody knows or uses it though it has been around for years; it doesn’t pay artists, and prominent holdouts turned it into a museum.

            If you still prefer to use the service for nostalgic reasons, then the solution is windowing (look elsewhere in this thread if you don’t know what that is).

            But if you’re ready to face the facts and move on, then you’ll want to combine iTunes releases with YouTube teasers, aggressive use of social media and anti-piracy services. While this approach may sound boring, iTunes is the only way to make real money in the real world as a recording artist.

            However, YouTube Music Key is just around the corner and it’s going to change everything — especially if you’re on a major label (you’re no longer allowed to make exclusive iTunes releases; all your property must be uploaded to Google’s paid and free services on release day).

            So we all have to adjust our strategies in the very near future.

            One of the most important challenges will be to turn Vimeo, VIDescape or another existing video service into a realistic YouTube alternative.

  4. lola

    The solution we’ve found is to make all of our content available via Bandcamp, charging fans just $0.50 for a track – but allowing them to pay more if they want. And we get to keep their email addresses. It’s where we direct all our traffic

    bandcamp is not necessary, sell the music directly on your site (own shop)!

    Reply
    • Nina Ulloa

      Which requires a decent amount of money to build an ecommerce platform that isn’t shit.

      Reply
          • lola

            paul do you really think it’s impossible/difficult or too expensive? 🙂

          • Hippydog

            do you really think it’s impossible/difficult or too expensive?

            I’ve seen some pretty smart people have trouble with it..
            When it comes to taking peoples credit cards
            3rd party is almost always the better value.. (until you have enough volume where it makes more sense to do it yourself)

    • Anonymous

      “sell the music directly on your site”

      That’s actually a good suggestion — a shop is cheap and easy to set up today, and you can link directly from Twitter and Facebook.

      You may lose a bit traffic compared to iTunes, but the good news is that Apple can’t force you to stream your music for free.

      Reply
  5. Willis

    EDM is apples and oranges to other genres. Without lyrics, EDM stands up to become background music.

    Reply
    • Yep

      Willis, there is real growth for what you might term ‘background music’ on Spotify, weirdly. If Spotify subs play music all day they do need a lot of ‘Background Music’ to play during work hours, college study etc…

      That quite a different world to all previous formats where users have a limited collection, where they repeat tracks and/or just turn music off.

      That might explain why this label is doing well.

      Reply
      • Willis

        Settle down. Nothing negative meant by “background music.” It was merely a reference to the fact that this genre can be played without thinking about it or paying much attention to it. Thus, it streams more fluidly than songs with lyrics. It’s kinda like Muzak or elevator music on Red Bull. Due to this, it plays more/longer and earns more.

        Reply
  6. David

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t pay $1 for an EDM track, because it’s bad value for something you would only play once.

    Reply
    • There is something...

      Dumbest comment of the day ? If you like EDM, you’re gonna play the tracks you like more than once. The same could be said for almost anything.

      Reply
      • PiratesWinLOL

        Genre bashing is so pointless. I certainly still listen to for example the same Aphex Twin and Boards of Canada tracks, that I also enjoyed listening to 20 years ago. It is no different than the rap, rock or classical music that I also enjoy. I dont see why it shuold be different with EDM for anyone.

        Reply
        • David

          I think you’re confusing electronica with EDM. I’m not a huge fan of Aphex Twin or BoC, but at least their work has some musical interest. I’ve got an Apex Twin album and I’ve listened to it at least twice.

          Reply
  7. Nissl

    Meanwhile the RIAA reported US revenue was down by almost 5% in the first half of the year today.

    So Youtube barely pays you more than $.001/play? I’m sure that will be enough when the sales dry up. Look, some form of streaming is inevitably the future, but the industry’s embrace of a service that pays less than 25% the rate of Spotify and doesn’t allow windowing even on its free tier is crazy.

    Reply
  8. Faza (TCM)

    “it is only a matter of time before monetized streaming becomes a real core income stream for our artists and us”

    He’s probably right, but not for the reason he thinks.

    The “core” income streams are those that account for the majority of your income – regardless of how large (or small) they are. Right now the dynamics are as follows: streaming revenue is going up, everything else is going down. At some point these two trendlines will cross and streaming will indeed be a core income stream. There’s nothing in this scenario that suggests streaming income will ever match pre-streaming income, however.

    It’s easy to illustrate: if you’re making nothing from CDs or download sales, but you’re making a couple of bucks annually from streaming – streaming is your core (and only) income stream from your recordings. It’s also a bad joke.

    Reply
  9. Dustin

    Every one still talking about what physical sales and downloads COULD be instead of what streams are must have skipped class the day they talked about buggy whips. No one gets to decide when the product they make or service they provide becomes irrelevant. You only get to choose what direction you take your business and attempt to stay ahead of the trends if you’re paying attention.

    Reply
    • Fareplay

      It’s only a trend if it makes money and survives. Looks like those guys representing the Turtles took those buggy whips out and did some serious damage.

      Reply
    • David

      Buggy whips became obsolete because people stopped driving buggies, not because someone was stealing the buggy whips before they even got to the buggy whip shop. Do you see the difference? Nothing has any market value if its producers cannot defend their rights of ownership. The existence of a market economy depends on the enforcement of laws of property, including intellectual property. If you don’t want a market economy, go and live in North Korea.

      Reply
  10. Jerry

    I’m curious to know if they are selling MP3’s on Bandcamp for $.50 or a high quality format. I’ve considered using Bandcamp as a cheaper alternative to Beatport in regards to purchasing .wavs, .aiff , etc.

    Reply
  11. David

    On the subject of streaming royalties, I recently saw a blog post by Melissa Giges, which I’m sure people can find easily enough without a link. While I agreed with much of her post, I stumbled over the statement that:

    “For a stream on Spotify, I make .0000001″.

    I suspected that this was just a rhetorical exaggeration, but I thought that for the benefit of any naive readers this should be made clear, and I commented accordingly. After 3 days my comment is still ‘awaiting moderation’, though other people’s comments made only yesterday have already been published. So for the record I take the liberty of repeating my comment here:

    “Assuming the currency unit is the US Dollar, that [.0000001] is equal to one hundred-thousandth of a cent, so it would take 100,000 streams to earn a cent, and 10 million streams to earn a dollar.

    Is this intended literally, or are you [Melissa Giges] just rhetorically making the point that the amount is small?

    According to Spotify’s own figures, their average payout to rights-holders is between $0.006 and $0.008 per stream, in other words, between six and eight 10ths of a US cent. How much of that goes to the recording artist will depend on their contract with their record company (if they have one) or other distributor. For a purely independent artist, not signed to a label, they could get around half a cent, i.e. $0.005. The cellist Zoe Keating has published her digital earnings in detail, giving a figure of $0.0044 per stream for Spotify, which would mean $4,400 for a million streams. For an artist under a conventional recording contract, they would only get a percentage of the payout, usually ranging between 10% and 50%, i.e. between $0.0006 and $0.003 (taking $0.006 as the total payout per stream). But even the lowest of these figures is more than a thousand times higher than your figure of .0000001. Which is why I wondered if it was intended to be taken literally. Rhetorical exaggeration can sometimes be legitimate, but in an area where hard facts are hard to come by, I don’t think it is helpful.

    Of course, many artists are ‘unrecouped’, in which case they may not receive any new payment at all, but the same would apply to royalties from CDs, etc. Their streaming royalties should still go towards paying off their advance.”

    I hope I have got the math right. Decimal points can be tricky.

    Reply
  12. Thedenmaster

    Labels will like anything that can make them money. Artists will not like streaming for free. Especially when you have made money from a purchase before. As an artist I make money on sales of CDs still. That is my highest margin by far. Downloads next highest margin. Streaming practically nothing.

    As a label any source of income is positive. As an artist, we must lock music down.

    Reply
  13. richard

    “170 streams on Spotify lead to a $1 net royalty, meaning $0.006 a play”

    hmmm, what version of new math did you employ to reach that conclusion?

    Reply
    • Zach

      $1 / 170 = $0.005882 So he is right if you round.

      Also, if they are selling tracks on Bandcamp for $0.50, then almost 20% of that gross is eaten up by mechanicals (and even more for a long song). Does your article take that into consideration? Or are you not paying mechanicals in a sort of net profit type of deal?

      Reply
  14. JAIO

    tech happens. disruptions occur. luddites germinate. I dig the real math. see the kids. they’re the future. look around you. what do you see? 15-24 will be 35-44 in 20 yrs. what was your tech? when did you adopt it? new tech = new money. new money = new opportunities. why be old?

    Reply
  15. R

    There is NO WAY IN HELL that a million terrestrial radio listens would pay out $41. NO WAY IN HELL. As an active ASCAP member who has made real money from music licensing royalties, I can state equivocally that a million terrestrial radio plays would be worth MILLIONS of dollars. Not $41. I applaud what they are doing here, but this seems to be a bit of a propaganda campaign.

    Reply
    • Pieter

      “I can state equivocally that a million terrestrial radio plays would be worth MILLIONS of dollars”

      That is correct. But that’s not what the discussion here is about. It’s about the number of listeners. When a song is played on the radio there are a lot of listeners. The comparision here is about the number of listeners and not about the number of plays.

      I run a very small music label which releases vinyl and the streaming and download revenues are a nice extra.

      Reply
  16. Radio DJ/Programmer

    I can state equivocally that a million terrestrial radio plays would be worth MILLIONS of dollars.

    Prove it.

    Reply
  17. Will

    What about the publishers and songwriters? What are they getting per stream? Oh, wait for it, you forgot about them.

    Reply
  18. SirDukeNickRock

    Wow!
    This indeed is a very deep, very serious situation.
    Your passion is what keeps this thing we call music going.
    Kudos to all of you whose comments I have read.

    Reply
  19. Versus

    Are you joking? $1 is an “absurd” price for a work of music? Only if the music is trash.
    If the music is good, then that is an excellent price for music.

    To say this doesn’t reflect market value, when the “market” is that of thievery/piracy, is also no argument at all. That’s like saying apples are too expensive at $1 because I can just steal them from the grocer and run.

    Reply
  20. Versus

    By making so much of your work available for free, you not only devalue your own work, but hurt others as well who hope to make a living in music. This is problem of the “race to the bottom”.

    Reply
  21. Versus

    Also, what’s a “reasonable” or “unreasonable” price for something like music?

    This is a luxury product. It can be priced at whatever point its producer sees fit. Pay the price, or do without the product. That’s what the “free” in “free market” means: free choice on both sides, producer and consumer, but not freedom to steal.

    Reply
    • Art lover, music lover

      Music is the easiest piece of culture to pirate. I don’t see people pirating other art forms, or products as you call them. to the same extent, and your idea of pricing is not anything the general masses will participate in, say an album priced for the rich at 1000 dollars. Income will be the same, recipients/users will just be lower.

      So do you want to be an artist in artist circles and live that life there in a secluded hi brow bubble, or do you want to be public domain and sell out to the masses. Same outcome: Personal compromise.

      This new generation of kids, wanting everything for free, not caring about anything, will be eaten by their own kids when they grow up, and even those kids will have no creative visions for the future. Enjoy your free shit. Keep eating and die from it, unlike any other natural organism.

      Reply
  22. Malachai

    Anonymous – How’d that “YouTube Music Key is going to change everything” thing work out for you?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *