|
|
Post by The Escapist on May 7, 2019 21:21:12 GMT -5
Etc, etc. Streaming for sure is bad for artists, but that's because it exposes the deeper issues about how we value work, art, and people in these kinds of markets, issues that are gonna exist regardless of how you choose to listen to music. Two things are for sure - the record labels don't help, and the genie is not going back into the bottle. The problem is record companies bought stock in Spotify and have a say in how and what is paid out to artists. They were smart to invest several years ago knowing CD sales were dead in the water and needed to get ahead of the growing storm. I remember reading once that a million streams equals like $4,000. That is bleak. I completely agree. It's a mess that goes to the heart of how music (and a lot of modern economics) operates. |
|
|
|
Post by MONO on May 8, 2019 0:08:41 GMT -5
The instrumental tracks are vinyl only, but Wait and Return is available digitally. That's what I thought. So much for the the argument that none of Noel's stuff is exclusive to vinyl. No one claimed that anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by fabulousbakers on May 8, 2019 3:09:38 GMT -5
That's what I thought. So much for the the argument that none of Noel's stuff is exclusive to vinyl. No one claimed that anyway... Fair enough. You did say... ...Why only vinyl again? There are nearly no NGHFB vinyl only releases... ..and of the five examples I mentioned four of them were indeed vinyl only. |
|
|
|
Post by MONO on May 8, 2019 7:03:42 GMT -5
Of how many NGHFB tracks in total (including remixes and live)?  the last four "b-sides" (instrumental versions of It's A Beautiful World, Holy Mountain, She Taught Me How to Fly and Love Is The Law) plus the Wait And Return EP were only issued on vinyl. The "b-sides" of all these singles [God Help Us All (Demo), Dead In The Water (Live At RTÉ 2FM Studios, Dublin), She Taught Me How To Fly (Justin Robertson's Deadstock 33s Remix), Alone On The Rope] are available digitally. The Wait And Return EP is available digitally as well. It's really just the instrumental tracks that aren't. So I was right  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 7:10:35 GMT -5
The problem is record companies bought stock in Spotify and have a say in how and what is paid out to artists. They were smart to invest several years ago knowing CD sales were dead in the water and needed to get ahead of the growing storm. I remember reading once that a million streams equals like $4,000. That is bleak. I completely agree. It's a mess that goes to the heart of how music (and a lot of modern economics) operates. "But musicians still aren't getting a fair shake. Here's the math: Spotify pays about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. And the "holder" can be split among the record label, producers, artists, and songwriters. In short, streaming is a volume game." -CNBC The math shakes out at $6,000 - $8,400 per million streams that has to be split between multiple parties of people.  ----- Wonderwall has over 672 million streams... so in theory it's paid out $4,838,400+. Which is the most streams of any song released in the 90's. So that's something. |
|
|
|
Post by mossy on May 8, 2019 8:58:57 GMT -5
I completely agree. It's a mess that goes to the heart of how music (and a lot of modern economics) operates. "But musicians still aren't getting a fair shake. Here's the math: Spotify pays about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. And the "holder" can be split among the record label, producers, artists, and songwriters. In short, streaming is a volume game." -CNBC The math shakes out at $6,000 - $8,400 per million streams that has to be split between multiple parties of people. ----- Wonderwall has over 672 million streams... so in theory it's paid out $4,838,400+. Which is the most streams of any song released in the 90's. So that's something. And that’s spread out over how many years? The whole decade since Spotify came out? After tax etc it’s still a pittance compared to what Noel made in the 90s. He did pretty well out of capitalism and record labels then. X |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 8, 2019 9:44:51 GMT -5
I completely agree. It's a mess that goes to the heart of how music (and a lot of modern economics) operates. "But musicians still aren't getting a fair shake. Here's the math: Spotify pays about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. And the "holder" can be split among the record label, producers, artists, and songwriters. In short, streaming is a volume game." -CNBC The math shakes out at $6,000 - $8,400 per million streams that has to be split between multiple parties of people. ----- Wonderwall has over 672 million streams... so in theory it's paid out $4,838,400+. Which is the most streams of any song released in the 90's. So that's something. Like I said earlier, legacy acts can make Spotify work. They have the name, history and back catalogue to generate streams. Not to mention past sales glories to live off of. Newer bands? Good luck and keep the tour van gassed up! |
|
|
|
Post by Tongueless Ghost Of Sin on May 8, 2019 9:59:21 GMT -5
As a consumer I can't see much of a downside to this current trend. It levels the playing field for those who don't have record labels and big promotions and only really means it's harder to become super rich, which I don't think musicians really deserve anyway, plus we all get near instant access to an incredibly vast pool of music. I won't pretend to be an expert on this topic but despite limiting how much musicians can make couldn't this eventually lead to the collapse of record labels and all the parasites and corporate suits that leech off of musicians? So we then see a landscape full of independent artists who release their music online and become popular because of their ability and not if some suit decides they have the right look or are marketable and pushes them through hype and advertising. There's still plenty to be made in touring as well. This sounds like a much better picture than what we currently have to me anyway. I don't think the lack of financial compensation de-incentivises becoming a musician either, many creatives aren't driven by wealth accumulation but still I know a musician in a band who gets to tour a little bit but who doesn't really make much and I promise you the guy still has a pretty sweet life. I know if i had the talent I'd tour basically for free because it sounds amazing and infinitely better than the shit the rest of us have to do for a living. I think with all the shit going on in the world musicians not making much through streaming ranks pretty low on my GAF list  |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 8, 2019 11:31:03 GMT -5
As a consumer I can't see much of a downside to this current trend. It levels the playing field for those who don't have record labels and big promotions and only really means it's harder to become super rich, which I don't think musicians really deserve anyway, plus we all get near instant access to an incredibly vast pool of music. I won't pretend to be an expert on this topic but despite limiting how much musicians can make couldn't this eventually lead to the collapse of record labels and all the parasites and corporate suits that leech off of musicians? So we then see a landscape full of independent artists who release their music online and become popular because of their ability and not if some suit decides they have the right look or are marketable and pushes them through hype and advertising. There's still plenty to be made in touring as well. This sounds like a much better picture than what we currently have to me anyway. I don't think the lack of financial compensation de-incentivises becoming a musician either, many creatives aren't driven by wealth accumulation but still I know a musician in a band who gets to tour a little bit but who doesn't really make much and I promise you the guy still has a pretty sweet life. I know if i had the talent I'd tour basically for free because it sounds amazing and infinitely better than the shit the rest of us have to do for a living. I think with all the shit going on in the world musicians not making much through streaming ranks pretty low on my GAF list So many bands breakup or fade away due to pressures of creating art and sales. It’s always expensive to tour and make a profit. It’s not a slam dunk even if you are selling a fair amount of tickets. |
|
|
|
Post by seanrulesrh on May 8, 2019 20:37:42 GMT -5
Anyways...
Rattling Rose sounds fucking great. It's like a WTSRTS and Go Let It Out mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 8, 2019 23:48:18 GMT -5
So far Black Star Dancing has 389,608 streams. That is $1,558.43 earned. YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on May 9, 2019 3:33:38 GMT -5
Ah I’m talking about Spotify. Are we still having this conversation? My point still stands - there’s lots of stuff that’s not on streaming. Finding an example of one album doesn’t refute that. I get it. You’re upset. You’ve been exposed as a basic mainstream music fan, it’s OK, we’re not judging you. (Although we are really). X   I just find the idea that streaming is inferior to buying the romanticised physical albums (not saying you think that, but a lot seem to) quite baffling, because it just blatantly...isn't. I’ve said it before, but you need to listen to more vinyl. I don’t think you fully comprehend how good it can sound. |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on May 9, 2019 5:06:02 GMT -5
I'm perfectly happy paying £10 a month for all the music I could possibly listen to, with the option to change album's tracklistings, all on one phone - and I don't have much anxiety about Apple suddenly going out of business. In fact, I imagine that an unexplained house fire destroying all your CDs is much more likely than Spotify and Apple suddenly just disappearing. Well, i'm sure Blockbuster or Lehmann Brothers customers would agree that there is no risk of any company ever going out of business, Nokia too  On a more serious note, here is what i do : Apple Music + cds i usually buy two or three months after release. They are cheaper and you actually own the music. 9 bucks for all the music you can get is a good deal, but owning stuff that are valuable to you will always be more interesting than renting them. Some Apple Music users complained their library vanished once they stopped subscribing. I wouldnt be too worried about Apple going out business, but you never know... |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on May 9, 2019 7:31:42 GMT -5
I just find the idea that streaming is inferior to buying the romanticised physical albums (not saying you think that, but a lot seem to) quite baffling, because it just blatantly...isn't. I’ve said it before, but you need to listen to more vinyl. I don’t think you fully comprehend how good it can sound. I've heard it. Three months ago to the day I was in Edinburgh listening to (What's the Story) Morning Glory? on a lovely expensive record player. It sounds good, and spacious. There's a satisfaction to putting the needle in the groove. The crackles are cool. It is nice to have a big album on the wall. For me, it's just nowhere near good enough to spend much money on, beyond wanting to showcase your favourite albums. |
|
|
|
Post by sfsorrow on May 9, 2019 7:47:08 GMT -5
To me, you haven't really heard music until you've heard it on Pono.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomuk2006 on May 9, 2019 7:56:53 GMT -5
To me, you haven't really heard music until you've heard it on Pono. Hi, Mr Neil Young... you still going on about that crap?  Half your bloody book was about it! |
|
|
|
Post by sfsorrow on May 9, 2019 8:09:33 GMT -5
To me, you haven't really heard music until you've heard it on Pono. Hi, Mr Neil Young... you still going on about that crap? Half your bloody book was about it! Haha - wait until I tell you about my car! |
|
|
|
Post by thomuk2006 on May 9, 2019 8:32:47 GMT -5
Hi, Mr Neil Young... you still going on about that crap? Half your bloody book was about it! Haha - wait until I tell you about my car! haha  |
|
|
|
Post by rorymcbride on May 9, 2019 10:12:24 GMT -5
As a consumer I can't see much of a downside to this current trend. It levels the playing field for those who don't have record labels and big promotions and only really means it's harder to become super rich, which I don't think musicians really deserve anyway, plus we all get near instant access to an incredibly vast pool of music. I won't pretend to be an expert on this topic but despite limiting how much musicians can make couldn't this eventually lead to the collapse of record labels and all the parasites and corporate suits that leech off of musicians? So we then see a landscape full of independent artists who release their music online and become popular because of their ability and not if some suit decides they have the right look or are marketable and pushes them through hype and advertising. There's still plenty to be made in touring as well. This sounds like a much better picture than what we currently have to me anyway. I don't think the lack of financial compensation de-incentivises becoming a musician either, many creatives aren't driven by wealth accumulation but still I know a musician in a band who gets to tour a little bit but who doesn't really make much and I promise you the guy still has a pretty sweet life. I know if i had the talent I'd tour basically for free because it sounds amazing and infinitely better than the shit the rest of us have to do for a living. I think with all the shit going on in the world musicians not making much through streaming ranks pretty low on my GAF list Yeah fuck the businessman in his suit and tie, these musicians will be happy when they don't have to deal with them anymore and get to write, record and release their music for no money. Woo! Tour for free! Live with your parents! Have no life! Fuckinell lads. We've got a live one. |
|
|
|
Post by jazamora93 on May 9, 2019 11:33:20 GMT -5
Compare the chorus of 'The Death of you and me. If I had a gun. aka WAL, Broken arrow- to his Wbtm phase and it gets a bit disappointing
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on May 9, 2019 11:49:36 GMT -5
Compare the chorus of 'The Death of you and me. If I had a gun. aka WAL, Broken arrow- to his Wbtm phase and it gets a bit disappointing I think the choruses of Beautiful World, She Taught Me How to Fly, If Love is the Law, The Man Who Built the Moon, and Dead in the Water are just as good as those. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 9, 2019 11:51:24 GMT -5
Compare the chorus of 'The Death of you and me. If I had a gun. aka WAL, Broken arrow- to his Wbtm phase and it gets a bit disappointing “Ahhhhhhh ahhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhh...........Ahhhhhh ahhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhh!” |
|
|
|
Post by jazamora93 on May 9, 2019 12:00:43 GMT -5
Hell even u2 makes better dance songs these days. Remember The Blackout or Get out of your own way? Hows that for a dance/rock song.. Those songs clearly superior to anything noel released recently.. with dead in the water the sole bright spot
|
|
|
|
Post by World71R on May 9, 2019 12:25:50 GMT -5
Hell even u2 makes better dance songs these days. Remember The Blackout or Get out of your own way? Hows that for a dance/rock song.. Those songs clearly superior to anything noel released recently.. with dead in the water the sole bright spot As both a U2 fan and a NGHFB fan, that's not exactly true. I enjoy The Blackout but it's not driving in the same sense that Black Star Dancing is since The Blackout is more industrial than dance. Get Out of Your Own Way is also more pop rock and Black Star Dancing is more of a '70s-like dance rock. Simply put, Noel and U2 are operating in different spheres with their most recent works: Noel's going for more of a synth-pop/new wave-influenced rock sound while U2's going for more of an atmospheric industrial and punk-influenced pop rock sound. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on May 9, 2019 12:55:21 GMT -5
|
|
Half your bloody book was about it!
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5