Music Industry

Here’s another example of how streaming isn’t helping musicians–BUT I also need you to think about a few things.

Before we dive into the story of Taproot, let’s review a few things. I’m not apologizing of cheerleading for the streamers. These are just straight facts.

  1. Streamers don’t pay out as little as they do because they’re mean and are out to screw musicians. Streaming rates are negotiated with rightsholders (record labels and publishers and, in some cases, local copyright boards) every couple of years. The streamers are TOLD what they must pay in order to use this material as part of their business plan.
  2. Streaming and music sales are apples and oranges. They are not equivalent. Payment for one stream is akin to one play on the radio.
  3. The numbers involved are vastly different. A million in sales is huge. A million streams is a pittance. A “million streams” sounds big, but all that means is that out of the eight billion people on your planet, your song has only been heard a million times.
  4. Streaming is a reflection of demand. If people don’t want to listen (or if they don’t know about you), you’re not going to get paid. In other words, if your songs aren’t being streamed, it’s not the streamer’ fault.

And there’s one more thing that needs to be underscored. If you’re on the side of musicians when it comes to tiny payouts, consider this: How much would you as a music fan pay to hear a song once? Money for payments has to come from somewhere, which, in most cases outside of Spotify’s ad-supported freemium tier, comes from subscription fees. That’s you.

When you buy a CD or an LP, you own the music. It stays with you forever unless you give that disc away, lose it, or it becomes damaged. And your purchase allows you to listen to that disc an infinite number of times without incurring extra charges. That’s what you’re paying for.

For less than the price of a single CD (and a fraction of what we’re paying for new vinyl today), a streaming subscription gives you instant access to at least 120 million songs, close to the entire catalogue of every song ever recorded by humans. And that costs, what, $10.99 or a few bucks more? For a little more than $100 a year, we get ALL THE MUSIC. And we can listen to as much of it as we want for as long as we pay our monthly fee.

So before you continue to go on about low streaming payouts, consider the economics of the whole thing. Are artists getting a raw deal because streaming has replaced the bigger revenue from high-margin physical sales? Absolutely. Is it tougher for an artist to make a living these days? You bet it is. Do we need a better and more equitable system? For sure.

But again, it all comes down to you. Would you be willing to pay more for a streaming music subscription if it meant more money going to artists? Do you really care about artists’ wellbeing enough to give them more of your money? Just askin’.

With that preamble over, let’s turn to Taproot, a nu-metal band that emerged out of the late 90s. They have their fans, but they’re not exactly what you’d call super-famous. They work hard, tour a lot, and record music. And while they never sold a lot of physical product, it did help pay the bills. What they’re getting from streaming sucks big-time.

Drummer Jarrod Montague took to Facebook (via LoudWire) to show some receipts for his share from Taproot streaming revenues. It’s pretty ugly.

Alan Cross

is an internationally known broadcaster, interviewer, writer, consultant, blogger and speaker. In his 40+ years in the music business, Alan has interviewed the biggest names in rock, from David Bowie and U2 to Pearl Jam and the Foo Fighters. He’s also known as a musicologist and documentarian through programs like The Ongoing History of New Music.

Alan Cross has 39567 posts and counting. See all posts by Alan Cross

2 thoughts on “Here’s another example of how streaming isn’t helping musicians–BUT I also need you to think about a few things.

  • If a user hears a song based on an algorithm and is not a part of a user library, it’s similar to a radio play and should be paid out like a radio play.

    If a user adds a song to their personal playlists or libraries that is like a purchase. They made a conscious decision to add this song. This is more like a purchase versus an algorithm listen. In this case royalty payments for those streams should be higher.

    Royalty payments are pathetically low and need to be paid out in more equitable ways so all artists get the share they deserve for the streams served. Paying the Drakes and Swifts of the world the vast majority isn’t fair to everyone else.

    Reply
  • My question would be, just like everything else impacted by corporate greed, what percentage of streaming services’ revenues are paid out to artists? Doubling or tripling the payouts would likely still leave these companies with huge profits and dividends for shareholders. Even increasing them 10X without raising subscription prices likely wouldn’t decrease their profits significantly.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.