Used to be "Rolling Stone." Actually, there was a flourishing rock press in the pre-internet era. And despite all the hype about fanzines, they had a limited audience and it was the big publications that had reach: "Rolling Stone," "Spin," "Bender"... But now there is not one authoritative music information source. And this isn't only in music, but in every vertical. Used to be your story was in the newspaper and you reached everyone in the market, many had subscriptions and those who didn't got the information from the verbal scuttlebutt, after all, there wasn't a whole hell of a lot more to talk about, there was no internet, talking and arguing about music was a big deal. Now it's a much smaller deal. Social media has usurped the conversation and the delineation between artist and fan is no longer clear, the fan wants to be the artist, and can be on social media. And although artists are gods to some, they are the source of derision to others. That's what the internet has done, pulled the artists off their pedestals, they're seen as little better than you and me. Except for their devotees who police the behavior of the rest of the population, looking for negative feedback, the diss, and when they see it they bombard the perpetrator to the point where their inbox or Twitter feed is overwhelmed and nearly indecipherable, it becomes impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
All of which means if you're promoting your act, there's no single outlet that will reach everybody. As a matter of fact, there's no single outlet that will reach a modicum of people. Late night TV has abysmal ratings, music comes on last and it's all about creating viral content for the web, which is not the music, but comedy. Local newspapers have been on the decline in excess of a decade. The remaining majors, the "Times," "WaPo" and "WSJ," have seen their subscription numbers rise as a result of low-priced digital accessibility, and all of them cover music, in some cases quite well, but the target audience usually doesn't read them, and since they're smorgasbords of information, the market doesn't take them seriously. It's like ordering the burger at a Greek joint. Or spaghetti at the steak place. Beware.
And even when information is widely disseminated, there is no consensus. Today you believe what you want to believe, and find information confirming your bias.
All of which to say is most publicity on Spotify is that the corporation is evil and is screwing independent artists, those on the way up.
Well, David Macias runs Thirty Tigers, a label services company for independent artists, so it's fascinating to read what he has to say. It's outweighed by the contrary in every publication known to man, but it's the truth.
And here it is:
"'Vilification Is Easy': Spotify Isn't the Culprit, Says Head of Indie Label Thirty Tigers - The streaming giant isn't perfect, says David Macias — but blaming them for the state of the music economy is too reductive"
"...David Macias, the owner and co-founder of the Nashville-based label-services company Thirty Tigers, has been frustrated by what he sees as a lopsided conversation scapegoating Spotify as the lone nefarious corporate giant in the music industry. From Macias' vantage point — as the head of an independent music company that has succeeded during the streaming era — the conversation around royalty payments and streaming is much more nuanced. He spoke with Rolling Stone about the payout structures at his company and how Spotify has benefitted his roster of artists over the years:
On the whole, at Thirty Tigers the general rule of thumb is that our artists earn 75 percent of the gross. We split the remaining 25 percent with the Orchard, who is our distributor. Last year, year we did $36 million in sales, and the 10 to 12 percent of that that we keep is how we pay our staff of 27 people. We go out there and act as a label would on behalf of an artist, but we allow the artists to keep ownership of their work. The artists are their own labels. We are their loving back-end staff.
Any expense or advance comes out of the 75 percent that the artist earns, but because they are their own label, there are lots of ancillary revenues that can flow to artists — merch on the road, film or TV placement — that goes directly to them.
It's become more difficult to earn a living as an artist. Anyone trying has my deep respect. If an artist streams a million times, they should get about $4,000. And even though it seems like a million streams is a ton, last month, 45 of our roughly 100 artists streamed a million times on all streaming platforms, some considerably more than that.
So, it pains me when I see artists and those who love them misdiagnose the source of their difficulty. Spotify is the current scapegoat for the ills of the working-class artist, despite them paying 63 percent of gross revenues back out to rights holders.
Democratization has been a huge boon to independent artists in that it has given more artists a chance, but it has not been enough to earn them a living wage. The pie is being sliced so thin that most artists are left hungry. In 2021, 60,000 songs were being uploaded to Spotify every day.
So how then can artists make enough money to survive? There are options for a patronage model like Patreon that can operate outside the revenue models of pre-recorded music. But what I do not want to see happen is that artists misattribute the source of their problem and undermine the DSPs that have played a huge role in the democratization of independent music.
Is Spotify perfect? Far from it. I won't touch the Joe Rogan issue. That's a matter of conscience for artists and their advocates. Do I wish that Spotify were not joining other DSPs in appealing the Copyright Royalty Board's ruling that pays the publishers and songwriters 15 percent of revenues? Absolutely. When artists I work with have walked into their NYC offices, as often as not, I hear about the opulence of their offices and the perks that are made available to their employees on full display.
A painful question must be asked at this point: Is it an artist's right to earn a living from their art in a capitalist market? In a country where the business-failure rate is 65 percent over ten years, should artists be immune from their businesses failing? As much as my heart goes out to anyone who is not able to make their dream come true, I would say that that answer is no.
Vilification is easy. I've heard that it's not the people, it's the system that is broken. To that, I counter that any system that has increased parity and overall revenues is not a broken system. There is just way, way, way more music available, and though the pie is growing, it's unable to feed everyone. Artists need to understand the reality of the situation and be clear-eyed about what battles they need to be fighting. My contention is that dismantling the existing system without a replacement will harm independent artists."
www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/spotify-streams-payouts-joe-rogan-1298101/
Unless you subscribe, that link will only show you a few lines of the story.
"Rolling Stone" has some of the best coverage of music news, and most of it sits behind the paywall. But it is all accessible with an Apple News+ subscription for ten bucks a month, which every Mac and/or iPhone owner should pay for. It's bupkes, $120 a year for not only "Rolling Stone," but the near worthless "Billboard" whose stories are too often consumer facing, as well as some of the aforementioned WaPo and WSJ and much more. Best to go to the source as opposed to reading it on social media.
--
Visit the archive: lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, Unsubscribe
To change your email address this link
No comments:
Post a Comment