Streaming threatens future of UK music says Elbow's Guy Garvey

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
54,195
Location
Stoke on Trent
That song about a womans bum sang by Megan Traynor (!) earned around $6,500 from streaming even though it had been played a multi million times.
Not a good time to be a musician.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jul 2004
Posts
30,439
That song about a womans bum sang by Megan Traynor (!) earned around $6,500 from streaming even though it had been played a multi million times.
Not a good time to be a musician.

It has 2.4 billion views on YouTube though so still made her a multi millionaire.

I remember the artist Gotye admitting that he had missed out on millions of dollars for his track 'Somebody That I Used to Know' because he chose not to have ads on the video, which now sits at 1.5 billion views.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
54,195
Location
Stoke on Trent
It has 2.4 billion views on YouTube though so still made her a multi millionaire.

So if we do the math and upscale the streaming from 178 million streams to your 2.4 billion it still isn't a lot - around £47,000.

The songwriter behind Meghan Trainor‘s hit single ‘All About That Bass’ claims to have received only $5,679 (£3,700) in royalties from streams of the song, despite the track being played over 178 million times.

Kevin Kadish co-wrote the 2014 single with Trainor. The song was the first to enter the UK Singles Chart based on streams alone and spent four weeks at Number One.

Speaking at a meeting hosted by the US House Judiciary Committee at a university in Tennessee, Kadish described the challenge facing songwriters in the digital age.

“I’ve never heard a songwriter complain about radio royalties as much as streaming royalties,” he said. “That was the real issue for us, like one million streams equals $90 (£59).”

“For a song like ‘All About That Bass’, that I wrote, which had 178 million streams. I mean $5,679? That’s my share,” Kadish added, according to The Tennessean.

“That’s as big a song as a songwriter can have in their career and number one in 78 countries. But you’re making $5,600 (£3,700). How do you feed your family?”
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,456
For a song like ‘All About That Bass’, that I wrote, which had 178 million streams. I mean $5,679? That’s my share,”

Not clear how many ways that's being split.

Still, I'd expect the advertising revenue from a song video to be garbage. Who's about to click adverts when they want to listen to a song.

I was watching a bodybuilding youtuber go through their numbers and the revenue vs views was not proportional in the slightest. Their best video was getting $1 per 1k views in ads with only around 300k views. Must have been very attractive for fitness related product ads. Other videos were considerably worse.

At any rate view count means jack when it comes to how useful that video is for pushing adverts. No adverts no money. No money no royalties?
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Posts
4,429
Location
Location, Location!
Well artists were hardly making a fortune off of radio plays. The modern version of that these days is streaming and it's the same story.

If you are a music artist and focused about the money side of things then you need to tour. That's where the money is.

There are soooooo many multi millionaire artists out there. They're hardly underpaid and struggling. My empathy for their streaming income is non-existent!
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,146
Location
Notts
if you dont adapt you dont deserve to continue. things change change with them or become a dinosaur.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
54,195
Location
Stoke on Trent
Well artists were hardly making a fortune off of radio plays. The modern version of that these days is streaming and it's the same story.

I have no idea but what I can tell you is that back in the 90s my mate bought the songs for Signal Radio's playlist.
A normal song cost £80 to play but every now and then some songs would be on the bargain £20 list and that's why you suddenly hear a local station playing an old hit every week.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2010
Posts
12,034
Location
London
The only way to make a living now if you’re starting out as a band or solo artist these days with everything being digitised/streamed is to basically be a brand with multiple income streams (live shows, merch, fan-interaction, etc) and refusal to accept this is akin to shouting at the rising tide to go back - it’s just how it is now.

The quality of home recording equipment and production has gone up so dramatically that artists can get started without signing their souls and rights away to a label from the get-go at least but as with any creative endeavour very few people can make a lifelong career out of it.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
54,195
Location
Stoke on Trent
And how much of that would have gone to the artist versus the record company?

No idea.
The money went to the Performing Rights or something and they are supposed to dish it out.

The quality of home recording equipment and production has gone up so dramatically that artists can get started without signing their souls and rights away to a label from the get-go at least but as with any creative endeavour very few people can make a lifelong career out of it.

And virtually impossible to get on a support slot with a major band unless you're signed.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Apr 2003
Posts
3,169
Location
South North West
I think music's been an overvalued commodity for a long time at the top end. While there were limited outlets for public access, only the cream (or quirky) would make it to the top and the public ear and that allowed the business around music to get out of control for those who were allowed -- by the business -- to climb the slippery ladder. Now anyone can record themselves on a kazoo and be on Spotify by teatime. Music has been diluted massively, so the money will be diluted too by all the folk who have almost infinite choice now and discover they love the kazoo more than U2 (which should be everyone).

The good news though is that more people ought to be able to make a little money out of music, but the chances of a decent income may fall. Sell any stock you might hold in companies rescuing Rollers from swimming pools or clearing up televisions thrown out of hotel windows.

However I have the greatest respect for jobbing musicians who, throughout musical history, get out there in pubs and bars and concert halls, performing. That's real music. Even when I first started listening to music in the 70s I found records sterile and uninvolving after a few plays. So I've never really bought that much music and I'm happy for recorded music to fall in value and become advertising material for the real, live thing. It's been heading that way for a long time though and I'm not sure anyone in the business should be surprised.

Generally all creatives have always had the same issue though. Most books are written by people with normal jobs as well, because income from writing is lousy. Most artists will not make anything like a living from selling their work. And most musicians will only ever earn a few quid, if anything at all, from it. However playing music is a reward in itself. Far more satisfying than listening to someone else do it.

Right, 'scuse me. This kazoo isn't going to play itself.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
83,077
Something I find is odd is the lack of monetisation in general - there is no easy way in most of the streaming platforms especially Spotify to add your most played tunes to a list and buy them for "prosperity" and/or to support the artist and sales of merchandise, etc. through the point that the artist has most contact with the customer is sporadic and hit and miss. The industry could be doing a lot more to make money - they'd rather just blame the customer and drag things backwards.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
17,723
It has 2.4 billion views on YouTube though so still made her a multi millionaire.
it doesn't seem to make sense, if she were a multimillionaire, wouldn't she have had a contract with the writer, to give a large perecentage to him,
from any performance eg live shows. mentioned by Somnabulist ?

The Guardian article doesn't present any proof about the 13% remark.
Streaming was worth around £1bn last year, however, artists had been reportedly paid only 13% of the income generated.
 

wnb

wnb

Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2004
Posts
3,983
So if we do the math and upscale the streaming from 178 million streams to your 2.4 billion it still isn't a lot - around £47,000.

The songwriter behind Meghan Trainor‘s hit single ‘All About That Bass’ claims to have received only $5,679 (£3,700) in royalties from streams of the song, despite the track being played over 178 million times.

Kevin Kadish co-wrote the 2014 single with Trainor. The song was the first to enter the UK Singles Chart based on streams alone and spent four weeks at Number One.

Speaking at a meeting hosted by the US House Judiciary Committee at a university in Tennessee, Kadish described the challenge facing songwriters in the digital age.

“I’ve never heard a songwriter complain about radio royalties as much as streaming royalties,” he said. “That was the real issue for us, like one million streams equals $90 (£59).”

“For a song like ‘All About That Bass’, that I wrote, which had 178 million streams. I mean $5,679? That’s my share,” Kadish added, according to The Tennessean.

“That’s as big a song as a songwriter can have in their career and number one in 78 countries. But you’re making $5,600 (£3,700). How do you feed your family?”

The all about the base song writer does she not get royalties from elsewhere? Radio play? Tv play? $5600 does seem very poor but Meghen was everywhere with that song so it's my guess the writer may well have made a good living but is sore about only get 5k for the streams perhaps they need to look at Spotify as a way to promote their brand rather than to make money from it.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2007
Posts
3,620
However I have the greatest respect for jobbing musicians who, throughout musical history, get out there in pubs and bars and concert halls, performing. That's real music. Even when I first started listening to music in the 70s I found records sterile and uninvolving after a few plays. So I've never really bought that much music and I'm happy for recorded music to fall in value and become advertising material for the real, live thing. It's been heading that way for a long time though and I'm not sure anyone in the business should be surprised.

Generally all creatives have always had the same issue though. Most books are written by people with normal jobs as well, because income from writing is lousy. Most artists will not make anything like a living from selling their work. And most musicians will only ever earn a few quid, if anything at all, from it. However playing music is a reward in itself. Far more satisfying than listening to someone else do it.

Right, 'scuse me. This kazoo isn't going to play itself.

Music is my greatest pleasure, yes hearing it live is even better but still on record some bands music just gives me a natural high that no other art form can rival.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,034
That's ok, I thought that home taping had already killed the music industry in the 80's

Then online piracy doubly killed it in the 00's
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,845
Location
Norfolk.
That doesn't put food on the table though for the smaller bands/artists.

In the past smaller bands/artists needed to tour as thats where the majority of their money will come from, not that it'll be a lot of money but certainly a wage. However Covid has currently stopped that so there has to be a way of band to make enough money independently of a label and I can only see things like spotify/youtube/streaming/patreon etc being a plus. Again the money won't be good but it'll be enough to get them back to gigging.
 
Top Bottom