The Coming Battle Over Streaming Music Services
Before you go any further, read this post about David Lowery’s rant against the new digital realities facing musicians.
Done? Then proceed.
Here’s an email from Alex:
Hey Alan,
Interesting thing from David Lowery that you posted today. I posted a comment on your FB page, but I know you don’t often read those things. (I posted it more for public consumption.)
And I didn’t bother responding to Lowery directly because I resent being told “You can’t just drop hearsay, urban myths, fairytales and pretend they are facts. If you do I reserve the right to flame your ass for talking out of your ass.” In other words, don’t bother disagreeing with me–I’ll just shout you down. Screw that.
I’d still be interested in your thoughts on this, though: as compelling as much of his argument is, I find it interesting that he never mentions the music fan, also known as the customer. I remember the days of paying $20-ish for CDs, which all too often were full of forgettable filler and one or two songs that you liked.
Digital distribution has always appealed to me because it gives me a LOT more control over what I consume. I don’t have do buy shit that I don’t want because I don’t have to buy into package deals if I don’t want to.
I appreciate how the new model can be truly lousy for artists, but it seems to me that the old business model was a pretty crummy deal for customer. I’m one customer who doesn’t miss it.
Cheers,
Alex
Yeah, I thought that was an interesting way to shut down debate. That won’t stop some people from responding, though.
I’m with you. While Cracker and CVB may have been exceptions to the “two good songs and then a bunch of crap for $20” rule, they were in the minority. I will always remember being burned by albums fit that that description. That trend was at its peak in the late 90s, just as the labels phased out CD singles. Unfortunately for them, it also coincided with the debut of Napster. They’ve never recovered.
This has been great for the consumer as the power transferred to the fans. A la carte song purchases. One-click impulse buying. Instant access. No more having to actually visit a record store. An explosion in music discovery.
Meanwhile, it’s been awful for labels, of course. And it’s been not-so-great for a good many artists–like David Lowery.
We’re going to hear more from the artist side as the popularity of streaming music services continue. No artists are making any money from services like Spotify, which pays a tiny of a fraction of a cent per play. A song has to be played millions and millions of times for their to be a significant payout to the artist and the songwriter.
I predict–and it’s a Dept. of Duh prediction–that this will be the next battleground: how much should streaming services pay for the privilege of using someone else’s music in their business model? And what’s that going to mean to the consumer?
The music industry is bigger and more profitable than ever before in history. Not the recording industry, the *music* industry. Why? Humanity has created the biggest, fastest, most widespread copying machine in history – the internet. Artists can ignore this fact, if they wish, but do so at their own peril. It's simple supply and demand, and digital copies of anything are in infinite supply. Find what is actually scarce and learn to make money from that. Touring is an obvious scarcity, but there are others. Create a community with your fans and interact with them and charge them for perks and swag. Offer lessons or consulting services. Find something you provide that offers value and can't be digitally copied and redistributed and sell that. Use your music as advertising for these services and merchandise. Look at artists like Ludacris, who make a brand out of themselves and sell everything from clothing to conjac. Some see this as uncertainty and a lack of direction, others see it as a chance to be entrepreneurial and find new niche markets. Guess which people will thrive?
The clue is in that phrase "made a brand out of themselves". The new music biz is precisely all about that. Where before only 'commercial' artists were required to be brands, now even the most experimental and left field musos have to play that game. There's now no escape from it. So what about the artists who prefer to concentrate on making music rather than sell T shirts ? They're all down the job centre. Not all music is made by 'bands' and not all artists have the right attributes for 'branding'- but whereas in days gone by some might have survived on small labels, now all of them are their own label- and doing it as a hobby, because it doesn't pay at all.
I happen to know a lot who aren't even doing that. Making good music that is about music, not T shirts, is a full time job, to do it right. So they've thrown in the towel, since music itself doesn't pay anymore. That's a lot of good artists thrown in the trash.
Seems to me the balance between maker and consumer has tilted way too far one way these days. Sure, the consumer gets what he/she wants. But the musician is getting absolutely nothing, most of the time. Good luck with your brand bands, cos fairly soon they're likely to be the only ones you can find.
With all due respect, Tom Green, I think that you (like David Lowery) are longing for a golden age that never really existed. There were plenty of musicians who didn't make a dime under the old system–they couldn't get signed, or they did but their labels ripped them off or mismanaged them, or they signed but got dropped because their music just plain didn't sell.
Ask your musician friends if things were better back in the days when indie bands handed out tapes and CDs from the stage (sometimes selling them, sometimes giving them away). Ask them if things were any better back when radio stations decided whether you lived or died because it was really, really tough to get exposure any other way. In theory, you have WAY more reach through your website and through things like Facebook and iTunes than you ever could have had years ago–and it is a global reach, too (again, at least theoretically). Not a cost-free or risk-free reach, no, but there is no such thing and never has been.
It has always been very, very tough to make a living as a full-time musician–and I, too, know plenty of musicians, and they will tell you that. Most of the ones that I know have jobs which pay the bills (I have known musicians who were bartenders, waiters, cooks, sales clerks, carpenters, construction workers, receptionists, even civil servants). Painters, actors, writers…same story. And there is certainly no indignity in that, because we all have to keep the wolves away from the door somehow! So, again with all due respect, your argument about "throwing in the towel" just doesn't hold up. The arts don't pay well and certainly don't pay consistently, and never have. This is not a "digital age" phenomenon…not by a long shot.