The Great Rock n’ Roll Swindle?: Music Streaming and Artist’s Revenue
It’s been a topic of a number of articles in recent months in popular newspapers – and we’re going to be talking about this in more detail in the second semester – but I wanted to post these articles about music streaming and artist’s revenue you here in case some of you were interested. The general theme seems to be that while many streaming services appeal to listeners – less so in Canada, where copyright laws have prevent some of these services from opening – they are terrible for listeners.
This article from Australia (part of what looks like a very interesting series) talks about some of the ways in which revenues are collected and why they aren’t being distributed to artists. What it comes down to is the structure of the agreements between streaming services and the companies that own the rights to the music. As he writes:
the majority of the revenues currently being generated by streaming services are paid to the majors by entities in which the labels own large shareholdings. Those payments are made for catalogue-wide licenses against which individual artists have no clear claim.
This is a topic that’s being discussed by artists too. Here is a link from a recent article about Thom Yorke, Radiohead/Atoms for Peace singer, that was published a few days ago that discusses his issues with services like Spotify. As York says:
I feel like as musicians we need to fight the Spotify thing. I feel that in some ways what’s happening in the mainstream is the last gasp of the old industry. Once that does finally die, which it will, something else will happen. But it’s all about how we change the way we listen to music, it’s all about what happens next in terms of technology, in terms of how people talk to each other about music, and a lot of it could be really fucking bad. (It’s based on a Spanish-language interview you can read here.)
There have been a few other articles, like this one, that takes you through how rights payments are allocated. Meanwhile, the people over at Forbes have published this response, suggesting that things are fine as they are…. not sure which is right…or, perhaps more importantly, better for popular music.
I think that different interpretations of what we mean by “better for popular music” will generate different responses.
You could argue the case of music for the sake of music (think L’art pour l’art), in other words the value is in the joy and wonder of the art itself. In this case, different methods of streaming, playing the enormous role it does in distribution, is seen as a good thing. It makes artistic expression accessible and this in turn (given a Creative Commons type of open approach) will inspire even more music.
This then in turn brings up again the conversation regarding the survey at the beginning of the year. If music is distributed so easily and widely that it inspired more amateur musicians, is the prolific creation of music BETTER for popular music? Or is it in fact worse by creating “poor” content? My opinion is that the possibility of creating poor content is ultimately overridden by the ability to share good, well-produced content. And exposure to amateur artists has been immensely successful in the last few years.
However, artists are losing money and with the loss of revenue, could we expect to see professional artists decline? Is money the inspiration for creative production? This is a complex discussion with many arguments but I am inclined to say no because being an artist involves much more than just a love for money -- it requires passion for your work, dedication, and even in some cases fame, glory, and ego. So although it may be disheartening for artists, I feel that money is only a fraction of the incentive to create. That said, Forbes makes a compelling argument for artists still being able to make good revenue through radio exposure, and further, performances and concerts. CD sales may be down but, as we discussed Kanye West in class today, the exposure and influence of artists remains strong, arguably stronger because of these distribution methods.
TLDR: Spotify and other forms of sharing music benefit popular music by creating opportunity for artistic exposure and proliferating amateur music production, and artists are still doing well enough in traditional sales methods.
In the end, I think your comment highlights that the issue is how to transition from amateur artist to professional artist. Exposure won’t pay bills or food. In this way, it’s very much akin to the explosion of unpaid, or poorly paid, internships. People don’t only work, or create, because they want to be rich. But they also can’t forego a living wage for very long unless they have some other source of financial support.
David Byrne, whose article about cities I posted a few days ago, just posted this article about these issues too. In the article, he concludes:
“What’s at stake is not so much the survival of artists like me, but that of emerging artists and those who have only a few records under their belts (such as St Vincent, my current touring partner, who is not exactly an unknown). Many musicians like her, who seem to be well established, well known and very talented, will eventually have to find employment elsewhere or change what they do to make more money. Without new artists coming up, our future as a musical culture looks grim. A culture of blockbusters is sad, and ultimately it’s bad for business. That’s not the world that inspired me when I was younger.”