Money And Music Streams – The Future Or The Death Of The industry? Part 1: The Melting Iceberg Syndrome And The Music Business

  • Share

Part 1: The Melting Iceberg Syndrome And The Music Business

By George Howard (follow on Twitter)

With Amazon.com’s recent announcement, the topic of streaming and downloading has become a front-and-center topic.  Rumors are also, of course, flying about the imminent launch of similar services from Google and Apple. Given all of this it’s imperative for the informed artist to not only understand the landscape of streaming, but also how this delivery change impacts revenue models.

To this end, this week we focus on illustrating two points of view in our articles. While these articles both examine the same topic, and, ostensibly at least, appear to come out on different sides, the reality is that there are likely both positive and negative impacts as a result of these changes.  One thing however is certain, these are disruptive times in the music business, and with disruption comes opportunity…seize it!


I’m an optimist; a glass-half-full type.

I believe in opportunity that comes from disruption.

I believe that there will always be people making music, and that there will be methods for these artists to monetize their creations, and that there will be business opportunities for those interested in working in the music business to innovate and make money.

However…

I don’t believe people are adequately assessing the current situation with respect to the trajectory of the music business (and, by that, I mean today’s music business, and not what it might become — by the way, no one knows what it might become).

There was a good piece that ran yesterday, written by Frédéric Filloux, entitled “The NYT’s Melting Iceberg Syndrome.”

While I tend to agree with the article’s assessment of the NYT’s digital operation, what really struck me was the relevance of the Melting Iceberg Syndrome and its relationship to the current music industry.

Mr. Filloux sums up the theory well:

…no matter how large the iceberg is at the beginning, it inexorably dissolves as it drifts toward warmer latitudes. The progression is barely visible but, at some point, as the exposed part liquefies under the sun, the iceberg’s center of gravity moves upward and it suddenly capsizes without warning (that’s why there is no permanent manned base on icebergs): “As an iceberg melts, the resulting change of shape can cause it to list gradually or to become unstable and topple over suddenly”. (From The use of catastrophe theory to analyze the stability and toppling of icebergs Annals of Glaciology, 1980).

What prompted me to write this piece was a piece on Hypebot entitled, “Another Industry First: Music Royalties Fall 1%.”

While the title of the article isn’t surprising, what is surprising are the reasons PRS ( a Performing Rights Organization in the UK) assumes royalties were down: “PRS suspects that digital piracy and a fall in high street sales are to blame.”

There is, imho, a glaring omission with respect to why royalties might be down: lack of royalties due to streaming.  It’s this issue that really resonates with me with respect to The Melting Iceberg.

I’ve written at some length about the rapid acceleration of streaming.

In an era of constant connectivity and universally available content, there is no distinction from a user’s perspective between streaming and downloading.

There is however a distinction from an artist/content owner’s perspective.

Put simply, if you’re an artist who is used to getting ~$7 for the sale of a ~$10 download from iTunes (or ~$.7 for the sale of a ~$1.00 single), your revenue is being diminished by several orders of magnitude when that same album/song is streamed.

While the figures change in terms of payments depending on if the stream is interactive (ala rdio, spotify, etc) or non-interactive (ala Pandora), in both cases the payment from streams is a number that has a decimal point, and then several/many zeros before a number that’s not a zero pops up (e.g. $.000x or $.000000x).

Thus, streaming — not “piracy” or “street sales” — is what’s causing the decline in royalties.

And, I do very much believe that the 1% decline is the tip of the proverbial melting iceberg, and that the iceberg is indeed listing, and that the days of artists/content holders seeing royalty payments even approximating amounts they’ve been accustomed to from the sales of downloads are rapidly coming to an end.

Certainly, direct to fan models offer some support, but, again, when customers begin demanding streams as opposed to buying downloads, artists will need to evolve and service the customers via a stream, and this will materially impact their revenue models.

In fact, it could obliterate the direct to consumer model. The very thing that makes direct to fan so compelling — cutting out the middleman in order to have a higher margin for downloads — is fundamentally altered. When (eventually – sooner rather than later) a customer comes to a favorite artist’s site, and wants to stream the music, will they really pay more to do so from an artist’s site than they do as part of a Spotify/rdio subscription? Will they pay at all?

No. Of course not. The value proposition is all off.

This doesn’t mean that others (subscription, exclusive tracks, tix, merch, special packages, whatever) won’t fill some of the void, but those hefty margins that occur currently when a customer downloads directly from an artist’s site will soon(ish) be a thing of the past.

Sorry for the doom and gloom. Maybe I’m wrong (I’m not).

As I’ve said, there will be new models that emerge (and, yes, there could be an increase in volume of streams that will offset some of the decline in revenue loss, but there’s going to have to be a massive increase of streams; I don’t see it), but I feel very compelled to at least raise the question: Are artists/content holders preparing themselves for the days when their margins from downloads are obliterated and they are only getting revenue from streams?

I hope so, but I wouldn’t be building on the iceberg right now.

Part 2: The Melting Iceberg Syndrome, The Music Business And The Change Under The Couch Cushions __________________________________________________________________________________________________

George Howard is the former president of Rykodisc. He currently advises numerous entertainment and non-entertainment firms and individuals. Additionally, he is the Executive Editor of Artists House Music and is a Professor and Executive in Residence in the college of Business Administration at Loyola, New Orleans. He is most easily found on Twitter at: twitter.com/gah650

  • http://jonpatell.com Jon Patell

    The thing about amazons service that is rather friendly to the label/artist/bottom-line (At the moment) is that they are simply providing a way for users to purchase, store and stream their favorite music, not a new licensing model but a new distribution model where royalties stay intact. This may not compete with what Apple/Google/Spotify/etc are up to in the long run, but it should certainly make the labels happier (I swear the hoopla about it is purely to create mindshare and labels are happy to have amazon wrest some dominance from apple)…

  • http://profile.typepad.com/dreamfullofzen Dreamfullofzen

    Thanks for the article, was an interesting read, and I would agree with it. Most people I know stream their shows and movies now, instead of downloading them. And with Google’s new Chrome OS and the driveless units it’ll run on, seems like the concept of streaming and online stored and connnected information seems to be upcoming trend

  • http://profile.typepad.com/mlbukowski Mlbukowski

    This article seems based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Cloud Player is. It’s not a streaming service, a la Pandora. It’s basically just off-site storage, where you load music that you PAID for (and that the artist received their royalties for) onto their servers so you can access it from your phone or PC. Cloud Player is what would happen if Carbonite allowed you to play your music instead of just back it up.
    I agree with the author’s larger points, but Amazon is not the problem here.

  • http://www.claudiarussell.com Bruce Kaplan

    This does not bode well for lower mid-level artists. We earn on the order of $1000 per month (when touring) on CDs. We earn about $100 month on downloads. And we earn about $1 month of streams.

  • Obscure

    exactly!

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    great point, Jon. Still some uncertainty on how exactly amzn is handling their “locker” system, but it appears they’re taking the approach that each song within the locker is a copy of the owner’s song, and not some sort of system where various people are pointing to a single copy of a song – big difference.
    As you say, currently at least, amzn’s approach may provide a level of convenience with respect to the purchase and access of purchased content.
    George

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    great point with respect to the chrome os.
    George

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    no, I do understand the distinction between what amzn (currently) is doing and what a streaming service (ala Pandora, etc) is doing, but I understand and appreciate your point.
    the connection – however poorly articulated – has more to do with customer experience with respect to access of music. Once a customer – as you say – purchases (thus generating royalties, etc) and stores their music on amzn there’s little to no distinction – again, in terms of ux – between streaming using the cloud player and streaming from pandors – with one big distinction: services like pandora, spotify, etc axiomatically offer a vastly larger selection of music than even the most ardent music fan has purchased and stored (at potentially great expense) on amzn’s cloud service.
    to this end, it’s really about customer conditioning, and i feel that amzn’s move is conditioning the customer towards streaming.
    thanks for your great comment.
    George

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    my point exactly.
    George

  • http://gonze.com/about Lucas

    This essay argues that the cost of a stream is lower than the cost of a download, therefore streams generate less revenues. But streams aren’t acquired. You don’t pay a penny once and never again. You pay over and over again.
    Price goes down, volume goes up. Everybody agrees on that. Without talking about volume it’s meaningless to talk about price.

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    it’s a great point, Lucas, and something Jeff addresses in the next article.
    my feeling, fwiw, is that given that, unfortunately, we’re talking about far less than a penny per stream (far, far less in fact), that volume is going to have to be extraordinary.
    That said, I do believe that with better tracking (i.e. making sure EVERY stream does actually generate a payment that finds its way to the content owner(s)) and with increasing numbers of streams, we *may* achieve some sort of parity with respect to revenue via dls. that’s the hope at least.
    thanks for the comment.
    best,
    George

  • http://www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve Yves Villeneuve

    Nothing wrong with streaming stored/purchased content.
    However, an unlimited library with unlimited streaming is not fair such as the download model where songs can be stored locally or elsewhere on the net without further royalty charges.
    It is only just and fair to the artists/labels and minor music consumers that consumers spend on music based on how much music they consume.
    To justify a $10 per month streaming subscription, a person would need to normally purchase 8-12 albums per year at $10-$15 per album. These types of consumers are very rare. If you don’t believe me, ask around.
    For subscription services like Rhapsody and Spotify to have as much market share as iTunes currently has, their monthly subscriptions would need to be $1-$2 per month, hence reducing the revenue pie for every artist.
    The download model is the fairest and most logical to pursue from a business and all-inclusive consumer perspective.
    The naysayers of the download model are always the ones who consume vasts amount of music regularly and they represent a very small minority of the general population.
    If people can’t find your music on Rhapsody, eMusic or Spotify they will find it at iTunes. There should not be any love lost if the consumer does not like your music enough to purchase and download it; piracy is not an option while giving away my music for promotional purposes or offering freemium streaming content is not an option for me either. FYI, iTunes is the only authorized retailer and one-stop shopping store retailing my content. Unfortunately, Spotify is illegally using my content to promote Spotify among other shady tactics. Has anyone asked the question how much of the Spotify revenues generated goes to the artists/labels…if not you have pretty much given Spotify a blank cheque… Good luck with that.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/eblue1 E_blue

    You forgot to mention one source of streaming that is most likely more popular than all of the others combined. YouTube…From what I have seen just about any song that is even remotely popular winds up YouTube, often before you can even buy it and from multiple sources. It’s also the first place that kids and young adults go to find music, since it doesn’t require having an iPod, phone or login account.

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    great comment and points, thank you.
    I do, however, disagree with this:
    The naysayers of the download model are always the ones who consume vasts amount of music regularly and they represent a very small minority of the general population.
    If i understand your point, you seem to be saying that it’s only those who consume a lot of music who desire streaming services over DL services. I don’t know how you reconcile this with something like Pandora, which seems to be succeeding by providing the casual music fan (i.e. the person who rarely buys more than a few CDs a year) with a satisfying value proposition. how else to explain the fact that “jazz” is the third most listened to genre on Pandora?
    thanks for your comment.
    George

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    wonderful and correct point. YT does account for the vast majority of interactive streaming. sadly, the rev generated from these YT streams (currently at least) is not even de minimis.
    George

  • Damon

    The solution is easy. Require streaming content providers to pay the artist $1.00 every time a song is streamed. No exceptions. The content provider’s commission would come over and above the $1.00 to the artist. Content providers taking the least commission will be the most successful.

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    I don’t follow with respect to “the content provider’s commission would come over and above the $1.00 to the artist.”
    i can guarantee you if spotify, rdio, pandora, etc had to pay $1/song streamed they’d be out of business in a day.
    where would the revenue come from for these streaming services to pay these types of royalties? ads, subscribers?
    the streaming services (rdio, spotify, etc.) aren’t profitable currently paying the rates they do now; how could they be with such a drastic increase in rates as you propose?
    George

  • http://www.myspace.com/motanz Julian

    Pay Per Download (PPD) is a great model -so is streaming -provided the artists responsible for the traffic are actually paid for their plays. You Tube’s great too – for artists because we can get to an audience immediately.
    I hate to say this, but I think that government needs to be involved. They need to establish a workable and fair model. I think that download and streaming services should be “audited” electronically to ensure that their “plays” match their “pays” :) This model could be applied to ring-tones also -to ensure that artists are duly paid. Perhaps You Tube could and should be compelled to pay producers/artists for plays -notice the ads on you tube are more frequent?
    It’s not impossible technically -it’s just weather there is sufficient will in the music industry to lobby government to make the legislation. Whats in it for government? tax :)

  • http://www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve Yves Villeneuve

    George,
    First, I don’t know much about Pandora, but it sounds like an online radio station with different channels. Is Pandora only offered as a paid subscription? Or are most consumers getting it for free as they do at terrestrial radio?
    As far as I’m aware, not every artist will be accepted by Pandora into their playlists. What is the payout to artists? I’m guessing probably minuscule. Pandora like other radio stations is used mostly as a promotional tool, in my opinion.
    I prefer not to have my music played on the radio. Essentially, if the consumer likes my music and wants it in their library, they can purchase it and listen to it on demand. I don’t want my music force fed to the consumer by radio programmers and expect my music to be offered free of charge …I believe my listeners appreciate my position.
    Jazz, a top 3 music genre at Pandora? Who listens to Jazz except a very small minority of the general population. I am sure you can find accurate Jazz music consumption from industry trackers that verify my claim about Jazz.
    If Jazz is no. 3 it is likely there is a small market of Jazz radio stations and Jazz fans are flocking to Pandora to fulfill their niche needs. Again, how much is the Jazz artist getting paid from these streams? Could Jazz artists optimize download sales if they promoted more effectively elsewhere instead of streaming on radio i.e. less opportunity to listen for free offers greater chance of a download sale? Is the Pandora Jazz channel increasing CD or download sales for Jazz artists on the whole or are Jazz consumers happy to receive a pre-programmed list of Jazz hits without desire to purchase the music.

  • http://www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve Yves Villeneuve

    Lucas,
    I think what you are saying is, if there are 1 Million subscribers paying $10 per month it generates $10 million per month for artists regardless of total volume of streams. How much of the $10 million pie you receive depends on how much your content is streamed versus other other artists.
    Unfortunately, at Spotify, the rate per stream varies for each artist. Some earn roughly 1 penny per stream, some earn far less, some earn a lot more. Based on anecdotal evidence revealed online, Spotify appears to be an accounting mess while distorting the true value of the stream for strategic reasons ie. is it a freemium or premium stream?

  • http://moozi.cc moozi.cc

    I think it’s pretty obvious that the streaming model doesn’t do the artist any favours at all. I would argue that they’re not even worth it from a promotional point of view as they don’t incentivise any potential fan to spend money on a download or CD. They only serve the consumer … and the bottom line of the streaming companies of course.
    The only real answer to this is for artists to take steps to prevent their music ending up on services such as Spotify and Pandora. This would force fans to download music (and who knows, they may even do it legally!)
    This really poses the question, why do Tunecore distribute music to these services when they are of no real financial benefit to the artist?

  • paul proudlove

    lets hope for an ice age.our impact on the “music industry ” to quote Al Gore. is “an inconvenient truth”.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/kopasetiks Kopasetiks

    “i can guarantee you if spotify, rdio, pandora, etc had to pay $1/song streamed they’d be out of business in a day.”
    Boo-hoo and tough titty.
    Meanwhile, we’re all getting royally screwed over so that they can “promote” us in order we can earn peanuts if we’re lucky enough to gain a buyer from their “promotion”.
    Face it – the Big Co’s have the only thing that matters nowadays in terms of generating real worthwhile revenue tied right up: *access to the mainstream media* for promotion.
    Distribution any fool can do these days, but putting what you can distribute in front of enough buyers to make decent money? Same as it ever was: bend over son and sign here… if you’re not with a major or a big-league independent – dream on.
    Everything else – Amazon, Spotify et al – is just us poor saps being ripped off on the maybe we’ll make a few bob and cover our costs. We have two choices: play along and get nothing or refuse to play along and sell direct to people we can interest in what we do.
    The latter, everytime – and to Spotify and 0.0000085 cents a play while their CEO earns a fortune and to Amazon who only ever cut costs at the suppliers (read artist) expense in order to undercut their competition out of business.

  • clintonslurvey@gmail.com

    The cats out of the bag! People have become conditioned to free music thanks to the RIAA. Had they not held things up with Napster in court, Groakster, Morpheus, and Limewire would have never popped up to meet peoples demand for free intellectual property. I don’t like it anymore than you so please don’t shoot the messenger. Get used to your music simply being a commercial for your live show. The business of selling songs is DEAD! The money is in the performance and teaching and that’s it. Game over. Very sad but very true…

  • http://www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve Yves Villeneuve

    Great comment.
    Your true fans will purchase your music.
    I say to anyone not a true fan, don’t buy and don’t listen to my music… no hurt or hard feelings.

  • http://www.myspace.com/yvesvilleneuve Yves Villeneuve

    I assure you the business of selling songs is not dead especially if you limit piracy(theft) through reasonable legislation and effective enforcement, and eliminate the devaluation of music through free services or low subscription fees.
    This can be done easily and in a practical manner.

  • http://www.twitter.com/gah650 George Howard

    couldn’t agree more. if you control your masters, make sure that you have a strategic plan with respect to licensing this content, and – absolutely – make sure that you connect with fans directly and create sustainable value propositions.
    George

  • http://www.RobertBurns.biz Robert Burns

    Jewel is pessimistic about selling recordings and favors live real and virtual concerts. Oligopoly “music” business dictates that we listen to cRap. Everyone here is arguing about one form of “download” vs. the “streaming” type of download. Either an union or legislation or a revolution is needed. Maybe we are discussing a Titanic model in this country which has become the largest debtor nation in the world, allows any foreign interest to own it, allows its industry and technology to be outsourced, and allows dimwits and mobsters to monopolistically dominate the “music” industry.

  • Yaku

    I’m just wondering when are we as artists and producers going to demand to be paid for our hard work. From the people who listen to it instead of the people who play it…Why are we claiming to be looking for solutions? They’re already out there…use them. Rather it be YouTube, Spotify or whoever…charge the listeners through a credits systems…when they have used those credits up they’ll buy some more…
    Balance the income from the price per credit to pay artists/labels their fees and keep the rest!
    Just like everyone has a cell phone they also have credit and debit cards…so how is it we claim to be “looking” for an answer?

  • http://www.mLthetruth.com ML the Truth

    In the words of Little Richard while signing his record contract ” Do I make any money?”

  • Pete Morrison

    Which equates to most musicians living on the poverty line, albeit filled with occasional creative endorphin rushes to offset the depression. That so many musicians are sitting back and just accepting this, either through laziness, naivity, or illusion of future one-hit-wonder fame that will reap touring rewards and that in turn will allow them mentally to forgive and forget being ripped-off earlier in their career, is scandellous. I have a feeling that this all comes down to customer’s beliefs in their rights to the best deal overriding their belief to musician’s rights, in exactly the same way they treat their relationship to big companies. Except they are forgeting one significant difference: we are not big companies. We are the same flesh and bones as the customer, and the only financial winners under present streaming royalty rules are the few people that own those streaming companies. Sounds remarkably similar to the old days, doesn’t it, when the record execs made the vast majority of money. I just wish all musicians would just wake up and collectively fight this. A united lobby to get streaming royalty payment rules changed greatly, so we stay clear away from the poverty lines.

  • Peter Morrison

    Regarding your last point: yes, I asked Spotify that exact question in writing… and they never replied! And they probably never will, unless legally forced to disclose at some future point.

  • Pete Morrison

    Am in total agreement! I’d be happy to form a lobby group.

  • Peter Morrison

    Well George, it sure isn’t going to work for musicians as it exists now, so let it close down. And then open up a model that does work better. In the end, it’s a question of balance. Streaming, and any other future distribution models, is fine, IF we All get treated fairly, and the word fairly should be legally framed, applied and enforced.

  • Peter Morrison

    Streaming, as it exists now, is pretty much piracy, only with a fancy business facade.

  • Producer

    Without any kind of DRM this will be the last coffin nail to making money from music (without making big and expensive tours, of course – but who can afford that?).
    What seems to be a good thing from the listeners persepctive is most of the time a more than double change to the worse for the musicians.
    Whether you see it from a fig leafs perspective (When more people know about the music, then more will BUY it), or if you spot the reality (When I can get/listen) the music for free, why should I pay for it.
    This service will be used to copy a whole music-library from a harddisk to it and then pass the HD (or USB) stick on to a friend.
    You don’t need a big imagination to thin about that.
    On the long run this will lead to content control directly at the provider (deep packet inspection), because they have the biggest advantage in selling the broadband-connections (hence have the duty to pay off a proportion to the content makers, that give them that ability). And guess what: it will be the right thing to have this system – there will be no way out of this. Unless a tax-based culture flatrate will be established with automatic revenue for the authors given by a governmental authority which is based on the data checked out by the providers saying which song has been downloaded/streamed how often.

  • Producer

    Quote:
    “the streaming services (rdio, spotify, etc.) aren’t profitable currently paying the rates they do now; how could they be with such a drastic increase in rates as you propose?”
    Is that the problem of the authors/artists/musicians? I think not.
    The streaming services are using the content, paying next tot nothing for the use and seem to stay in business. That’s wrong. Believe me.

  • Producer

    +1
    Governmental forced cultural flatrate based on deep packet inspection done on the providers costs (they earn the most on selling the broadband connections).
    You Tube should be the first to be forced to pay a right proportion for every streamed content. Immediately! No excuses!
    If they don’t earn enough to pay the content producers adequate for their work (which is the basis for You Tubes existance), they have to close the doors and gou out of business. No discussion. Only to be Google does not give the right to rip off authors/artists – even more badly than any record company in the past did. Period!

  • http://www.youtube.com/japroctor. John Proctor

    There is no difference between downloading or streaming, only to the user i.e. when downloading the listener would have to wait for the product to be downloaded before using/listening where as streaming the user can listen after a buffering of about 3 to 10 seconds. Both methods download the file it just the streaming process download a small snippet then starts to play that small part (a few k) and as the user is enjoying the music/file the rest of the file is being downloaded in the background. Which means in my opinion the Artist should receive the same royalty i.e. ITunes 0.79 pence per single. Streaming is not a Radio Station even if appears to be. John Proctor

  • Andy

    Surely there must be someone out there that can devise an app, that we as artists could use to spam the streaming sites with loads of hits on our own tunes. Therefore power back to the musician, as we all could (at best) personally control our own revenue streams…or (even better) overload all streaming sites and make them unworkable Ha!
    Just a thought
    Off to become a traffic warden

  • http://willbrownmendia.com Will Brown

    Hey
    Sell your CDs at shows WITH a unique bonus, include inexpensive swag like a t-shirt.
    With on-demand printing you can keep your costs low and sell CD/t- Shirt it as the live show Merchandise package. Autograph it and fans will love it. If they love you and your music, as true fans do. They’ll support you.
    One great thing about owning a royalty producing downloaded file such as iTunes requires is that the audio is quality assured. I don’t know about streaming quality. You Tube audio rarely is close to the master.
    iTunes is the largest audio superstore on the net. Hopefully Apple and Google will recognize the implications of low royalty streaming when they set up their models. Looks like some lawyer may have a potentially huge class action if majors and independents don’t like the deal.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/gah6501 Gah650

    Spot on.
    Thx,
    George

  • http://itunes.com/jimmywestra Weat Productions

    Everybody gave into Indie Music promises but didn’t read the fine print. They can actually do anything they want with music uploaded to their site and they own it, and have say over royalty’s (forever)if their/your song ever starts selling millions. They poised themselves as anti RIAA and hijacked songs and sold them as bundles much like a spam email list. You start selling your songs and streaming all by yourself and your then in competition with labels, scammers,Spot,Pan,Rh,iT,yt,Goo,Amaz,IE,Mic,Ap,Ver,Sony,network,TV and Radio Stations, and the upsiders list goes on into the millions. They’re not going anywhere, especially under or upside down. Your one of the billions in the Pay to Play industry as allways.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/tunecore TuneCore

    who is the "they" you are referring to?

  • http://www.fronzarp.com Fronz Arp

    This is an amazing conversation. Wonderful and fascinating. It leaves me wondering what exactly is the value of a song, a piece of music or any piece of art.
    That is the main discussion point here, that the deal is undervaluing or DE-valuing our songs.
    However the only suggestion to what the value actually IS is linked to physical or tactile representations of the song. A performance, you drive a certain distance, you have certain costs to cover, you get paid accordingly (if your lucky). A CD has a distinct range of production overheads and then distribution costs, whether its postage or stocking in a store so you can work out how much per unit to sell it at to cover costs and make a profit
    If the song is in a place where it can be endlessly consumed, listened to without limit, for virtually no cost of production or transmission then WHAT IS its value? Perhaps the answer is it has NO VALUE and perhaps the music industry is a ‘sinking iceberg’ because music is being OVER-valued. Otherwise why would d-grade celebrities be able to sell awful music to the masses whilst amazing musicians fall apart in their bedrooms?

  • David Miller

    uh no, the problem is that jazz is miss labeled. it covers much more than just jazz. Second, after listing to you stuff from your link (thank god for that) i just wouldn’t buy it. I hope you appreciate my position. Any time i come across a musician who won’t let people have a few tracks, i run the other way. When i was fit and hale, before my spinal fusion (which was 3/4 of my spine) i purchased 3 to 4 records a month. now that i’m on disability… well to put like some of the musicians here ” I like to eat too”. So i’m lucky to get 1 a year. usually none. So i use pandora for my musical needs. I suppose my problem is that i’m a history buff, so i know the constitution but more importantly, i know why it was written the way it was. both socially and politcally. So for me, yeah artists should get paid, and corps should die in 11 years or sooner if they stop doing the public any good, as the original corp charters declared. Smart fellows those founding fathers.

  • http://musicofozzie.com OZ KRASOVSKIS

    As an artist, I hate that people can get my music for free and I get nothing, it’s against copyright law yet it goes on, the movie industry doesn’t stand for it why have we?
    I do have to say it is great that I can upload my songs no agent manager studio etc. Like once was needed. But I do think if you download my music I should get royalties from it.
    People don’t work for free, why do we? I love the Internet because people can at least find me and listen to me, I will be putting songs up on tune core , but I don’t like that some of the companies charge like10 bucks per month for unlimited download, does that mean I don’t get the dollar from tune core , I think it does. It sucks to draw us in and then sell our stuff for pennies. And they can do anything they want with your stuff. Did anyone get an email saying if you don’t want your songs to be part of the massive downloads for 10 bucks, we won’t allow people to do that. Not. If the artist made a song, we should get paid, everyone else gets paid when you go o work, so should we.