This is something I’ve noticed too: people with £100,000 systems saying how wonderful it is to be able to listen to all the music they want for £15 a month. Can you get all your monthly food for £15? All your monthly wine? The majority seem to want something for nothing. A good conversation with musicians would, I feel, be enlightening to many. But I suspect we are pissing in the wind.
7 Likes
And very off topic on this thread, plus a guarantee for the thread getting closed if anyone chose to respond to the content
3 Likes
I fear so Nigel, judging by many comments on this thread.
1 Like
I don’t think the “majority want something for nothing”, but it would seem that they aren’t willing to pay much more than £10-20 a month. Not much different to other media content such as TV/film, sports etc.
I believe the amount people were historically spending on music (whatever the source - physical, downloads, streaming etc.) was in long term decline, reaching a low point in around 2014. Since then the average spend on music per capita has been increasing year on year and is now back to mid-2000 levels. That would seem to suggest that streaming is saving the music industry 
Anyway there’s seems to have been a positive result, Spotify and their cohorts can put out all the rubbish they want (as it’s their right) however now it will need to be balanced. I’d say that’s a win win.
As for free music, I think those that think they can steal rob or borrow music should consider how’d they like to go to work for nothing.
1 Like
Yes, have a look here TheKevster:
Those data are four years old and incomplete @Protegimus . Also, as I sid upthread, many distros don’t deal with Qobuz so you have to negotiate with them dirctly. which is a very frustrating experience… I’ve been trying for three years.
According to this BBC report.
On streaming services, labels retain the majority of the money - with the artist receiving about 13% on average, and session musicians receiving nothing.
So, if I paid £100 a month streaming fees, the artist would get £13 and record label £87. And you’re criticizing people for not wanting to pay more.
I’d reduce the time copyright lasts, so the likes of Jagger and Tom Jones get nothing from streaming for albums released in the 60s and 70s, leaving more money in the pot for younger musicians.
I’m not defending Spotify, but it seems that your repeated attack on them is misplaced, and that seemed unfair to me - rightly as you have confirmed. The solution comes not from attacking the easy target, the middleman, but the root cause, the record companies.
As I have stated, in this thread and elsewhere, I do use Spotify - because they offer me a free service (I have a rooted dislike subscription services), and very much because they have an extremely wide catalogue, and it has been rare to dip in and not find what I was looking for.
BUT as I have also said, I do that to audition, and if I like enough to want to listen to again I will buy. I know I am not alone in doing this - and that clearly benefits the artist more than if the service were not there to sample from, and more than if I were instead to subscribe to the likes of Qobuz or Tidal and simply stream online instead of buying. Having a ready means of auditioning to take the place of the acncient listening booths in record shops is invaluable - and it needs to be somewhere the punter can find readily. I do also use Bandcamp, and occasionally artists’ own websites.
Yeah, the date of the information is clearly stated but I highly doubt the picture has changed. Likely it’s worse as the market is exploited. I’d be interested if you have any more up to date figures for sure.
Based on the data available, I’m happy supporting a service that does distribute more to the artists.
What is clear is that it’s nothing new in an industry where many should take a good look at themselves.
Lucian “Lucifer” Grainge, head of Universal Music Group last year earned more (£123m) than all UK songwriters did from streaming and sales in 2019.
Spotify are part of the problem. Consumers are part of the problem as well, expectying artists to work for nowt just so they can enjoy music practically free and at their convenience. Of course, none of these consumers would work for free, but they expect musicians to.
2 Likes
I don’t have any direct knowledge, however I suspect that seeing the excesses some successful artists get up to gives some people the impression that musicians all make a lot of money, with absolutely no awareness of the truth for probably 99% of musicians, that engendering the why pay if you can get it free attitude, or pay as little as possible. Also I suspect very few people have any inkling of the meagre amount paid to artists by streaming services, nor the kind of skewed distribution you described in relation to Spotify. (I only know the latter from this thread, and generally re streaming from this forum).
Whilst consumers indeed may be part of the problem, so I guess are some artists, while Spotify and other streaming services are also part of the problem, - but the worst part of the problem is closer to the artists. Fix that and you can fix it all. Otherwise in my view the best that can be done is try to educate and persuade, rather than blame!
But also do recognise that there is a positive aspect to Spotify as I described in my last post, benefitting artists indirectly. I suspect the proportion of people doing that will be a minority, especially among the younger generation who appear to treat music more as a throwaway commodity.
" I vant music for nothing, Master!!!"
" Well then, you shall receive it…in abundance!"
Zzzzzzaaaaczcppzpzpppp!!!
“Achhh…I grow veery ov this streamink vorld!!!
Vith it’s schitt pay, dropouts and limited bandvidth…
Ven do vee return to the glorious vorld of
Transl-vinylania!!!”
I really admire your diplomatic response to a wrong attitude.
1 Like
It’s probably the first time I’ve been called diplomatic. 
1 Like
He makes very good points about the mis-use of the term “misinformation” and facts. To the extent that he provides very specific examples within the last 8 months of “mis-information” now being recognised as facts, which rather proves the whole point of having open debates.
If you think about it there’s no debate occurring on Rogan’s shows so not applicable. A debate would likely fly on Spotify. But not propaganda. And that’s what he’s brokering in. This has been an education wrt Spotify’s inequitable profit model. No education wrt Rogan, he saw a profit model and seized it.
4 Likes
He was caught on an interview here yesterday rabbiting on about a subject and when pointed to the facts he simply said he was unaware. If you’re going to state a case you should just do some research or at least get your Indians to do. He does no research cares even less about the truth, it’s not about a debate it’s simply about money, he loves the controversy and worse he profits from it.
4 Likes
He interviewed two very well qualified and experienced medical professionals. Hardly spreading misinformation. Simply presenting a wider range of views. There is actually a fairly significant problem for democracy when discussing varying views is shut down.
I’m sure most of us have had different advice from various doctors over the years. It’s called getting information and making decisions. Otherwise stay in an echo chamber and limit your informed choice.
3 Likes