TEXTO 1 The Music Industry Has 99 Problems. and They Are...

The Music Industry Has 99 Problems. And They Are... - Digital Music...
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/09/02/music-industr...
(/)
Follow Us
(http://www.facebook.com/digitalmusicnews)
(http://www.twitter.com/digitalmusicnws)
(http://feeds.feedburner.com
/digitalmusicnews)
Connect with:
login
Forgot Password
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com
/wp-login.php?action=lostpassword
redirect_to=http:
//www.digitalmusicnews.com/)
Register
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com
/wp-login.php?action=register)
HOME (/) JOBS (/jobs/) CONFERENCES (/conferences/)

CHARTS (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/charts)
ADVERTISE (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/advertise)
ABOUT (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/about)
The Music Industry Has 99 Problems.

And They Are
OUR
SPONSORS
Tuesday, September 2, 2014

by Paul Resnikoff (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/about/team/paul)
1 de 33
(http://72.52.81.231
/revive/www/delivery
/r16.php?oaparams=2__banneri
%3A%2F
%2Fwww.reverbnation.com%2
promotion%2Fhowto-sell-music23/09/2014 14:47
on-itunes%3Futm_source%3Dd
Most
Heated!
Fans Arent
212
Going To Pay
For Music
Anymore. And
Thats Ok.
(http://www.digitalmusicnew
/permalink
/2014/09/08/fansarent-goingpay-musicanymorethats-ok)
1. The music recording is failing. Across the board,

artists are experiencing serious problems monetizing
their audio releases.
2. Recording revenues have been declining for more than 10 years, and they continue to decline
precipitously year-over-year. This has dismantled the label system, once the most reliable form of
artist financing.
3. Digital formats continue to grow, but not enough to overcome broader declines in physical CDs.
4. Even worse, the evolution of formats keeps pushing the value of the recording downward. Streaming
pays less than downloads; downloads paid less than CDs. And the next thing after streaming will
probably be even worse.
5. There is little evidence to suggest that this downfall is being made up by touring, merchandising, or
other non-recording activities.
6. Streaming is rapidly becoming the dominant form of music consumption. It also pays artists the
worst of any formats before it.
7. Post-album, artists and labels have failed to establish a lucrative, reliable bundle to monetize their
recordings.
8. Most consumers now attribute very little value to

the recording itself, and most consumption (through
YouTube, ad-supported piracy, or BitTorrent)
happens at little-to-zero cost to the listener.
2 de 33
The Music
107
Industry Has 99
Problems. And
They Are
/permalink
/2014/09
/02/musicindustry99-problems)
17 Ways to Kill 146

a Music Career
/permalink
/2014/06/09/17ways-kill-musiccareer)
12 Things You
269
Should Never
Say To A
Musician
/permalink
/2014/06/02/12things-to-neversay-toa-musician)
A Grammy
434
Nominated
Artist Shares His
Royalty
Statements.
/permalink
/2014/04
/03/streamingstatements
23/09/2014 14:47
9. A generally uncertain economic climate only adds to consumer resistance against paying for music.
10. A massive, decades-long shift towards free (or near-free) music means that entire generations have
never paid anything for recordings. And will continue to resist any requirements to pay for music.
11. Streaming has largely failed artists and

independent labels.
The 13 Most
464
Insidious,
Pervasive Lies of
the Modern
Music
Industry
/permalink
/2013/09/25/lies)
12. The leading streaming music companies YouTube/Google, Spotify, and Soundcloud are also
the most duplicitous and damaging towards artists.
13. Streaming services like Spotify offer very little transparency on their payout structures, which
makes it a low-trust partner for artists.
14. Even worse, Spotify is suspected of completely misrepresenting its per-stream payout structure,
based on discrepancies with extremely low rates publicly published by actual artists (usually on Digital
Music News, here (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/04/03/streamingstatements), here
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02/24/successful2014), and here
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/11/26/spotifypremiumadsupported).)
15. Indies and smaller artists also complain that their rates are lower than bigger, major labels. Some
have pointed to different tiers of compensation, though few have a concrete idea on exactly how payouts
are structured (see #13).
16. Payouts to artists are not only hard to figure out, they are almost universally low and cannibalistic
towards other, more lucrative formats. Which is why artists like Rihanna and Taylor Swift have opted
not to license Spotify. And why Taylor Swifts label, Big Machine Records, has indicated that no future,
frontline releases will be licensed to Spotify.
17. Spotify actually pays the labels, often with huge, multi-million dollar advances and/or equity
positions attached. But labels frequently dont pay their artists, either for legitimate (ie, the artist is
unrecouped) or illegitimate (ie, theyre screwing the artist) reasons.
18. The priorities of streaming services like Spotify skew towards acquisitions, IPOs, and other
liquidation events, not towards the interests of content holders and artists. And if you doubt that, just
ask Goldman Sachs (a $50 million-plus Spotify investor). Which means artist payout issues may improve
somewhat, but probably not dramatically.
19. Even worse, the interests of the major labels are very similar, which explains the massive percentage
shares awarded to major labels by streaming services. These percentages are awarded in exchange for
content licensing (just recently, Universal Music Group received $404 million
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/08/01/universal-music-makes-330-million-beatsacquisition-artists-make-0) from the sale of Beats).
(And why major labels are pushing for a Spotify sale north of $10 billion
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/06/11/major-labels-trying-sell-spotify-10-billionsources-say))
20. Even worse than than, labels pay nothing from these cash-out windfalls to their artists, based
on artist contract terms that have now been published (on Digital Music News).
+Heres Another Way That Artists Get Screwed Out of Their Streaming Royalties
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/07/28/heres-another-way-major-labels-screw-artistsstreaming-royalties)
21. Google, the most influential company in the music industry, is actively resisting any efforts to reduce
piracy across its key platforms, Search and YouTube.
22. Google is also working against the interests of indie labels, and has recently used its market power
to force unfavorable licensing terms upon them.
3 de 33
23/09/2014 14:47
+F*&K It: Heres the Entire YouTube Contract for Indies (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com
/permalink/2014/06/23/fk-heres-entire-youtube-contract-indies)
23. Streaming has caused piracy to wane, though free MP3 and torrent sites remain a serious problem
for many rights owners.
24. The number of people actually paying for streaming services remains relatively low, especially
when compared to the broader population of music fans. Part of the problem is that music fans are
often extremely reluctant to upgrade from free, ad-supported, or carrier-bundled services.
+Exclusive: Spotify Crosses 11 Million Paying Subscribers (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com
/permalink/2014/07/15/exclusive-spotify-crosses-11-million-paying-subscribers)
25. Downloads remain a more lucrative purchase for artists (and labels), despite rhetoric indicating
otherwise. Sorry, most fans arent streaming songs thousands of times, even on their favorite tracks.
26. Its harder than ever for a newer artist to get

noticed.
27. The artist has greater and more direct access to fans than ever before in history. Unfortunately, so
do millions of other artists.
28. Indeed, the typical music fan is flooded with music, not to mention videos, games, ebooks, and
porn, all of which makes it extremely difficult to win and retain the attention of future fans.
29. This also puts pressure on the artist to shorten the release cycle, and pump out content at a quick
pace.
30. The artist currently lacks a centralized hub online that is a default for music fans, thanks to the
erosion of MySpace Music. Facebook was once viewed as a replacement for MySpace Music, until the
major shift to Timeline.
31. Even worse, Facebook is now charging artists to reach their own fans, a move it defends as
necessary given massive increases in Facebook posts that are overwhelming users.
+An Artist Asks Facebook: Why Do I Have to Pay to Reach My Fans?
(http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/05/08/artistasksfacebookwhydoihavetopay)
32. All of which sort of makes the Facebook Like a necessary win, but a difficult victory to celebrate.
33. 99.9% of all artists cannot make a living wage off of their music, based on stats gleaned from
TuneCore.
34. In fact, David Lowery, a top thinker in the space and an artist himself, feels that artists are worse off
now than they were in the analog era. And, he points to lower payments, less control, a shift in revenue
towards tech companies, and less secure copyright protections to prove his case.
35. Most artists are overwhelmed with tasks that go far beyond making music. That includes
everything from Tweeting fans, updating Facebook pages, managing metadata, uploading content,
interpreting data, managing Kickstarter campaigns, and figuring out online sales strategies.
36. The average musician is underemployed. According to a musician survey conducted by the Future
of Music Coalition (FMC), just 42 percent of musicians are working full-time in music. The rest are
complementing their music with day jobs that have little or nothing to do with music.
37. Musician salaries are low. Also according to the FMC survey, the average musician makes $34,455
a year from music-specific gigs, with overall incomes (music+non-music) averaging $55,561.
38. Musicians are increasingly playing free shows, in the hopes of getting paid work down the line.
According to a recently-released report from the UK-based Musicians Union, more than 60 percent of
artists have played at least one free gig in the last year.
4 de 33
23/09/2014 14:47
39. Even monstrously-large video superstars like OK Go can have trouble generating significant revenue
(based on their own admission). And, big sponsors like State Farm can only attach themselves to so
many videos.
40. Artists live under the constant threat of leaks, especially popular artists. And the worst result is the
leak of an unreleased, half-baked recording, an issue recently experienced by both Skrillex and Ryan
Leslie.
41. Information overload and massive media fragmentation have made it very difficult for music fans to
even notice releases exist even if they are dedicated fans.
42. Crowdsourcing worked for Amanda Palmer,

though there are serious questions about whether it
can work systematically for smaller artists who have
never been signed to a major label or experienced
significant financial support in the past.
43. Vinyl LPs are surging year-over-year, but still represent a tiny
fraction of recordings purchased.
44. The production infrastructure around vinyl continues to ramp up slowly, and producing vinyl can be
incredibly difficult. Some facilities are expanding, though production delays are often the norm and
hurting this markets growth.
45. Vinyl is bad for the environment. That also goes for other revenue-generators like t-shirts and
merchandise.
46. Actually, so is digital: some environmentalists theorize that the digital transition may actually
be more damaging to our Earth than physical. Part of the reason is that cloud-hosting requires
massive server facilities while consuming massive amounts of energy and pumping out lots of waste.
47. On top of that, digital formats only coexist alongside physical devices like iPads, iPhones, laptops,
and sophisticated headphones, all of which gets thrown away and replaced after a few years (or
shorter).
48. Traditional record stores have largely imploded,

with holdouts like Amoeba now relics of an earlier
era.
49. Record Store Day has helped stem the decline among smaller record stores, though many complain
that major labels are now flooding RSD stores with crappy products. Others regard RSD as a mere
band-aid against the inevitable.
50. Either way, the biggest releases always go to the biggest brick-n-mortar stores: Target, Best Buy, or
Wal-Mart.
51. Yet these larger, big box retailers are accelerating the downward spiral in CD sales, both by
dramatically reducing shelf space (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/04/08/walmarthalf)
and by pushing pricing aggressively downwards (often to $5 or less). This is happening even
though older demographics are often still receptive to the format.
5 de 33
23/09/2014 14:47
52. Major labels, once the most reliable form of

financing for new and established artists, are now a
fraction of their former selves.
53. And thanks to heavy financial pressures, the creative process at major labels has
become increasingly formulaic, overly refined, and often unsatisfying to the artists involved.
54. A large number of legacy artists are now suing their major labels, arguing that downloads should be
classified as licenses instead of sales. And, thanks to a monumental victory by F.B.T. Productions,
this shift will create a massive financial obligation for labels.
55. Most people who work at major labels have very low job security. Which makes it difficult for
them to develop longer-term artist careers, not to mention those of the artists they represent.
56. Younger people are not generally not interested in working at labels anymore, which makes it harder
for those companies to innovate.
57. Instead of enjoying some theoretical resurgence, indie labels are mostly getting squeezed by
devalued and declining recordings, piracy, and far greater leverage from artists themselves.
58. A once-promising shift towards 360-degree models never quite generated enough money for major
labels, even though major labels generally insist on broader rights deals with all new artists.
59. Established music companies often overpay their executives by a wild margin, despite massive
and ongoing losses. That may have the effect of skewing the executive focus towards personal
enrichment, while sending red flags to investors. Glaring examples of this include Warner Music Group,
Live Nation, and Pandora, among others. The RIAA also suffers from this convoluted compensation
problem.
60. Very little innovation now comes from inside the industry.
Instead, it is now dictated by non-industry players like Facebook,
YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram.
61. A broader brain drain in the music industry, across both traditional and technology sides, has
dampened innovation in the space.
62. A large percentage of live music fans are

frustrated with high ticket prices at concerts, and
gouging on in-venue items like beer.
63. All of which means that fans now regard live concerts as a one-off, infrequent event, instead of a
regular outing. In fact, the average consumer goes to just 1.5 shows a year (per Live Nation
Entertainment).
64. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, touring is actually extremely difficult and expensive for most artists.
Even for more established artists like Imogen Heap, who stopped touring despite solid crowds.
65. And, the secondary ticketing market is often fed before the actual market, thanks to bots,
aggressive scalpers, or the artists and ticketing providers themselves.
6 de 33
23/09/2014 14:47
66. Fans frequently miss shows from their favorite artists, even when these artists roll into their
hometowns.
67. But wait: despite an on-rush of apps and services like Songkick and Bandsintown, attendance at
shows hasnt really increased that much.
68. And, attempts to monetize live streams (or previously-recorded gigs) remains a speculative bet that
has yet to pay off.
69. Meanwhile, service fees continue to outrage fans, even though artist guarantees and advances are
often a culprit (but its complicated)
70. Classical orchestras and ensembles continue to struggle, thanks to a continuing problem
invigorating younger audiences. That has forced lots of smaller-market orchestras to downsize or
discontinue, while applying plenty of pressure to bigger-city orchestras as well.
71. Merch table CDs, once a very solid source of on-the-road revenue for developing bands, has now
evaporated.
72. Traditional radio tends to play the same 14

songs in heavy rotation, with mind-numbing
regularity and lots of commercials.
73. And, this repetitive playlist is often cloned throughout the United States, thanks to formatting
homogeneity and heavy ownership consolidation.
74. Even worse, a lot of listeners dont seem to mind. Which means very little music actually gets into
rotation and discovery becomes harder.
75. Traditional radio doesnt pay for the performance of recordings. And, if theyre ever forced to,
theyll probably play fewer songs, or sign more direct deals with labels like Big Machine Records.
76. Internet radio has failed artists and publishers.

77. Songwriters are increasingly getting screwed by digital formats, including internet radio. In one
disclosure, songwriter Desmond Child reported more than 6 million plays on Pandora for Livin On a
Prayer, only to receive a check for $110. Ellen Shipley, a songwriter whose biggest hit was Heaven Is
a Place on Earth, received $39 for more than 3.1 million plays.
78. Yet Pandora, the largest internet radio provider, still cant make a consistent profit.
79. But that hasnt stopped Pandora executives like Tim Westergren from cashing in tens of millions in
stock.
80. Meanwhile, Pandora has burned the IPO prospects of companies like Spotify, thanks to endless
profitability problems and massive executive cashouts.
81. And, Pandora still cant effectively license in most countries outside of the US. Most notably, that
includes the UK (though the company recently found a way to enter Australia and New Zealand).
82. But this isnt just Pandoras problem. Last.fm, for example, was forced to severely curtail their
internet radio services based on licensing costs.
83. All of which is why in the US, Pandora is asking Congress to lower the royalties it pays to
labels (via SoundExchange). But artists already feel like theyre getting screwed, which is why they
now hate Pandora.
7 de 33
23/09/2014 14:47
84. Meanwhile, the royalties that are being paid to SoundExchange often end up in massive, unpaid
piles. That is, hundreds-of-millions-large piles of unpaid collections. Which of course,
SoundExchange doesnt like to talk about but collects interest on.
85. A good music education is now a difficult, risky

investment.
86. And the costs are becoming exorbitant: conservatories and music schools like Berklee charge
exorbitant amounts for their programs, though post-graduation job and income prospects are generally
dim. Indeed, the cost of attending Berklee College of Music for one year is $62,319 according to the
school, which is actually on-par with institutions like Julliard and Oberlin.
87. Music fans have access to more music than ever, but are often completely overwhelmed. This often
results is less interest in music that isnt heavily promoted, already established, or somehow viral.
88. The Long Tail was mostly a fantasy, and so is the concept that great music naturally finds its
audience. Buried gems remain buried in the digital era, while the most successful artists still seem to be
those with the best backing and money.
89. Music conferences are often expensive, both in

terms of time and money.
90. There are also too many of them. Which is why music conferences frequently repeat the same
information, over and over again.
91. Music conferences are sometimes held in far away, difficult-to-reach places, and last for days.
Which also means that music conferences can be giant distractions from work that needs to get
done back at your office.
92. Non-stop, on-the-go music listening could be killing the ears of an

entire generation.
93. The world has progressed past the white earbud. The only problem is that lots of users are blasting
headphones non-stop, with little regard for near-certain ear damage ahead. Which is why numerous
reports continue to ring the alarm on future hearing loss.
94. Piracy didnt go away. It merely wears a new

disguise.
95. The DMCA, once considered a reasonable method for flagging and removing infringing content
while protecting online companies from liability, has now become an unmanageable and dysfunctional
process for most content owners.
96. Even worse, the DMCA has become a highly-profitable, aggressive, and artist-unfriendly loophole
for companies like Grooveshark.
97. Yet Google also remains a huge part of the problem. Searching for torrents and pirated material is
not only easy, its frequently auto-completed for the user in Googles searchbox. Or, worse, delivered
in email as part of a Google Alert.
98. The RIAA, a group with only limited success fighting piracy and more powerful tech, radio, and
other lobbies, remains a questionable luxury for major labels. In fact, top RIAA executives like CEO
Cary Sherman are still somehow pulling multi-million dollar salaries from their major label constituents,
despite questionable effectiveness.
8 de 33
23/09/2014 14:47
99. The RIAA has also burned endless amounts of money chasing defendants like Jammie Thomas, who
was initially fined millions for downloading 24 songs to the Supreme Court. That case lasted for more
than 7 years after endless challenges, with a near-zero impact on file-sharing and piracy levels. In fact,
a lot of that stuff simply doesnt matter anymore.
Image: Korean Train Wreck (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dok1/4233473301/in/photolist-7s6E7ZdAmGnw-o89iYF-dgWHc1-615wU2-d2nrU-3hq9qa-hLbckM-gpkywH-opqFoG-o7bTZ5-hdgFqdAmGw7-9N9Lpw-o89hzZ-gS5YCf-fiF6U6-dfW2GM-9uMvMF-8p27tU-6MkWQn-7kLYjw-7kLYfJ9RUN5Y-6aLqCw-7kLYn3-7YUjEE-88Mu9i-dxcTCr-7StQJ-JNewV-dcknDL-8dd27w-8dd275-8d9HpB5rTVjv-7xtq1t-dckmEt-6JdG8f-7YR6EB-7YR6GK-4JPnDB-5mrj6-7vhNQU-8Uz258-jXqTeW-bfcwFa9VWobS-aGivQD-dckmBP) by Don OBrien, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
Generic (CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)).
+Yes You Need T-Shirts (http://72.52.81.231/revive/www/delivery

/r16.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=34__zoneid=21__cb=4af88be345__oadest=http%3A%2F
%2Fgoo.gl%2FHaPJ84)
Share this:
9 de 33
4 points
Tweet 399
Like 6.1k
Comments (107)
eva braun Tuesday, September 2, 2014
problem #100: to less blacks and gays in the music companies
Reply (/permalink/2014/09/02/music-industry-99-problems?replytocom=127120#respond)
Anonymous Tuesday, September 2, 2014
#101:
Avoid worthless spammers like you without compromising free speech.
TuneHunter Tuesday, September 2, 2014
I will take advantage of this inappropriate comment.
MUSIC HAS TO BE LOCKED UP TO BECOME MERCHANDISE AGAIN all
problems gone!
Next day Radio and streaming can convert to gigantic $100B music store.
YouTube as a central hub and a wholesaler can have 50% of this pie I hope Google
will convert from religion of ads to era of direct monetization, I hope $50B dollar carrot
will give us sanity and key to new music industry.
GOOGLE IS THE KEY lets be fair to own greed and musicians.
Reply (/permalink/2014/09/02/music-industry99-problems?replytocom=127243#respond)
JohnsTheLastWord Monday, September 8, 2014
Eva, please take your non-topic comments to a forum that is on your topic. I for one and I
know many others are sick and fucking tired of the constant banging of the drum and
inserting your topic of concern into ANY TOPIC weather it happens to pertain to it or not.
MOST people do not, for instance go to an article talking about the problems of GMOs and
23/09/2014 14:47
10 de 33
state their status of liking to have sex with others of the opposite sex. IT DOES NOT
PERTAIN to the topic, and others reading it would think it is just think WTF does that have
to do with what we are talking about?. Please take your soap box and go to a more
appropriate conversation.
Dude, its a novelty account and a troll, just ignore it. Eva Braun was hitlers girlfriend,
theres nothing serious about that comment.
We all know the problems but how do we solve them?
Suggestion for your next headline:
3 Easy Ways To Solve The Music Industrys Problems
1) Encourage your local politicians to stop the theft of all types of Intellectual Property. Not for the
sake of artists, but because IP-theft is the biggest threat to global economy today.
2) Encourage artists never to stream their music during the first week after release.
3) Encourage artists never to use streaming services such as YouTube Music Key that force rights
holders to make their entire catalogs available on the service for free on release day. Use new
streaming sites like Videscape.com instead.
Adam Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Indeed. How do we solve them?
I read a lot of whining here on this site but no one has yet to come up with a working
solution (no TuneHunter, youre just rambling). Until then youre stuck with what you have.
Indeed. How do we solve them?
I think you should consider 3 suggestions mentioned above.
They address the three primary problems we face right now: Piracy, streaming,
YouTube Music Key.
GGG Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Your number 2 is not as black and white as you think it is, especially in regard to
size of band. The root of that problem is how much music is constantly being
released. Whether you think its bad or not, whether you think it hurts financially
or not, is all pretty irrelevant. For most bands, its not even about finances
anymore, its about opening up even just a sliver of access to more people.
Reply (/permalink/2014/09/02/music-industry23/09/2014 14:47
11 de 33
99-problems?replytocom=127152#respond)
GGG, most artists sell the vast majority of their DLs during release week.
Thats why it is so important to follow two simple rules if you want to make
money:
1) Dont stream during release week
2) Use a good anti-piracy service during release week
Nobody makes any money from one weeks streaming, so theres nothing
to lose but everything to gain by keeping your work off streaming in the first
critical days.
See, your problem, and what Id put as a top ten problem for the
industry, is that people like you think what works for Beyonce will
work for Joe Shmoes Random Band. And what works for them will
work for every other DIY artist, regardless of genre. And what works
for any DIY artist would certainly work for any bigger indie. And on
and on. And its just not the case.
For example, sure, most artists sell the majority of their DLs first
week.if anyone knows/cares who the fuck they are. If not, which is
most bands, then if you hit at all it will most likely be later than the
first week. Was Lordes biggest EP sale week the week it was
released? I highly doubt it because nobody knew who she was. Her
LP? Probably because by then Royals was a smash. Not to mention,
most bands sell shit anyway. Whats better; allowing an infinite
amount of people to hear your music or having $100 more and feeling
good about sticking it to the man?
sure, most artists sell the majority of their DLs first week.if
anyone knows/cares who the fuck they are. If not, which is
most bands
You dont solve any of the industrys primary problems by
discussing artists nobody knows or cares about.
If nobody knows you, or nobody cares about you, then you
should work on that.
The industrys primary problems are that consumers dont pay
the artists they know, love and care about.
The reasons they dont that are piracy and streaming and
you can find the solutions to both in my previous comment
above.
23/09/2014 14:47
12 de 33
Ok, so we should only care about acts after they are

already big enough to make plenty of money from sticking
their face on shit. Gotcha.
Well, I just dont know why we should care about a
band nobody else cares about.
Again, the problem is that consumers dont pay
artists they do care about and Ive listed 3 ways
to solve that problem.
Because in your myopic view of the industry, a
band people care about is one thats on Top 40
radio. You lack the fundamental understanding
that theres plenty of acts that play to
anywhere from 100-5k people at shows that
are, comparatively to Top 40 acts, complete
nobodies.

No, Im concerned about any decent act.
And most of them will benefit from my 3
propositions.

Concerned, sure. Have any clue how shit
works these days for non-superstar
performers? Dont think so.

Yeah I do and I know there are many way
to skin a cat.
In fact, there are as many as there are
acts/cats, (funny acronym, btw, haha). It has to
be that way now. Everybody has to invent her
own way.
But that doesnt mean you cant say a few
things in general.
And I dare you to show me any act thatll lose
a single cent from 1 weeks windowing.
It may sound like a minor detail to you, but
staying away from streaming during release
23/09/2014 14:47
13 de 33
week can make a huge difference to many

cats.

Well, no shit, I never said otherwise. In fact,
Ive defended windowing for levels of acts on
this site numerous times. But youre just
ignoring a huge number of bands because
again, you really dont know what goes on
outside the writing room.
On that note, Ive got a show to go to so youll
have to argue with someone else.

1. Supply side solutions to a consumer side lack of demand are doomed to fail. Increasing prices
(without increasing value) at a time when consumers value music less and less is a surefire way to
make sure fewer and fewer people are paying for music at all.
2. Youtube pays nothing for most streams, and is used by basically everyone to listen to music.
Spotify, a small minority of total music streaming, at least pays half a penny or so per stream. Yet
even this article on problems in the music industry repeatedly demonized Spotify and doesnt make
clear that Youtube is a far bigger problem at the moment.
Youtube is a far bigger problem [than Spotify]
No, it isnt but it will be when Google launches youtubemusickey.com
Yes, it is.
Well, theres really no point in arguing the free YouTube will be dead & gone
in a few months.
And from then on youll be right.
You seriously think that Spotify is a bigger problem when Youtube pays far
less and is used almost 10x more?What is your reasoning?
23/09/2014 14:47
14 de 33

What is your reasoning?
You know one part of the answer already: The current, free version of
YouTube is far more popular than Spotify.
And its far more popular because it has video and because you can
share the content (it isnt hidden behind a paywall as is the case with
Spotify and the next version of YouTube).
Please see the other part in my reply below (i.e. you can upload and
monetize non-cannibalizing content to the current free version of
YouTube, while you cant do any of that with Spotify or YouTube
Music Key).
Except look at the actual users. 40M (at most) Spotify users
stream music almost as much as 1BILLION YTers.
I dont get why I have to keep saying this to you. What about
those numbers dont you understand or take issue with?
Youre beating a dead horse, GGG.
The free YouTube is over. Im interested in the future.
Hahah, youinterested in the futurehahha, good
one.
So a service that is clearly used very effectively by a
small amount of people isnt good enough for you?
Weird.
Also, you should be thanking YouTube they did
something to make you hate them. It saved you from
having to admit how far up your ass your head is.
youinterested in the future
Well, you keep talking about the past (that old
YouTube/Spotify conflict).
I keep talking about the huge changes that are
just around the corner
23/09/2014 14:47
15 de 33

Using it to prove a point; that Spotify, from the
consumer usage standpoint, is incredibly
effective. Making Spotify pay more is another
story, but at least we know people on Spotify
are incredibly active when you compare them
to another, enormous streaming service with
more to it. (The videos you love so much.)

The videos you love so much.
The point is not if I love videos.
People do!
And I tell you, Spotify will never survive
without them. Its over.

According to the website digitalmusicnews.com earlier this year, Youtube music
streams make up an estimated 24.4% of total music streams, while Spotify makes up
an estimated 2.8% of total music streams. So, its a reasonable conclusion that almost
10x as much music is being streamed on Youtube compared to Spotify.
Source: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02
/13/youtubepandoracontrol (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02
/13/youtubepandoracontrol)
its a reasonable conclusion that almost 10x as much music is being streamed
on Youtube compared to Spotify
Not sure what youre trying to say?
It is very easy to make money from the current version of YouTube without
any cannibalizing! You do that in two ways:
1) Upload non-cannibalizing previews, behind-the-scenes, etc. while you make
exclusive iTunes releases.
2) Monetize similar non-cannibalizing user generated content.
You cant do any of that on Spotify!
However, you cant do any of that on YouTube Music Key, either.
So again:
The current, free version of YouTube is a wonderful service for artists today
perhaps even as good as iTunes while the next version, YouTube Music Key,
is the most destructive attack on the music industry weve seen since Napster.
Heres an exerpt from Googles new infamous YouTube Music Key contract:
Catalogue Commitment and Monetization. It is understood that as of the
Effective Date and throughout the Term, Providers entire catalogue of
Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos (including Provider
Music Videos delivered via a third party) will be available for the Premium
23/09/2014 14:47
16 de 33
and Free Services for use in connection with each type of Relevant Content,
(excluding AudioSwap Recordings, which will be at Providers option) and set to
a default policy of Monetize for both the Premium and Free Services, except as
otherwise set forth in this Agreement. Further, Provider will provide Google
with the same Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos on
the same day as it provides such content to any other similarly situated
partners. The foregoing will be subject to reasonable quantity of limited-time
exclusive promotional offers (in each case, with a single third party partner)
(Limited Exclusives), as long as a) Provider provides Google with comparable
exclusive promotional offers and b) the quantity and duration of such Limited
Exclusives do not frustrate the intent of this Agreement.
This means that you will never sell a song again if you sign Googles new
YouTube contract! Your entire catalogue will be available not only as
streaming, but as free download as well on YouTube on release day!
This completely ignores the way that Youtube is practically used for
99.99% of artists. The fact that there ARE ways to successfully use
Youtube (with hundreds and hundreds of manhours) doesnt really change
the facts of the way that Youtube IS used by the vast majority.
Well, again: It doesnt make sense to discuss the free version of
YouTube anymore.
YouTube Music Key is just around the corner and its going to change
everything for the worse.
I dont get you. You clearly only care about major label artists
anyway, so why would this new YT be a problem? Not like acts
dont sign their souls away to majors already anyway.
You clearly only care about major label artists
Nothing could be more wrong.
In my eyes, it has been a mistake to sign with major labels
since around 2008-2010, but Im convinced its an
absolute disaster today for the simple reason that you sign
with Google if you sign with a major.
so why would this new YT be a problem?
The new YouTube is going to eliminate whats left of the
23/09/2014 14:47
17 de 33
established industry: Major label artists, iTunes and all

audio-only streaming sites.
Indies hold the key now.
lol, see what I mean, Paul?
were several Anoymouses here so you may want to repeat your point, if you
want anybody to see it
Versus Sunday, September 7, 2014
Very true about YouTube. There are not only tracks, but so many entire ALBUMS on
YouTube, without even ads on them, meaning the artists, writers, publishers etc. are not
making a cent, but instead losing money on potential sales or legitimate streams.
Most ridiculous of all are the comments on such YouTube videos: listeners thanking the
uploader for sharing, and the uploader modestly congratulating himself for being such a
generous human being.
Its so easy to share someone elses work, just like spending someone elses money.
Anonymous Sunday, September 7, 2014
the uploader modestly congratulating himself for being such a generous human
being
Haha, yeah thats priceless.
X Tuesday, September 2, 2014
17 & 20 should be first and second
Music streaming companies pay several millions to the major labels both as upfront guarantees and
then on a monthly basis with a ~60% revenue share for themselvesequity is also often
negotiated. Some would say the big 3 are comparable to the mafia towards the artists & the
streaming companies
YZ Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Exactly!!
23/09/2014 14:47
18 de 33
Again Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Another article filled with hyperbole, opinion, and incorrect information masquerading as news.
Blog, not news Tuesday, September 2, 2014
I think anyone who reads this and Hypebot have long ago figured out this is not a news site.
Is there a true, honest-to-god, unbiased music tech trade?
Kyle Williams Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Well put.
News by its nature should be boring and devoid of subjective opinions. Its important
to think about what DMNs bottom line is to keep it running as a business. Thats web
traffic to the content to bring in advertising dollars. You can see it on their advertising
page. Also look at a list of their sponsors.
Creating posts like these, especially being really negative, I think pulls in a lot of
readers.
Music news are available all over the place, but you need analysis as well. And
thats what you get here from time to time.
The debates are valuable too from time to time and you really cant say
that about Hypebot or any other site Im aware of. Gearslutz had a nice music
industry/music politics forum, but Jules shut it down, probably because of all the
fights. Fortunately, Paul seems to thrive on war.
What I personally miss here is more emphasis on solutions than on conflicts
from time to time. Articles and discussions keep circling, round and round, going
nowhere except down the drain.
We all know that artists cant make money from Spotify, that piracy hurts
everybody, that consumers need good and cheap solutions, that artists need a
MySpace replacement and a YouTube replacement and better payment, but
what the fuck are we going to DO about it?
I would like to see more emphasis on results, conclusions, consequences.
It would be far more helpful to call out in specific detail the hyperbole, counter the
opinion, and correct the incorrect information
.otherwise your own comment sounds like hyperbole, opinion, and incorrect
information.
DeezNizzuhh Tuesday, September 2, 2014
23/09/2014 14:47
19 de 33
The music industry is simple to understand.

PIMP vs. HEAUX
Its the American way. And to deny that fact is even more American.
B-boys Tuesday, September 2, 2014
The only reasonable source of income today is gigs. Sorry for the product placement, but we at
Beatsy have built the platform that is going to solve this problem for artists. Using Beatsy as an
artist is 100% free, and we dont take a cut from the artists fee at all, but instead charge a tiny 9%
fee from the booker.
Check us out at https://www.beatsy.co (https://www.beatsy.co)
Cmonbro Tuesday, September 2, 2014
If you are at the top.. you do not have any of these issues
so
make it to the top..
How do you figure?
Even sales at the top are down, down, down
This only solves the problem for the few at the top, where there is very little room. If
someone makes it to the top, that displaces someone else. A zero-sum game. Hardly a
solution for everyone else.
The artist currently lacks a centralized hub online that is a default for music fans, thanks to the
erosion of MySpace Music. Facebook was once viewed as a replacement for MySpace Music,
until the major shift to Timeline
So, why dont you launch one, Mr. Resnikoff?
Good observation, though. Also regarding Facebook. I compared a major artists various social
network offerings yesterday:
Her Twitter was updated 5-10 times a day; her Facebook once or twice a week and her most
recent MySpace entry was from May.
Which leads me to this:
I think Twitters the next big thing. And I know its pretty big already, but it could be so much
bigger, and so much more important for artists without boring the crap out of non-artists, as
was the case with MySpace, and without boring the crap out of everybody in general, as is the
case with Facebook now.
Twitter seems to make the right decisions again and again, as opposed to Facebook, Google and,
23/09/2014 14:47
20 de 33
lately, Apple; they are fast and furious, easy and funny, and the results are visible everywhere: TV
and news sites rarely bother to interview people anymore they bring the latest tweets.
It may not be a centralized hub, as I suppose you define it since it also uses a timeline and some
scrolling is required, but it does add a useful personal central where you can link to your
personal web site. And thats really all you need when you have constant live interaction with fans
in which you can link to iTunes and anything else again and again. Plus you can embed anything,
including less known but better paying YouTube alternatives that allow you to avoid Google
without losing any video traffic.
It doesnt get much more centralized than that imo. And I think its important for whats left of the
industry to invest its remaining energy in one platform and to do it now.
As you say, Facebook is really not on the map anymore; Google is, well, evil, Amazon could be
interesting with Twitch and all had it not been for the fact that its even more evil than Google, and
Apple just doesnt seem to move anymore; it couldve done anything with all its money, all its
content, its good intentions, love for music and incredible infrastructure. But it doesnt even have a
social function, though it have dozens of popular forums.
All in all, my moneys on #TwitterHub
Google also remains a huge part of the problem. Searching for torrents and pirated material is
not only easy, its frequently auto-completed for the user in Googles searchbox. Or, worse,
delivered in email as part of a Google Alert.
Google needs to be sued.
Gordon Clarke Wednesday, September 3, 2014
My heart truly go out to all musicians, songwriters and engineers. Im just glad and feel very
honored that I get to at least expressively tell my children storys on how music was (concerts
festivals new release datesmost of all the joys of hearing a new song that you could emotionally
bond to> whether it be funny sad uplifting energetic or just downright awesome> instead of
hearing older songs repeat them- selfs to the point becoming an eco of sounds) before it was
ripped away from Earth by geed!! By people that had honestly had nothing to do with making the
music and Certainly had know right to even profit a dime. (The day music-talent was stolen away.)
GGG Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Gimme a break. People still connect to music as emotionally as they ever have. Recorded
music didnt give people that, unless youre also going to tell us people like Mozart had no
emotional effect on people.
Anonymous Wednesday, September 3, 2014
23/09/2014 14:47
21 de 33
David Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Interesting comments here from David Lowery, particularly where he claims that one of the major
labels is bitterly regretting signing up to streaming. http://www.salon.com/2014/08
/31/david_lowery_heres_how_pandora_is_destroying_musicians/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/08
/31/david_lowery_heres_how_pandora_is_destroying_musicians/)
one of the major labels is bitterly regretting signing up to streaming
Thats just the beginning. Wait till they understand what they did when they signed Googles
new YouTube contract.
dude Wednesday, September 3, 2014
David Lowery has no fucking idea what hes talking about as usual how he managed to
become the presss go-to authority on music royalties is beyond me
Anonymous Thursday, September 4, 2014
Yeah majors are crying all the way to the bank with the BILLIONS of free money (ie. that
they dont have to share with artists) they get.
Dr. VonCueBall Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Again and until for the umpteenth time the PROs finally get their act together and threaten to all
pull copyrighted content simultaneously and actually do it from any and all sources not paying
correct amounts quarters, nickels, dimes, pennies, will remain fractions of mills with no bottom in
site.
It will take dead silence for a period of time for those idiots in congress to understand an artist
deserves to be compensated fairly for use of his or her works. Imagine Radio stations gone silent
23/09/2014 14:47
22 de 33
for a month with only chatter box talking heads on every station and no musical content.
the Doctor
Sven Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Maybe the problem is the understanding of how we measure the value of music.
Only 50-60 years ago musicians did not earn significant amounts of money to make a living for
themselves. The only time in history where you can observe a significant rise in monetization of
musical output is from the 70s until the year 2000 (begin of the digital era). Now, I am a musician
myself and I love what I do, but I do not expect to make a living of just my art. Even some of the
greatest artists like Goethe or Schiller had a dayjob besides writing their literature. That
understanding of music has somehow changed in the last 40 years. Isnt it more important to have
the ability to share your art with the world than not? I think it is delusional to have a an approach
to earn a (significant) income just with your art, since lets be honest, the last 40 years have
changed the understanding of the value of music for the worse. In my opinion you cannot value the
music you make with money, but the people you reach. Why should we expect that a small part of
music history where it was lucrative to be a musician still would be the norm? It hasnt been the
norm for centuries as described earlier. It was rather an abnormally.
That is why I absolutely have no problem putting my music out there for free, because I know I
have a safety net (a job) to take care of myself. And that is completely fine.
Even some of the greatest artists like Goethe or Schiller had a dayjob
Never confuse writers with musicians!
Writers practise whenever they use the written language. Thats why so many of them work
as reporters, and such.
Most musicians, on the other hand, need to practise their craft as well as their art
constantly (after years and years of non-stop education) and would not be able to deliver the
professional performances audiences expect if they had day jobs.
If you follow the average persons modern life, you have 18 years plus maybe 4+ years
of college to practice. Based on how many incredible musicians Ive known since
moving here ten years ago, if you arent a very good player by the time youve left
college, or really, even gotten to college, you just arent a good musician. Or if you
started too late its not like youd be good enough to make music worth buying anyway
in the early stages anyway.
Obviously collaboration can solve many problems, but its far more problematic to be a
good to great musician but mediocre songwriter than it is to be a mediocre musician but
great songwriter. Songs are where its at, even in jambands a lot more often than one
would think.
Sven Thursday, September 4, 2014
I have a decent music education. 14 years of classical piano and music theory, 10
years of drums & percussion and I have played in a couple of bands. I am very
capable of playing these instruments on a professional level.
23/09/2014 14:47
23 de 33
If you argue, just because nobody buys my music I am a bad musician, that just
proofs my point of the understanding of the value of music nowadays. I value my
art by how many people attend the live shows (which I play in my free time,
often for free) and not how many copies people will buy or stream on the
internet. Even if nobody would listen to my music that would be fine too, since
essentially you cannot really value art by other peoples opinions (sales). My own
evaluation of my output is by far the most important factor and I dont really care
if others think something different.
And of course you can draw similarities with literature. Goethe and Schiller did
not expect to sell anything of their work. They wrote out of passion, like many
musicians compose out of passion. Earning money with your music is a
completely fine reason to me, but do not expect that it is going to be easy, since
the business side of things have changed back to normal in the 2000s as i wrote
earlier.
GGG Thursday, September 4, 2014
I never once argued if nobody was buying your music it means you arent
good. I know plenty of incredible musicians who dont sell shit, usually
jazz/world music guys. I argued if, Ill use your case, youd been playing
piano for 14 years and were still mediocre, that you just wouldnt be a good
musician. This doesnt seem to be the case for you. So if your music isnt
selling, the issue isnt you need more practice, the issue is you need music
people like more, or maybe more marketing, or whatever.
My point is simply that you have ample time to sit at home and practice
while someone is footing your bills (yes, this is a very big generalization and
not everyone is so lucky). So if youre 22 and complaining you dont have
time to practice, thats your fault for wasting two decades of life.
Sven Friday, September 5, 2014
I just read your comment again and can see that you actually didnt
argue what I wrote earlier. I guess I was to quick to answer :).
I aggree, that if you want to sell music you need the marketing &
business aspect of it. A lot of these things you can do yourself in 2014
(Soundcloud, facebook, songkick, found your own label, get your
music on digital distribution channels etc.) Those are not incredible
hard tasks to undertake yourself, technologically speaking. And in
most cases this will pay comparatively more than signing with the
middle man, the major or indie label.
In my case, I am questioning the monetization possibilities of a craft,
which does not receive a lot of respect by its stakeholders. I think it is
not wasting time learning to play an instrument, but I do not see it as
an investment, since the payoff is so ridiculously bad. So, it is enough
for me to be a good musician, practice my art, play gigs and have the
ability to create something from nothing. Not a lot of people can do
that. And check it: That ability can even help you in your day job
23/09/2014 14:47
24 de 33
rDey Thursday, September 4, 2014

Right on, it would be great if it was a Work it and bam! Youre a zillionaire or even very
well off but an artist is an artist and throughout centuries the term Starving artist has
been applicable. I love playing music and it frustrates the hell out of me that the income can
be so awful but at the same time the Artist in me, the songwriting, playing music, the
desire to do what I do just takes over and is bigger than the money part and at the end of the
day for me it is what it is and maybe four centuries from now the music i write, record and
play today will get into a super monetary up cycle and my bloodline will benefit, who knows.
My grandfather was an amazing sax player in NYC back in the 20s and 30s but was just
another player who made his living from gig to gig he is gone now but I honor him by
using his lat name as my stage name. so really glitz, glam, stardom, mansions and
more, that was for then, but the artist art is for now, today, regardless of money up or money
down, you gotta get your groove on and play.
Sven Wednesday, September 3, 2014
have a safety net (a job) to take care of myself. And that is completely fine
Only 50-60 years ago musicians did not earn significant amounts of money to make a living
for themselves.
There were plenty of musicians making a living then, whether in jazz, classical, theatre, or
early rock, pop, and soul.
Zed Wednesday, September 3, 2014
The music recording is failing? Thats your first sentence? You realize that doesnt actually
make sense, right?
Sven Timo Borg Wednesday, September 3, 2014
23/09/2014 14:47
25 de 33
have a safety net (a job) to take care of myself. And that is completely fine
lf Thursday, September 4, 2014
What if: instead of giving away your original music compositions and recording, millions of
people gave away homemade whiskey on a consistent basis. Now, on top of that, imagine
free distribution systems that allowed other people to sample your booze. How long would
that last before the federal police were confiscating your illegal product?
Now, I am not saying that we need a license to make music, but dammit there has to be trade
regulation to prevent people like you from dumping goods on the market. How would we
feel as citizens if the United States if our government allowed China to dump cheap good on
our shores without any tariffs? Oh yeah, the Chinese often get away with that because our
trade regulations suck.
Still the Chinese cant afford to give away products like furniture but somehow people feel
they can give away music. Lets see you try to make furniture at home as a hobby and give
it away.
After all the decades of suffering that was endured to create unions and trade protections in
the U.S., its all been eviscerated, while people (like the one that comments above) dance on
the grave of what was once the backbone of our economy: protections for trade and
workers. I for one have nothing but contempt for people that give away their music.
Sven Friday, September 5, 2014
I think youre comparing apples with oranges here. Music is a product of the mind and
not a physical product. So I dont think your comparison with giving away physical
products makes much sense.
Being a musician is expensive. Receiving education, buying instruments, practicing in
your free time etc. If you want to see that as a financial investment for your profession
in life, be my guest. The truth is though, the payoff of this investment is so incredible
bad, that I wont have to think twice of pursuing a different career.
That is why I want to raise the question of how we value music today. In my opinion,
music cannot be measured in the way you described a little weirdly (Dumping goods?
China? seriously?).
If you want to measure it that way, that is fine, but i dont. Because I dont listen to
Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, Katy Perry, Kanye West, Beyonce (all a product of the
system you described).
And that is the point: You can push your music as a product like the artists mentioned
above or you dont compromise yourself and have artistic freedom. Because if you
want to sell your music and make a decent living of it, you will need to break down
your art to a common denominator, the consumer preference. Big news: The people
dont care how much sweat, blood, money and time you put into your work. All they
hear is a 3:30 min song.
In my views you cannot measure music in dollars, since taste preferences differ
enormously among individuals. But yea, you can make products like the artists
23/09/2014 14:47
26 de 33
mentioned above and earn the big money if you want. Then you just need to find said
common denominator and tailor the product to the consumer needs.
And American economy has never been about the protection of trade and workers.
Quite the opposite. The backbone of the American economy has been consolidating
industries, cut costs (workers) and enlarging profit margins by more efficient means of
production (Also in the music industry. See the irony???). You know, there is a reason
why American companies produce physical products in China and not the US
Noel Troy Wednesday, September 3, 2014
A very good summary of the situation; I would like to add
1) Freemium has some early viral success stories and a great deal of hype about making more
money by giving content away for free. Those successes caused untold damage, because as soon
as the consumer cottoned on to the fact that $0 was the price of choice, there was no market for
anyone.
2) Speaking of Freemium, how does a band fill a venue when their music is considered
throwaway? Free does not imply quality.
3) ASCAP & BMI collects money for all performers, but divies out thoses performance monies to
top 200 touring artists. Smaller performers (for whom money is collected at venues) never get back
what is theirs.
4) Music discovery platforms rapidly become a minefield of new music. New artists are buried 20
million songs deep. There is no pathway to discovery.
5) The music industry is a culture of distrust. To paraphrase Morrissey artists have been stabbed
so many times, they dont have any skin.
Noel Troy
Re: #2. Free doesnt imply bad, either. Nor does it imply throwaway. Ask Pretty Lights how
he fills up venues. Id also argue the music that makes the most money is treated as
throwaway far more, i.e. singles that disappear 6 months later.
bwaaaah! Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Everyone is an artist. 99.9% of music made today is computer generated noise. The good stuff gets
buried under a pile of shit. Todays listeners have no clue either. Just look inside the pages of
Rolling Stone at whats hot. Lana Del Ray? No wonder fans want free music.
23/09/2014 14:47
27 de 33
Music Business Master's Student Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Number 17 is misleading
Its not Spotifys fault that the labels require a large advance of which doesnt pay out to the artist.
Most, if not all artists, have provisions within their record label contract that say artists are paid on
money earned (i.e. record sales, mechanical licenses, etc.). Since an advance to the record label
is not money earned the advance does not go to the artist.
Number 26 is completely false. If anything, the current music industry has made it possible for
indie artist to compete directly against platinum selling artists.
blahblahblah Wednesday, September 3, 2014
I think that all of this whining on the internet has only served to put the nail further into the music
industrys coffin. As the old song said, nobody knows you when youre down and out. Where
people used to be awed and amazed by musical talent, they now view musicians, and people in the
business, as losers and complainers.
Quit yer bellyachin!
tony Wednesday, September 3, 2014
ha ha im sure you go to work for free and steal everything you can so i wont even bother to
think that youre an intelligent person capable of any kind of discussion on the subject but that
thanks for confirming my feelings about recording anymore music . Thank you thank you thank
you
luckywhiteboy Thursday, September 4, 2014
100. This entire system is only 100 years old and is need of an overhaul. Get over it. People need
to start suggesting solutions rather than bitching and making lists of 99 reasons to despair.
rDey Thursday, September 4, 2014
Ya that is good, there is a solution we just havent seen it yet but like water running downhill
it will find its way, the pendulum swings.
For all those who (rather hypocritically, need it be said) complain about the complainers and
recommend seeking the (apparently obvious) solution instead:
PLEASE SHARE YOUR PEARLS OF WISDOM AND ENLIGHTEN US WITH THE
SOLUTION.
Easy: invent a time machine.
Reply (/permalink/2014/09/02/music-industry23/09/2014 14:47
28 de 33
99-problems?replytocom=128057#respond)
The Phonograph created the recorded music industry.
The Internet took it away.
I suspect future generations will see the idea of selling music as unrealistic. Technology
giveth and taketh away.
John Thursday, September 4, 2014
There is this sense for many indie artists, as well as already established artists that in order to stay
with the current trends an artists music should be available everywhere available on the internet.
Bad idea and heres why.
My company is licensed by Apple for worldwide sales, usually for same day or next day content
uploading onto iTunes. We receive the same royalties as any large label, and give most back to the
artist. We are seeing our sales diminish due to many of our Artists literally giving away money by
signing up with all the other streaming services, which if they pay anything to the artist, pay
pennies on the dollar as compared to iTunes. Love em or hate em, iTunes still has a decent pay
structure for the artists and we are encouraging those we work with to realize this.
lf Thursday, September 4, 2014
I know all this! Is there anything that works?!
richard Thursday, September 4, 2014
I purchase literally everything off of ITunes. Dont know how their pay-out to the artists works. I
hope they are fair. I used to own a dance studio and every year paid my ASCAP and BMI fees.
Then a new one comes along, SEASAC, which I also paid. What of those fees actually go to the
songwriters / artists? Yes the music industry is currently in trouble. Is the reason that most of the
current music just sucks or is it because artist development is not longer viable?
Ray Gordon Thursday, September 4, 2014
First they came for me
Im an e-book writer who sw this coming fifteen years ago. Todays system is actually better for
everyone except those who benefitted from the label cartel system. The real villain is the public,
who watns to be spoon-fed its entertainment, rather than find the gems on their own and think for
themselves. They say its great that we dont need labels and publishers anymore, but the fans still
attach credibility only to those who are signed. If you were any good, youd have a deal with a
major label.
Many artists kiss up to the dinosaur system rather than deal with the current reality. The best thing
to do is to put out great work, then charge rich people a fortune for VIP access. Forget the
mooching masses. If I write a free dating-advice book, there will be an add for dating-coaching in
there, but I only want wealthy patron/customers. Why should I tech some broke loser how to get
beautiful women and watch him not even pay me, when I can teach a millionaire who values the
information and will pay for it because he has to (smart writers dont give away the store).
One thing I do now with fiction is write one chapter of a novel and put it up for free. If it doesnt
catch fire, or get funding, I do not write any more.
23/09/2014 14:47
29 de 33
People like Google and Youtube but they are creating a cutthroat, global marketplace, and they
also make piracy a big problem, but the real problem is that anyone can do this now. Thats
actually as it should be. The old system only benefitted a few people, because if you didnt get
signed, you were totally screwed. Now you can just flood the internet with your work for free.
I think most musicians are shocked that they really arent as superior to the others as they thought.
The best will always make money. Oh, and $34k a year is hardly chump change. We need to
adjust our expectations for the new reality.
JOHNNYG34 Thursday, September 4, 2014
AFTER READING COMMENTS AND FILTERING THEM DOWN THERE IS ONLY ONE
THING TO DO
EVERYONE START RECORDING ON VINYL AGAIN.
EVERYTHING IS CYCLICAL, DESPITE WHATEVER YOU HAVE INVESTED ITS TIME TO
RETOOL.
DONT BITCH JUST DO IT,
YOU CAN STILL MAKE ANY FORM OF MUSIC YOU WANT JUST CORRAL IT ON VINYL
AND TAKE BACK CONTROL, ONLY THIS TIME..DONT SIGN UP WITH
THOSE OUTFITS THAT SAY THEY WILL PROTECT YOUR MUSIC.
HOW ARE NEWER FOLKS GONNA MAKE IT IF THEY CAN NOT PRACTICE WITH YOUR
STUFF AND PERFORM AT A LOCAL LEVEL, AND IF THEY WANT TOGO MAINSTREAM
WITH YOUR STUFF LET THEM AND TRUST THEY WILL DO THE RIGHT THING, IF
THEY DO NOT I AM QUITE CERTAIN THE COMMUNITY WOULD SHUT THEM DOWN.
THIS WOULD ALSO CREATE A LOT OF NEW JOBS HERE IN AMERICA
Jay Thursday, September 4, 2014
Did anyone think to remember that there is less disposable money than ever nowadays? Everyone
is talking about no one buying music. Well the problem is that the cost of living since at least 1999
has gone up so much, what person besides a teenager living at home can afford to buy lots of
albums as we did when I was a teenager or young adult. The rents are higher; food is more
expensive; everything costs more than it ever has. The music industry really needs to point the
finger at who controls the money and who is squeezing out the middle class. Its not wonder
people are going for online streaming! Who can afford it! That being said, I still buy new vinyl and
mp3. But no where near the rate I did when I was younger. Its the money system people, not
because of peoples choice not to buy .They would if it were cost efficient. But its not. You would
have to starve to death to keep buying albums the way record companies want them bought.
Rock Cousteau Friday, September 5, 2014
As usual, Paul has clearly enumerated all the problems with the music industry. Now, if all the
problem solvers out there could just approach each one of these problems with solutions, we will
have solved everything. In the interest of time, I will briefly say, I dont hate Spotify. Spotify, and
subscriber based streaming services, could be beneficial for all parties, if the monthly rate was
increased. This $10 a month business model sucks. I would certainly be willing to pay more for
a subscription, as I recall spending at least $100/month for cds. Thats all for now. And, thank you,
Paul. RC
23/09/2014 14:47
30 de 33
blahblahblah Saturday, September 6, 2014

Boo. How about more people, a LOT more people, start paying the $10 a month? I think
thats whats supposed to be the solution. I prefer Rdio myself. Happy to pay $10 for it.
Theyll all raise the rates, sure enough, once they get enough people hooked.
Robert Fairweather Saturday, September 6, 2014
I havent been to this site for half a decade and you nooobs are still scratching your collective
heads over the same thing.
John Schaeffer Sunday, September 7, 2014
Does anyone realize that todays music flat out sux?
ODOR BABY Sunday, September 7, 2014
ODOR BABY IS AWESOME!
https://www.facebook.com/OdorBaby (https://www.facebook.com/OdorBaby)
Martin Atkibs Monday, September 8, 2014
Here we go again anyone remember the blank fucking cassette?? It helped spread music. 20,000
people illegally downloading your music is only a problem if youre shit. And, to the earlier point
about a music business education costing $65k ? come to my program at SAE Chicago its
under 25k
Bman Monday, September 8, 2014
Great post and well thought out. I pretty much agree, but I have to say my last 3 artists that I
found and love have all been once that hit my FB timeline. Sounds crazy I know, but its true.
Since then I have bought their downloads, physical CDs and had a chance to attend a live concert
when one appeared at a venue in my town. Loved it and would do it again. I do not pay the prices
that are demanded to see big name shows. The value proposition of paying that much to see the
artist from the nosebleed section just is not there for me. Point is, I parted with my money because
I discovered these artists via an ad source on social media. It truly did work.
ALSO.I absolutely agree that the free streaming services need to change. There are too many
and they are abusing their presence by not enforcing the public performance side. Thankfully,
associations like ASCAP and BMI have stepped up their enforcement of these, but it is being met
with huge resistance from bar and tavern owners that want it all for free.
One last ray of hope I want to share. I actually work for a digital music jukebox company. I can
tell you that we pay artists and all other parties involved. It is very fractional, but we do pay. This is
also a great way to build your fan base. With nearly 30,000 jukebox locations across the US, our
reach is near just about anyone. That means when you push a notice to your fans on social media
that they can now share your great song with their friends at the local bar/restaurant over a pint,
they can go there and do it and the artist will get paid every time this happens. If you truly think
about it, this is better than CD. In the old days, a jukebox had to buy 1 CD. They likely played 1-3
songs regularly. So the owner of that CD paid one time fee to have those 3 songs for eternity or
until the CD was worn out. In the case of digital jukes, every time a song plays an artist gets paid.
23/09/2014 14:47
31 de 33
BTW, the first artist on that list that I discovered, I immediately chased down getting their music on
our network so I could go pay to play it at my favorite bar for all my friends. Since then I have
made at least a dozen more fans of her music from my frequent play and strangers asking me who
sang that last song. And while I am sure the artist does not know of my support and probably
would not notice if I stopped today, I can appreciate that I put my money where my heart is. I
appreciate her efforts and support her work.
hippydog Monday, September 8, 2014
How to fix the music biz
1.) Stop asking the venues to pay when music plays. Start asking the people who are playing the
music in public to pay.. Small distinction I know.. but important.
2.) Expand the powers of the PROS (Performance Rights Organization), & the Collectives..
Basically, for anything broadcast (Venue, TV, Radio, Streaming, Websites, podcasts, yada yada)..
ANYTHING.. It goes thru the PROs The PROs then pay the artist/label..
3.) How do they track who should get paid? ANYONE who wants a license (one off licence for a
specific song, or a blanket yearly licence, it doesnt matter) Must provide a list of what was
played and for how many people, and then pay on the agreed amount (depending on the
circumstances)
Peter Monday, September 8, 2014
I dont see any problems at all, just a list of different people defending their interests. The music
industry is doing fine, its individuals with a misplaced sense of entitlement that are doing the
whining. Yes, popular music is terrible nowadays but creative musicians also have unparalelled
opportunities to reach sizeable genre specific audiences which were previously unheard of.
Theres no reason why the music industry has to remain a certain size simply because thats how it
used to be. Talented people will always be able to make a buck and if not too bad. Id love to be
a rockstar as well but the only criteria that should decide whether I should pursue it as a career is
whether Im able to make a living from it. The least of my worries is whether music labels have a
place in the modern music landscape; innovate, die, actually care about your artists or do whatever
but just please stop playing the victim
Versus Monday, September 8, 2014
Expecting people to want your music may be a misplaced sense of entitlement.
On the other hand, expecting intellectual property laws to be enforced and respected when
people do want your music, is a completely justified entitlement.
P Monday, September 8, 2014
A
pyc Monday, September 8, 2014
Poor artists, aint it? Bullshit.
Yes, the reasons are not false, but all is written in a tone which dismisses one of the biggest
subcultures today, that is called the download subculture!
23/09/2014 14:47
You know what, music is art, not business. The wheel of technological evolution turns whether
someone wants it or not. You cant and theres no moral right to conserve profits by enforcing
retrograde laws which are made to support selling of technologically retrograde CDs and similar
physical sound carriers.
Its completely snobbish to think you have to God-given right to be profitable if youre making
music. Only the best can afford to live out of music, and thats how it should be!
Im into piracy for 20 years now and dont intend to stop. I have very big collection and I say fuck
you to every close-minded prick which thinks copying is stealing.
No name Monday, September 8, 2014
Correct me if Im wrong.
1. There are people who do not listen to the radio or watch TV shows. These people follow what
they personally like over the internet or friends. Much of this music is not associated with a large
publishing houses and many authors working independently. How will people know if they like the
band or the author if they will not have anywhere to listen to? Why go to a concert if you had no
where to listen to what someone is playing? Attempts to expel independent and less famous
authors from the internet as well as limiting free listening to pop music over the Internet will lead to
the collapse of the music industry.
2. It is stupid to oppress ordinary listeners if they have illegally acquired music. Hardly anyone will
make money from buying music for personal use. Neither the people have the money or want to
buy. Governrment should enforce laws and control who do not register DJs and bands playing
other peoples music and whether they have paid all records that they play as DJs or play as a
band.
Many DJs today play music unregistered or licensed. That music was illegally acquired and that
process a lot more damage than people that have free downloaded music for home use.
Congressive Online Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Fun watching passionate idiots arguing both sides of a three headed quarter.
I make good money on Google (AdSense) with my music and vids. If your music is being played
there for free, its because you havent monetized. If your music is good, and people play the
whole song, it pays better the longer a video is watched. Profit!
The only real solution: IP must be paid for at the last point of distribution, not at consumption. ISPs
like AT&T, Verizon, etc make billions muling contraband like Colombian drug lords wish they
could. They charge to deliver packages and they swear they have no idea what is in them. The
internet is not a new paradigm. Your ISP is just a digital radio station. The old ASCAP/BMI
structure still applies. IP fees collected from your ISP and paid to copyright holders based on
actual content delivered (EASY in this digital age) turn pirates into your own personal sales force.
Money flows to copyright holders first, not middlemen like streamers.
Not gonna happen. Too many Wharton MBAs staying up late at night figuring out how to rip off
content creators. And they are really good at what they do.
Leave a Reply
Connect with:
Name
32 de 33
23/09/2014 14:47
Verify Your Humanity *

three 5 =
Comment
You may use these HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b>
<blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q
cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Post Comment
home (/) jobs (/jobs/) conferences (/conferences/) charts (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/charts)

advertise (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/advertise) about (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/about)
33 de 33
(/)
2013 All Rights Reserved
23/09/2014 14:47

TEXTO 1 The Music Industry Has 99 Problems. and They Are...

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEXTO 1 The Music Industry Has 99 Problems. and They Are...

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Music Industry Has 99 Problems. And They Are... - Digital Music...

HOME (/) JOBS (/jobs/) CONFERENCES (/conferences/)

The Music Industry Has 99 Problems.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

1. The music recording is failing. Across the board,

8. Most consumers now attribute very little value to

17 Ways to Kill 146

11. Streaming has largely failed artists and

26. Its harder than ever for a newer artist to get

42. Crowdsourcing worked for Amanda Palmer,

48. Traditional record stores have largely imploded,

52. Major labels, once the most reliable form of

62. A large percentage of live music fans are

72. Traditional radio tends to play the same 14

76. Internet radio has failed artists and publishers.

85. A good music education is now a difficult, risky

89. Music conferences are often expensive, both in

92. Non-stop, on-the-go music listening could be killing the ears of an

94. Piracy didnt go away. It merely wears a new

+Yes You Need T-Shirts (http://72.52.81.231/revive/www/delivery

Ok, so we should only care about acts after they are

Anonymous Tuesday, September 2, 2014

GGG Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Anonymous Tuesday, September 2, 2014

week can make a huge difference to many

GGG Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Anonymous Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Anonymous Tuesday, September 2, 2014

GGG Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Anonymous Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Anonymous Tuesday, September 2, 2014

established industry: Major label artists, iTunes and all

Again Tuesday, September 2, 2014

The music industry is simple to understand.

rDey Thursday, September 4, 2014

Music Business Master's Student Wednesday, September 3, 2014

blahblahblah Saturday, September 6, 2014

Verify Your Humanity *

home (/) jobs (/jobs/) conferences (/conferences/) charts (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/charts)

You might also like