Free streaming music came under attack at last night’s Grammys, as Apple and Sonos aired a new Apple Music ad during the break.
Recording Academy President Neil Portnow and Common said that free tiers on streaming music services threaten the viability of music as a career, reports The Verge.
“Isn’t a song worth more than a penny?” Portnow asked the audience at the Staples Center, referring to the minuscule profits artists earn from ad-supported streaming. “Listen, we all love the convenience, and we support technologies like streaming, which connect us to that music. But we also have to make sure that artists grow up in a world where music is a viable career” …
Common went on to thank those who support music by taking out paid subscriptions to streaming music services.
Apple originally planned to pay musicians and labels nothing during the three-month free trial of Apple Music offered to new users, but did a u-turn after Taylor Swift publicly criticized the plan.
Apple partnered with Sonos on an Apple Music ad featured during the break with the tagline ‘Music makes it home.’ The ad – which stars Killer Mike, Matt Berninger, and St. Vincent – conveys the message that music makes for a happier home, and features the streaming service being played through Sonos speakers.
Sonos began a beta trial of Apple Music support back in December before the official launch last week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Aop0_Kyr0
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I am in agreement to this statement. People really need to understand there there is no such thing as free. Sometimes young people expect this to be the case, because, you know, “everything from [companies like] Google is free”.
True, but what about the second-hand market? CDs and vinyls that can be picked up next to nothing and for which the artists are paid nothing. The only way that you’d be able to get around that – and it’s happening in several countries now – is the private copying levy, usually applied to blank CDs, hard drives (although I have yet to hear of such tax being applied to hard drives), and so on.
here in japan CD rental stores have stacks of blank CDs by the counter — rental is about ¥100-400 per CD for about a week and it is fully legal to copy the CD at home… ive been to some rental stores and they will have 3 floors of rental CDs and a small corner where you can buy CDs… most people just dont buy them…
it is similar with movies…rental is very cheap (although illegal to copy DVDs)
sadly japan doesnt have legal rights to rent out games — so games are very expensive and rarely in the sale… second hand games are normally a similar price to full price in the UK
He’s right, unfortunately there’s a venerable *orchestra* of people who will stick their fingers into the collective ear and scream anytime the issue is even suggested, and afterwards, with their lack of education about music and the music industry firmly in hand, will complain that there’s not enough “good music/tours/whatever”.
Can you explain how the music industry works?
As far as I am concerned, I do not pay the artist – just like when i buy a product, i am not paying the designer, or the factories, or the workers etc — i am paying the person selling the item…
If the distributor (in this case apple, but it also includes amazon, spotify etc) are paying the Artist a reasonable fee then either the Artists takes their music to someone else, or not release anything…
Also… how long should they sell for full price? how about sales? how about second hand goods?
Half the Artists don’t write their own music, they employ someone to make the backing music, and they pay for time in a studio to sing their lyrics…
if we were talking about Artists like Queen, who put a lot of effort into their albums, wrote their own songs, and played their own music – then ok…
But unfortunately for the music industry there are many factory made singers and groups who get studios to do most of the work (which take most of the money).
But just like movies – all that hard work, all those people involved (including musicians) etc. – a typical movie last longer than most music albums — but certain DVDs end up cheaper than a CD upon release…for example – Martian in HD is £9.99 to own on iTune compared to Adele 25 released last year that costs the same…
The difference is, that £9.99 for the movie has to pay for a lot more people, most of whom get paid to do a job but wont see any royalties afterwards.
A lot of artists do have a very good deal — if they are any good, they do make a lot of money — unfortunately a lot of artists are the equivalent of B or even C rated movies that skip the cinema release and often go straight to DVD or sometimes just end up on TV early hours in the morning — still, time and effort and money when into making these, but if they are no good people wont want them.
If Artists want more money – they need to talk to their manager, their studio, etc — these are the ones taking more of the money… Apple could put the prices up, but people will stop paying – when people stop paying, they either stop listening OR they find free illegal sources.
When I buy a DVD, i buy because i like the movie — if i buy a CD, there is probably only a few songs i will like.
In short – although artist think they put a lot of time and effort into what they do – compared to other things that are made, most artist do little work — there are only a few serious artists who do actually put a lot of time and effort and are passionate about what they do — but at the end of the day…you can work very hard on something YOU like, but if it doesnt sell well, or no one wants it, then no one is to blame but YOU… a song is a product at the end of the day…
As someone who worked in that industry for a time – The Recording Industry needs to do a real “self-examination” as to how they have wholesale raped the composers and musicians who make the music. The Industry is far more corrupt than they would like to let on.
“Pot – Meet Kettle.”
YMMV!
Currently working there. First, saying “THE” industry in that context is in error. There are plenty of labels and promoters out there, most under the radar (I wonder what might help them gain more exposure..? Sales perhaps?) who are extremely fair with musicians. And nobody has ever denied there are a glut of giant players out there who have ripped off artists since time began. That is preaching to the choir. But the elephant in the room now is everyone else: certain zines, who provide far below average reviews and interviews, certain fans who pay for approximately zero, certain scenes who think they can patch up problems via oversaturation, I could go on. It is a CULTURAL problem.
I think you have a typo. Don’t you mean Apple originally planned to NOT pay artists during the trial period?
No, the piece reads: “Apple originally planned to pay musicians and labels nothing during …”
Perhaps a triple negative would be clearer: “Apple originally did not plan to not pay musicians and labels nothing during…”
We’ll be in touch …
I don’t think all music should be free.
I don’t think artists that make decent music have any concerns of making it a career.
If your music earns you 40k a year…guess what? That’s a career. You don’t need to making 4 million a year to be a successful musician.
I just don’t get the sympathy. South Park handled it best. Thanks to piracy, Britney had to settle for a Gulf Stream 3, and couldn’t afford a Gulf Stream 4. :'(
40K is more than a career… thats a huge success in life… considering the average person earns way below that and are the ones that keep the country going.
All this industry ball gargling in these comments. The fact is, free streaming music has been available since the mid-90s. And shock! It has been available since the 20s in the form of radio.
What’s changed is that people aren’t dumb enough to pay 25 1993 dollars for a cd with one or two good songs on it anymore. When they were making money hand over fist, no complaints, even as they were ripping the artists off.
Offer a decent streaming service with the type of music I want on it and no content restrictions, and I will pay. But instead we get half baked shit with radio station style playlist requirements. Apple Music, wow the whole iTunes library available for streaming… Except a good half of what I wanted to listen to wasn’t available for streaming.
The reality is, if you’re into electronic music especially, most of the good stuff is available for free or for pennies at band camp or soundcloud. The RIAA burnt up any good will that may have existed with Napster.
And let’s be honest… Most of these shitheads at this award ceremony publish shovelware-tier music for normie scum. Nothing they say matters, and no matter what the industry labels them, they’re not real artists.
Man, I’m so glad a lot of my favorite electronic music artists have weekly/monthly radio podcast shows on iTunes. And for those that are not on iTunes, they put up their podcasts on SoundCloud or other sites where I download them then load them to iTunes. Up until recently, I could also listen to Apple Radio for anything else.
I guess it’s a bit different for DJs/Producers of this music, since most/a lot of them produce their own music and have their own labels. Their money is mostly made in performing at clubs and festivals around the world as opposed to sales of their music.
When you are streaming music, you’re not BUYING IT! You own nothing! While there are free Music services for the people doing the streaming, those company’s are still forking out money from the money they get from Ad’s. This crying over free music, give me a break. Why is streaming on the internet any different from it playing over the air and picking it up from AM/FM radio? That’s FREE also!!! I don’t know about you, but one of the things we did back when I was a kid is record the music from that onto tape, to play back over and over again.
You know what happens bitching about so called free streaming and trying to get rid of it? Far more Pirating of music. Know why I won
t pay for Apple Pay currently? Because I don’t think it’s worth $10 a month to me for as little music as I stream these days. I got tired of high prices. So I moved to free Audio blogs when I want to tune into something. Maybe if there was a $5 option with limited hours or something I’d sign up.
Still, the money they get is still not enough. Pandora, Spotify, and others can’t seem to turn a profit!!! Most of the money these company’s make go to pay for the content. With what it costs to run the service, they’re losing money.
What the real problem for these company’s is people not buying a expensive CD with mostly crap songs just to get a couple they may like. Same went to Cassette Tapes and Records also. With the Internet you can buy just the 1 or 2 songs you like and that’s just a fraction of the cost of the whole album. That is really what they don’t like but were pretty much forced into doing because of the Internet. If people couldn’t buy the song they wanted, they’d just pirate it. It’s also opened it up to self publishing and cutting out the middle man. People have access to content they may not have had access to in the past.
Music is a Luxury you spend disposable income on! Something people have less of these days. I’m just wondering, why these people aren’t crying a river over FREE RADIO???
I keep seeing statements like “AM/FM is free”. That’s true, but at least when songs are played on the radio the radio station pays into the publishing companies that distribute the money to the songwriters, and performers. With a lot of streaming services the artists make little to no money. That’s just not right. Music, whether it be full albums or individual songs are a product. You can’t walk into any store and just take products off the shelf and leave without paying for them. Music is no different. I agree that the music industry for the most part is broken, but streaming free music in any form and leaving the musicians with no monetary gain is not the answer. Would you want to work for free? No? Well musicians don’t either.
I don’t even demand a lot. Most shouldn’t. I’d just like it if, when agreements and contracts enter the equation, the right cash goes to the right people (including myself) so that all the components of what we do can keep on doing. A lot of people seem to think that’s too much, to just keep the lights on. We look at traits which made what those exact people consider “classic” yet want to do the opposite thing and think we’ll get the same results. Let’s help the sound engineers starve so that that expertise becomes scarce and more recordings drop in quality. Let’s help marketing starve so that nobody knows this or that amazing record even exists.
The current licensing scheme makes no sense. AM/FM licensing should be the same as satellite, which should be the same as internet streaming. Unfortunately in each case the incumbents were successful in making things worse for their upstart competition.
There’s a plenty of history to this problem, and it runs all over the place.
Back in the old days of vinyl, lots of people were getting paid (companies the most). Then CDs came along and while the artists received the same, the record companies raided everyone’s wallets with astronomically priced product. Backlash came in the form of file sharing: after getting screwed unmercifully by record companies, consumers just used what was at hand to share music freely. It made us feel better until how it was affecting real musicians and our real music culture so negatively.
Fortunately, Jobs was right about people not wanting to steal from the artist, so iTunes ruled for a good long time on the 99 cent track. People want fairness in what they’re buying and whom they are supporting. Everyone with bills to pay knows bills have got to get paid, so they don’t object to paying for services. But in a corporate culture where companies’ distinguishing characteristic is to make profits no matter what, it puts everyone else into an uncomfortable position: consumers and creators have vastly different interests than the corporatist middle men looking to extract the last penny from the last palm.
We live with a monster of our own creation, and its influence is so massive we don’t believe ourselves of having the means of taming it, despite its ongoing corrosion of our musical culture. The Internet is helping to bring consumers closer to artists, and touring helps put cash directly into creators hands. But we still have to do something about the larger problem we face in how music is traded, and that means looking at how we do all of our trading, across the board.
I literally do not care about these ridiculous complaints. Music is a hobby. If you want to do a hobby as a career, you should expect to live as a starving artist or get a second job (like 99% of actors, musicians, painters, etc.). Music is a wonderful thing, but some of the best music I’ve heard comes from “nobodies” on YouTube creating music because they love to do it. Artistry is about passion, not money.
Would’t it be great if people like you gave those “nobodies” a little cash? Then that could become their career and more people would enjoy great music because of your efforts. No offence, but to suggest that people should not expect to succeed at their craft, should expect to be nobodies, because art is about passion and not money, sounds a lot like somebody that wants free stuff.
If people like us fed into the dreams of ‘nobodies’ to my our hobbies become a career – then most people would not be doing the job they are doing.
Ask most people whether they make money out of the things like enjoy doing — most people will say they get a real job to help fund their hobby and only the lucky ones make it…
It is awesome that these lucky few get their few minutes of fame — but life sucks… there are a lot more who never met the right people, or who ended up having kids and settling down, or those who live in the wrong place etc. who are fantastic singers, artists, performers BUT life goes on.
If they don’t like the fact that most people want free music – then sucks to be them… a lot of artist would be happy just to know people are listening to them.
Some of you have the misconception that “free” ad-supported music streaming does not pay the artists. A song gets $0.17 per 100 plays on free, ad supported services, and $0.22 per 100 plays on subscription based services. http://fortune.com/2015/12/17/music-industry-streaming-royalties/
Also, not every artist get royalty fees for airplay of songs. Instead, it is the songwriter/s that get those royalties. http://blog.songtrust.com/publishing-tips-2/what-you-didnt-know-about-radio-royalties/
When you have all these “artists” that don’t write their own songs and need a team to write these BASIC lyrics because they have no talent other than vocals and/or a pretty face, well that’s a whole ‘nother issue. Of course, it doesn’t help that the recording industry rapes and rips off artists since the beginning of time.
Like someone else mentioned, when CDs were our only way of getting music, they were making money hand over fists. You’d get maybe one or two good songs, and the rest was filler. Even if the labels were ripping off artists, there was still enough money going around that no one really complained. Now that we have a choice to only buy only what we like, that money well has been drying up and they’re all feeling it.
iTunes’ 99 cent singles largely destroyed the CD market, and youtube’s “0 cent singles” are the final nail in its coffin.
Why are we under an obligation to “make sure that artists grow up in a world where music is a viable career?” People have always made music, and they always will. Painting (excepting house-painting) may not be a “viable career” for most (many great artists are only appreciated after they are dead, after all), but there are still lots of students in art school, simply because they enjoy making art.
As John Philip Sousa so presciently noted in 1906 (“The Menace of Mechanical Music”) it is record companies themselves that are the greatest threat to music makers everywhere! :)
Sousa’s rant may sound crazy 110 years later, but he has a point that instant gratification at the push of a button seems to stand in opposition to long, tedious hours at the piano, however rewarding the latter may be in the long run.
A song is worth more than a penny, but that penny isn’t paying for ownership of the song, it’s paying to listen to it once.
Whatever happened to the good old days when music was created to get laid. Most music I consider as being timeless was built on healthy dose of libido and drugs. After money entered the equation it allowed the musician to get too much of everything and just crash. Oddly, at the height of most careers the artist is starving, or very near broke when they are most accomplished.
I am very confused by this statement and the comments people are making…
Back in my day a lot of music was live — tickets were a lot cheaper – or you just went around to the local pub and listen to local bands.
Alternatively – there was this magical thing called “a radio” … this magical device was in cars, on portable players, on hi-fi systems… oh how i remember the days when i would have my tape cassette (a small rectangle plastic thing with a magnetic recording tape) queued up and waiting for my favorite songs to play – i’d record them and hope i’d miss as much of the talk over as possible…
Shock horror!!! The radio was free — in was funded by commercials etc
Radio, with free music funded by ads, has been around for many many many years — longer than most of these artists…
The idea of the radio was to get your music heard and out there – if people really liked it they would then go and buy it so they could play it anywhere, anytime, and without cutting the ends off due to the talk overs.
Digital streaming made free with ad support is no different — in fact it is harder to record the music – so you are limited to listening to it via an internet connection (which a lot of people wont do on the go due to data fees) — so, they stream at home, if the song is any good you can easily buy it with a touch of the button instead of heading to the shop.
The probably nowadays is that there are many many many artists all competing – and unfortunately a lot of them are not very good.
Your music is only worth something IF people are willing to listen and pay for it — i also remember when CDs often came with lyrics, photos, booklets etc — now most dont… and the fact a digital download of a CD is sometimes more than actually buying the CD (which gives me more legal ownership than digital) it just seems the music industry is out of control at the moment with everyone pulling in different directions.
“Isn’t a song worth more than a penny?”
I agree. They should stop all that free streaming over FM radio immediately.
Before I started streaming, I was paying around $50 a month on a couple of albums. So, I don’t think the $10/mo for access to the iTunes catalog is all that unreasonable.
it seems to me that the real benefit of streaming is finding new artists. I’ve become interested in entirely new genres of music since having access to it. People and groups I would never have thought to listen to before.