Subscription and streaming music services are not in and of themselves de-valuing art any more than traditional ad-supported radio stations de-value art. I find that argument completely without merit. How about the Sam Goody $3.99 tape section? That was literally de-valuing art. :) Should artists and labels ideally have a choice about their distribution platforms? Of course...and they do. Streaming might not be the best fit for some artists. Fine... But vilifying Spotify is counter-productive unless their business model is less honest than it would appear on the surface (all evidence to the contrary). What I read constantly are articles that completely misunderstand the economics of being a signed artist - and OP-EDs conflating one royalty check and a chip on the shoulder with evidence for the big-bad-streaming-monster. Why not shift the conversation to what actually needs to be talked about, which is (to my thinking) the following: 1. How do we use the modern platforms to editorialize well enough to break a new great artist without signing a prohibitive record contract? If we want more of the purchase/streaming revenue generated headed back into the hands of the writers/performers this is critical. If you spend 10 million breaking a new artist on your label you better believe youd want a large portion of returning revenue. Marketing and promotion are enormous expenses and those that take that risk end up (fairly) with their hands in the revenue-pie. So... 2. How can we cut out additional hands from the royalty/sales pie? 3. What needs to change about the streaming model to better support artists?
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:36:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015