Whilst I have a streamer , I use for internet radio only . From what Mr Frampton says there is a serious imbalance between the number of plays and the royalties .
and another thing - if those streaming rates are so low, and everyone is primarily streaming (not buying physical copies) how can Springsteen’s catalogue be worth $500m? It doesn’t square.
Springsteen’s Letter to You - his most recent release that’s not the cover album - sold 96,00 units. I don’t believe that Born to Run is going to sell a million physical copies over the next five years. And we’re unlikely to hear Born In The U.S.A. 56 million times on the radio
I hope that he has received a few pennies from me, as I re-bought the 2LP set ‘Frampton Comes Alive’ a few weeks ago. It is as fantastic as I remember it when I bought it as a student in Oxford all those years ago.
It’s funny how listening to music can ‘transport’ you back over the years to a time and place when/where you first heard it.
Reading Frampton’s comments , it seems that it was the "record companies " that “ratted them out” , my suspicion is that he may earn more these days , but not a lot more .
I don’t know what are the true facts, but the data quoted in the opening post are anomalous: Mr Frampton complained in 2017 that he had received $3000 for 56M plays, and a day ago said he had received $1700 for 55M plays. Whilst both seem minute sums for the number of plays, clearly something is factually incorrect, begging the question which did he actually receive …or was it a completely different sum?
Funny I just got a email from Qobuz this morning asking a few questions, one was about would I/do I support artists being paid a fair royalty from streaming services. Stupid question really they know the answer and should just get on with it and fix this mess before it’s gets any worse.