A Famous Producer Asks YouTube Why 600 Million Views Pays $900…

YouTube Questioned...

…at the Code/Media conference last week, during a Q&A with YouTube head of content Robert Kyncyl.

Dawn Chmielewski (host): Questions for YouTube?

Rodney Jerkins (in audience): Hey Robert, Rodney Jerkins here.  Ryan Tedder of the band One Republic recently did a song last year that was called ‘Counting Stars’.  It had over 600 million views on YouTube.  Him as a writer, only received $900.  I’m wondering, I’m curious to know where you guys are going to take it for the creatives, in the future.

Robert Kyncyl: Sure.  So we actually… music is a very large portion of our watch time, in general, and we have great relationships with a lot of the suppliers.

We don’t pay him directly, we’re paying a publisher.  And, whatever happens between the publisher and the artist… we don’t know, we don’t get to see that.  What I can tell you is the amount of money that we pay out, which is incredibly significant.

It’s the largest, the largest checks we pay out are for music.  And–

Chmielewski: –so–

Jerkins: –to the publisher or the artist?

Kyncyl: To the publisher.  The publisher.  He’s a writer, so if it’s to Sony/ATV or whatever, it’s between him and the publisher on where that flows, it’s hard for me to comment on that.

 

 

46 Responses

  1. Name2

    And Kyncyl’s answer is as it has always been – take up the size of your songwriter royalty check with whomever owns your publishing.

    I can’t tell whether Jerkins is a plant from the NMPA trying to tell sob stories in the form of “questions”, or a plant from Pandora so they get a chance to explain publishing and royalties to idiots slowly and repeatedly.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      LOL. You’re right about the royalty check. But the problem can exist on 2 levels: the size of the total payout from the service, and then the size of the payout from publisher/label to artist. The second one, if it sucks, is the artist’s problem (sorry but you made a deal, and complaining to other people you don’t like it anymore and want to change it isn’t reasonable – learn from your experiences when your contract is up). But the first one can still be a legitimate problem, even in the presence of the second as well.

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Please allow me to repeat:

    We need to launch a free, non-censored, high-quality, ad-financed, artist-friendly, better-paying YouTube alternative — owned and operated by the industry — and use that service exclusively. All revenues straight back to the artists!

    Exclusive releases have proved to be a huge success for Netflix.

    Now it’s our turn.

    Reply
    • Sarah

      So, I commented below introducing my company RepX, and our streaming marketplace – it’s not up yet (I guess it needs to be approved because it has links in it).

      I’m sorry to tell you, after all this time, that we’re not what you’re asking for. What you’re asking for, specifically, is probably impossible.

      When we started down this path, we didn’t start with any preconceived ideas. We actually started from a blank slate, with the simple goals of providing a pleasant consumer experience (I hate ads and I’m not paying monthly subscriptions because I’m not a heavy enough user to make it worthwhile) for video and music that also treats artists fairly. We thoroughly analyzed all the different business models, and we don’t see a way to make what you want work as a sustainable business. Sure, it could theoretically be subsidized by investors and carry losses for a while to pay out fairly to artists over a few years, but that’s not a sound or healthy business.

      I know how much you want this specific ad-financed, well paying business model, and we’d give it to you if we could. In fact, we’d be delighted to – what you suggest would, if it were possible, be such an easy winner in the marketplace.

      If you can explain how to make the numbers in your desired model work well enough for it to be a sustainable long-term business, we’ll do it – exactly the way you want. We don’t see how it’s possible, but if you have some special insight, please share; we’ll take you seriously and we’ll act on it.

      In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that you did what my partner Grant and I did: start with a blank slate when you consider what we’re proposing. It may seem weird, it’s new, it’ll definitely take some time to mature and perfect … but it can work. 🙂

      p.s. if the other comment doesn’t show up soon, I’ll post it again without links.

      Reply
      • Sarah

        Sorry, I can’t overlook that awful typo… “I respectfully suggest that you do what my partner Grant and I did: start with a blank slate when you consider what we’re proposing.” 🙂

        Reply
        • Chuck

          Who are you, grammar police? Is this an honors English class? No? Then calm down.

          Reply
      • Sarah

        And there’s also Vessel, which isn’t working very well either – it’s in beta, so we’ll see how it goes, but the odds aren’t good.

        There just isn’t consumer traffic to new generic video sites, and while everyone likes YouTube videos, they don’t value them enough to pay for YouTube content 3 days early. YouTube has many more viewers than Netflix, but the average daily user engagement is around 7 minutes, compared to Netflix’s 90 minutes. YouTube is basically a junk site – sure, you’ll waste a few minutes here and there but you don’t spend real time on it (you might – the typical person doesn’t). I think that’s part of the problem with putting professional music there in the first place: you devalue it.

        But what many users do care about is experience. They want high quality content on a pleasant to use site. They want positive interaction and engagement, with both the artists and other fans (the community) – Patreon is great proof of this. They want exclusivity in both content and experiences.

        We’re building on these ideas with our company RepX, the first streaming marketplace. We’d love to give you a demo; we’re working with creators now to get feedback, which we’ll use to improve the platform before our upcoming launch.

        Reply
  3. Sarah

    About a year ago, DMN reported on a study that concluded that “streaming services as currently structured have no hope of achieving profitability.” http://dmnrocks.wpengine.com/permalink/2014/02/18/profitless
    The phrase we’re talking about today is “as currently structured.”

    Streaming problems are actually business model problems.

    Ad-supported and subscription models for streaming don’t work – the numbers just don’t add up. They aren’t ever going to pay you any better than they already do; what you have is probably as good as it gets.

    The good news is that streaming can be both profitable and fair for artists. By changing the business model, we can create a system that both consumers and artists love.

    RepX AV is a streaming marketplace for high quality, professional content. More importantly, it is our effort to move from “the system is broken” to “let’s build a system that works.”

    RepX is also an open marketplace: participants have complete control over what they do and how they do it.

    Here’s how it works:

    1. Upload your content.

    Give us the highest quality you have, and we’ll convert it to a variety of formats for both streaming and purchase: MP3, AAC, FLAC, ALAC, etc. Your audience can choose the best format for them – like MP3s on mobile, FLAC at home.

    2. Set your prices for both purchases and streaming.

    You control your prices. Easily change them to meet your needs – like offering a flash sale on your new track to generate buzz.

    We predict that most music streams will be between 1 and 4 cents. But it’s a free marketplace – set whatever prices you want and discover what works for you.

    3. Earn money when your content is played.

    You keep 70%. We use the remaining 30% to cover merchant fees, data costs (servers, bandwidth, data centers), platform development and maintenance, and customer support.

    To keep this short and sweet, we’re leaving out a lot of details. Check out our FAQs at http://www.repx.net for more.

    By now you’ve already thought of many objections, concerns, and questions – on everything from economics to consumer experience. Over the coming weeks, we’re going to discuss them. We want to begin an ongoing conversation, and we hope you’ll actively participate in our endeavour to build a better system.

    In the meantime, if you’re interested in learning more or seeing a demo (or just sharing your thoughts), please contact us.

    Sincerely,

    Grant Henderson & Sarah Davis
    RepX

    Reply
    • P.S.

      Dear Anonymous and DNog, I’m sorry for the delay. We were 90% ready, I was excited about finally getting to talk about what we’re doing, and I jumped the gun on saying when it’d be ready – and then, of course, we immediately ran into delays. I should’ve known better than to announce a time when it wasn’t already 100% ready, but … yeah, I was super excited and my enthusiasm got the best of me. I hope you’ll forgive the late delivery. 🙂

      – Sarah

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “I’m sorry for the delay”

        OK Sarah, my apologies for calling you a psycho. 🙂

        You have indeed delivered — repx is a beautiful site, and there is a lot to digest.

        You’re probably right, though: I don’t think it’s for me. Because of the first words I see:

        Pay as you go.

        And you know, I don’t need to pay. Nobody needs to do that. Everything we want is free on YouTube.

        Except, of course, you have something else to offer? 🙂

        (Other than the much appreciated option to comment anonymously, haha…)

        Reply
        • Sarah

          That’s how it is now. Here’s a question we asked:
          Should everything be available for free on YouTube?”

          We answered “no” to that. YouTube has a lot of benefits and serves a valuable purpose. But the bottom line is that the professional video that cost $10,000 and weeks of work to create shouldn’t be forced onto the same stage as the iPhone video of a drunk girl singing ‘Shake it Off’ at a party. It is good to give amateur content a stage, but it shouldn’t necessarily be the same stage as professional content – that has the effect of devaluing the professional content.

          You should read our creator FAQs. We actually believe that the solution to artist’s problems is more complicated than assuming “this is how it should be done.” The right approach is to introduce meaningful options and flexibility in a comprehensive site, and give artists and consumers control over their participation and preferences. This lets the market – you and your fans – find the right balance, and ultimately that’s going to produce the best solution of all.

          For instance, if you read the FAQs you’ll notice that you will be able to offer your content for free on our site – including through the use of ads. But unlike YouTube, we’ll put you totally in charge of the ads (and the ad revenue).

          There is a lot to digest, because we aren’t dictating a single, fixed process: we’re offering a flexible framework – a system – for you to use however you choose.

          I hope you’ll continue to challenge me on issues and ask questions; your perspective is important and incredibly helpful (we’ve already modified some of our policies and features after considering your comments, believe it or not). And if you ever want to discuss directly or get a demo, we’re always available.

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            “But the bottom line is that the professional video that cost $10,000 and weeks of work to create shouldn’t be forced onto the same stage as the iPhone video of a drunk girl singing ‘Shake it Off’ at a party”

            But that’s what we LOVE about YouTube (and I’m the YouTube hater here, alright?): The cheap cat videos and the not so cheap Katy Perry videos side by side.

            You use YouTube for fun, you use it for work, and you use it for everything in between. It’s stupid and clever and viral, and it’s right there at your fingertips. You don’t have to go anywhere else — and you most certainly don’t have to pay as you go.

            “You should read our creator FAQs”

            Easy for you to say, I don’t have the friggin’ time, do I? 🙂 You drop a bomb and go, ‘oh, do read the FAQ’…

            “if you read the FAQs you’ll notice that you will be able to offer your content for free on our site – including through the use of ads. But unlike YouTube, we’ll put you totally in charge of the ads (and the ad revenue).”

            Right, I should’ve seen that. And it’s certainly interesting. But then I see your front page and your top selling points again:

            Affordable. Ad free.

            So it’s a bit confusing. Though I suppose we could agree on ‘flexible’.

            But again, you don’t explain what it is you have to offer.

            Exactly why would a Katy Perry fan pay to watch Dark Horse on REPX when she can watch it for free on YouTube?

          • Sarah

            Yeah, there’s a lot to read. 🙂 Sorry about that, but there’s a lot to cover and we didn’t want to ignore issues – again, we’re trying to find a solution and that means working with artists to find the right balance, not just telling you how things are going to go.

            As for YouTube…. you’re asking for a really crazy thing here, as a business. So you want consumers to be able to consume your stuff for free, but you want to get paid rates you find acceptable (which are at least higher than what you get now on YouTube)? That’s unrealistic – kind of an “eat your cake and have it too” thing. If your work has value and you want to be paid for it, then you should set a price and not make it available for free. You can’t say, “it’s free, but pay me well” (or you can, but it’s not reasonable of you).

            If you want to be paid by an advertising model, then you must accept that your content’s value (or your income) isn’t even relevant to the transaction, the business model, or the market: the payment will be determined exclusively on the value of placing an ad on your content, not on the value of your content itself. You get the benefits of huge “growth” and “viral” possibilities, but you’re giving up a lot to get it. And, of course, you don’t necessarily get rewarded, as most content doesn’t get huge or go viral even though it’s free.

            Now, another POV:
            YouTube is really an ad business, right? That means that anyone going against YouTube on advertising is competing against one of the largest players in the market for ads. You’re looking at if from your perspective, but if you want a platform with a fully ad-supported model, you have to consider how it works from the platform’s perspective. The only company really in a position to compete with YouTube as an advertising business is YouTube itself. One of the social guys – Facebook, Twitter, etc. – could get into that fight. Certainly no little upstart company. And hey, they’re all trying to get bigger into video, so you might get it.

            But, the more companies and more ads spots you have competing for ad revenue, the lower the prices are going to get. And the lower your ad revenue is going to get. YouTube sells ads, and a viable YouTube copycat means a lot more ad-selling. YouTube and Copycat will compete to sell ads, ad supply goes up, prices go down, your revenue goes down – even with the Copycat.

            Finally, you mention something interesting: that artists should use your Copycat exclusively. So we’re really already on the same page on the use of exclusivity (and even windowing, perhaps?). Even in your own argument, you’re assuming people will switch from YouTube to Copycat in order to get the content they want. I agree, but take it a step further and say that most people will pay some amount (it’s up to the market how much) in order to get that content if it’s presented properly.

            When’s the last time you said “oh, no, I really want something but a few pennies is too expensive”? We know how many people buy Spotify subscriptions; how many more are on the fence and would pay but at a different price or for different levels of consumption/access? Reason says that it’s a lot more. Based on the fact that people pay for stuff all of the time, every day (and a lot of that stuff is entertainment), my step really isn’t so outrageous.

        • Anonymous

          …I have to add that I’m truly sorry — depressed, even — so see you’ve chosen the wrong road (and yes, there is a right way and a wrong way).

          This could have been awesome. You have the talent and the resources — but the person you’re talking to here doesn’t exist:

          “You want affordable, quality content.”

          Why, oh why…

          To end this on a positive note, kind of: You and Videscape should join forces. They have the idea but no talent, you have the talent but no ideas, sigh. 🙂

          Reply
          • Sarah

            Hmm… who do you think uses iTunes? Amazon MP3? Bandcamp? Patreon? Spotify Premium? Netflix? Hulu Premium? Combined, we’re talking about a lot of people and a lot of money. (Yes, I know they’re not all music but we aren’t either – and neither is YouTube.)

            The problem is that we have two extremes. On the one hand, there’s free. On the other, there’s restrictive formats and pricing. There’s a world of possibilities in giving the market the flexibility to decide on the right price and formats for entertainment.

            This is simple economics. Right now, the person who wants to stream occasionally has no middle option – it’s ad-free, low quality or high-priced monthly subscriptions (and still not such great quality in most cases). At its most basic, our platform is about finding that untapped middle ground. We don’t want to remove either of the existing ends, we want to cater to what we suspect are the vast majority of people who fall in between those two extremes but currently can’t consume the way they prefer. And yeah, we think there’s a fortune hiding there, in plain sight.

            Patreon is actually a great example of a move toward that middle ground, and expanded market. But it primarily works around the existing problems rather than solving them; our goal is to solve them.

            I’m thrilled to discuss this, if you’re up for a serious debate – that is, providing evidence and arguments to back up conclusions, rather than just asserting conclusions.

            But in the meantime, hopefully this will cheer you up: it’s easy enough for us to switch models. It’s taken so long to announce because we’ve been building a powerhouse to run this new system of ours; the YouTube style platform is child’s play for our platform (it’s a pretty easy, straightforward model). So if you are right and there isn’t a market for what we’re doing, we can switch course in a matter of weeks. But I hope, for the sake of artists, that you’re wrong.

            (BTW, we probably have fewer resources than Videscape. We’re bootstrapped and we’re outsiders to the music industry, which makes this quite hard actually.)

          • Anonymous

            “I’m thrilled to discuss this, if you’re up for a serious debate”

            I think a serious debate starts with an answer to that Katy Perry question.

            But I really need some time to think about this now. Your project may not be what I was looking for personally, but it’s still the most interesting initiative out there right now.

            “So if you are right and there isn’t a market for what we’re doing, we can switch course in a matter of weeks.”

            Now you get my hopes up again.

            “But I hope, for the sake of artists, that you’re wrong.”

            Nothing would make me more happy.

            At any rate, you’ve been working hard on this and you made a very good first impression.

          • Sarah

            I’m really happy you’re thinking about this, thank you. 🙂 Please ask questions, and contact us for a demo of the platform. You can see from our FAQs that we are still working on how to communicate everything we’re doing in a concise, clear way; our discussions here help tremendously.

            That Katy Perry question, I think I addressed it above but my answer is ultimately the same as yours: exclusive content on a platform that artists like. You’re right to point out that having everything free on YouTube is a problem for selling access to content. The answer is don’t make everything available for free on YouTube; use it selectively and strategically. If you say to your audience, “here it is free, and here it is not free,” your audience is of course going to choose free, but it’s not necessarily because they don’t value or wouldn’t pay anything for it.

            Also, the “ad free” confusion: I’m sorry about that. I want to be open and tell you, artists, everything because I’m really excited and I want to discuss it with you; but I don’t want to tell competitors everything we’re doing ahead of time. So I’m going to take a pass on that for now, and simply say that, knowing your positions on this, I think you specifically will like what we have in store.

            This isn’t an overnight thing we’re proposing. If successful, it will represent a significant change to the industry. But it’s worth the risk and effort, as far as we’re concerned, because it’s genuinely a better system from all perspectives.

          • Anonymous

            Again, I really need to shut up and think but I have to respond to this:

            “The answer is don’t make everything available for free on YouTube”

            No, that is definitely not the answer:

            Most major artists — plus all major labels and lots of indies — simply don’t have that option, at least not for the next 2-5 years depending on their YouTube contracts.

            So their catalogs are indeed free, whether you like it or not (and I don’t) during a period that’s going to be very important to you, and you just have to deal with that reality — and be able to compete — if you want to survive.

            I still don’t understand how you’re going to do that…

            “I want to be open and tell you, artists, everything because I’m really excited and I want to discuss it with you; but I don’t want to tell competitors everything we’re doing ahead of time”

            You have already been more open than any service I know of, nobody expects you to reveal that kind of information.

          • Sarah

            Yeah, the YouTube thing is a bummer. But the reality is that, no matter what, we’re destined to start small and grow into something big over time. Even without this issue, the only way to get big fast in music is compulsory licensing, Pandora-style, or private deals with the majors, and we all know how those tend to work out for indie labels and artists. We refuse to do either of those because we think they’re wrong.

            (I mentioned once that we were considering a clause in creator contracts preventing us from hiding agreements with labels behind NDAs – we decided to go with that after all.)

            I don’t want to interrupt your thinking, so we can come back to this topic whenever you’re ready. But yes, it’ll be a while before we can compete on breadth of content … so we’ll obviously have to compete on everything else. Our strategy is to be strong everywhere YouTube is weak – and believe it or not, YouTube has some big weaknesses.

          • Anonymous

            “I don’t want to interrupt your thinking, so we can come back to this topic whenever you’re ready”

            I have reached my decision: 🙂

            What you need now is not another debate. Your head is full of words already.

            What you need is hands-on experience.

            In other words, you have to meet the tweens. And the soccer moms. And the teenagers. They will tell you why the juke-box died. And why it ain’t coming back.

            Google’s free, ad-financed video site is the world’s leading music site today — and a billion dollar buisness — because people love Free and Easy.

            Yes, there’s room for improvement. Lots and lots of it. And that’s where you want to start.

            But the tweens and the soccer moms and the teenagers will tell you all about that.

            Enjoy. 🙂

          • Sarah

            Awesome. I like that attitude. The reality is that anything new or different is ultimately an experiment (if you do it properly; that’s why we have contingencies, like I mentioned previously).

            And, you know, if I am right you’re going to be pretty happy. 🙂

          • Anonymous

            “if I am right you’re going to be pretty happy. :)”

            I know, I just can’t lose. 🙂

          • Sarah

            LOL. Sort of. You should sign up for a demo on the site, I’d love to take you through the platform and hear your thoughts (mostly objections, I’m sure) – that’s how things get better. 🙂

        • Michael

          ….And therein lies the problem, Your view that music should b free for your enjoyment F*** the Artist. You guys think that just because an Artist has a song that we’re rich. Not even close. Do you have any idea of what a high quality recording cost as a complete project (CD or album)? If not a lot of money (for the typical musician/artist) then a lot of time to learn how to do it at a pro level. Your brother or parent can put a band-aid on your cut but when it comes to surgery….you want a trained doctor. And we all know the price and educational level (years) invested in becoming a doctor. It’s too bad that people now see what musicians and singers do as “simple fun” and don’t take into account the YEARS of study and practice and gigging to get to a “Pro” level of performance. No, music can’t be “free” if you intend to support the creators who do this for a living (just like the work you do and get paid for it) so that they can create more content and entertain you on a stage. We have to be able to feed and house our families just as you would with your work (job). So please….a penny to four cents a play? How insulting must you be not to afford such a cheap price to enjoy the music of someone Else’s efforts?

          Reply
    • Anontech

      Wow…congrats on actually delivering Sarah. I shouldn’t be too far behind when it comes to my announcement. Things are heating up as suspected. A new era of music is upon us.

      Reply
      • Sarah

        Thanks! Can’t wait to hear what you’re doing. The issues facing the music industry are incredibly complex, and it will take some experimenting to come to a sustainable solution – the more people working on it, the better.

        Reply
  4. JTVDigital

    “a famous producer who does not have a clue how publishing and royalties pay-outs work publicly asks stupid questions to a YouTube rep at a conference”
    Paul, please, stop 🙂

    Seriously it sheds some light on a real issue once again: there is a HUGE need of education amongst the “music community”, loads of people do not understand anything to the ecosystem they are part of, they mix things up all the time and spread misconceptions all around…and when you’re part of a business the less you know the more screwed you can get (or feel).

    Reply
    • Name2

      I think it’d be great if that education could be available here, at Digital Music News, for starters.

      Maybe a few less “think” pieces about 10 reasons to wave your dick around at your live shows, and maybe a continuing series of background pieces on the current situation – say, from the establishment of Sound Exchange, digital piracy, Napster, and how we got to today – because history prior to that is pretty frozen in time and experience, and someone’s probably already done very good work on it.

      Trouble is, the established editorial viewpoint of this site is pretty firmly in a particular pocket, and maybe the work could be farmed out. Publicity stunts at public events are just boring. And time’s a wastin’. The companion of the lead singer of a struggling band I saw last night looks VERY pregnant. Howzabout some attention to his problems and less attention to Rodney Jerkins’ trolling or Katy Perry’s YouTube crisis?

      Reply
      • JTVDigital

        Well this “education” is available everywhere already, DMN is a music industry news site, not sure the purpose is to educate anybody.

        What I meant by this slightly harsh comment is that it is extremely worrying to see that even music professionals like this guy are asking very basic questions / don’t understand “how things work” in a domain that is supposed to be their area of expertise.

        What I’ve seen while working both with “complete indies” and artists that were once signed with labels (majors or not) is that indies are usually way more educated and skilled when it comes to copyright, publishing, etc than former signed artists, who have been voluntarily left out in the dark by their record label at the time they were signed.

        Reply
        • Name2

          Well this “education” is available everywhere already, DMN is a music industry news site, not sure the purpose is to educate anybody.

          Actual tastes of “industry news” (as opposed to propaganda) are few and far between.

          And the ignorance just among DMN’s commentariat can be pretty astounding (or a marvelous pose, however you want to see it).

          Just trying to squelch some Stupid.

          Reply
          • Sarah

            I agree. It’s not so much a matter of education as it is a matter of presenting stories with enough information to give the reader a clear and accurate impression of whatever is being discussed. News sites of all sorts have trouble with this, but it is especially important here because this industry is unusually complicated and there are so many people who don’t understand how it works.

            (Though I have a suspicion that if we took ten different industry veterans and asked them to explain how the industry works, the answers would vary in significant ways – but that’s all the more reason to be accurate and consistent on the basics.)

  5. dave chappelle

    Another idiot having an epiphany about his publishing deal. How dense is this guy that he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of his contracts.

    Reply
  6. A person with a brain

    As usual, you’ve not done enough and stopped “reporting” when you should ask more questions. What songs were the views, in which territories, what days, time of ads, what types of ads appeared, how many of the uses were embedded vs direct uses of the composition…etc, etc. what YouTube pays is on AD Revenue!!! Not a set rate like streaming. If it’s 100k views in Luxembourg the AD rate will differ from 100k view in Canada! How much of each song was his percentage? How much is his pub’s admin fee? Did those views take place before or after monetization started? Did his publisher have the right settings on his songs for the YT system to work right. ALL of these things get take into account when you start talking about what YT pays out! Do some actual reporting and digging into facts instead of being the Fox News of the music industry! Fear mongering and pitchfork waving only gets you views and thank god no respect!

    Reply
      • Name2

        DMN headlines: as time-wasting as kitty-based YT videos, but not delivering on any actual cute.

        Reply
        • JTVDigital

          That being said, the balance between appealing headlines and articles, and potentially “boring” educational content may not be that easy to find.

          Reply
  7. His lawyer

    I represent Ryan Tedder and can tell you with absolute certainty that Rodney Jenkins has no idea what he’s talking about. The royalty figure he quoted is complete fiction.

    Reply
  8. Michael

    ….And therein lies the problem, Your view that music should b free for your enjoyment F*** the Artist. You guys think that just because an Artist has a song that we’re rich. Not even close. Do you have any idea of what a high quality recording cost as a complete project (CD or album)? If not a lot of money (for the typical musician/artist) then a lot of time to learn how to do it at a pro level. Your brother or parent can put a band-aid on your cut but when it comes to surgery….you want a trained doctor. And we all know the price and educational level (years) invested in becoming a doctor. It’s too bad that people now see what musicians and singers do as “simple fun” and don’t take into account the YEARS of study and practice and gigging to get to a “Pro” level of performance. No, music can’t be “free” if you intend to support the creators who do this for a living (just like the work you do and get paid for it) so that they can create more content and entertain you on a stage. We have to be able to feed and house our families just as you would with your work (job). So please….a penny to four cents a play? How insulting must you be not to afford such a cheap price to enjoy the music of someone Else’s efforts?

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    That’s why you better make darn sure you have a good publisher that youTrust. Lakehouse Records and publishing

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *