|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.220.25.80
In Reply to: RE: "Access.... That's what people are willing to pay for these days. Not usage."... posted by rbolaw on September 05, 2014 at 09:48:44
Just VERY different 'skin' and certainly the 'skin' he has in the game is likely more sensitive than mine. ;-)
If QOBUZ gets rights to stream 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC in the US later this year, that can only mean that the labels are licensing 'CD Quality' for streaming in the US.
I would expect that others like Spotify will follow suit. Like QOBUZ, which currently charges 10 Euros a month for streaming MP3 and 20 Euros a month for Lossless FLAC, competitors like Spotify likely with just increase the monthly fee for higher resolution.
But will Dave sign up? ;=)
I will!
Follow Ups:
I resent the personal references, this isn't about me. I'm making a living and supporting my family fine, thank you, and it has no place in this discussion.
Dave
No offense intended.
Just recognizing that your opinions are based of a differing position in the industry.
Ok, but my position is not a function of my "skin in the game" or my "livelihood being impacted by advances in technology, or just change in general". My position does allow me a clear view of what the affects are and how broadly they impact things, something that posts from you and others seem to suggest that you don't quite grasp. I do think it's great that you support higher end streaming services that subscribe at higher rates and continue to purchase music (and of course that you care about fidelity), unfortunately you don't represent the broader public which is the larger issue here.
Dave
Dave - That isn't entirely fair. You are a professional performing and recording musician, and a pretty well known one in my neck of the woods. That doesn't mean your opinions aren't intelligent, well informed and well worth taking seriously (they are, whether others agree with them or not, and I always appreciate your comments).
But it does mean you are not a neutral outside observer on the subject we were discussing. I think that is all Ivan meant. That is certainly all I meant. And your concern about fair compensation for all recording musicians is entirely understandable and shared by other professional musicians who are vocal on this issue. Nothing I said was meant to imply otherwise.
I appreciate your clarification, but my concern is really more as a music lover than as a musician. As a musician I have a vantage point where I see in very real numbers exactly how things work out and I also see in more detail how things relate than I might if I weren't.
But make no mistake, what we're discussing is not of any meaningful financial benefit to me. Making a recording in this day and age for anyone remotely in my position is a guaranteed money-losing proposition. My last record cost me $10,000 to produce. I have some unique situations where I probably have the ability to sell more CDs than many others in my position, and so far I have made back around $2,000 of that at best (it's been out 4 1/2 years). That record is not currently available on Spotify, when it was over the course of a few of years I made a bit under $9 from Spotify for it, not my "cut" but the revenue it generated. But in any case I'm out many thousands of dollars, which is to be expected and not a concern to me, nor is whether I'm out $6900 or $7600, not a lot of difference there really. I'm about to record another album, and I expect to be many thousands of dollars in the hole on it when it's done as well. That's ok, obviously I don't earn my living making and selling my records, and my music being popular is not one of my concerns.
Seeing the disparity in revenue between sales and streaming is rather alarming though, it takes many many thousands of streams to generate the revenue of a single iTunes album download, let alone a CD purchase. In the larger world of music, some records do generate income and that is a vital part of the music world. Much as people might hate to admit it, the music industry is very important to music. Drastically reducing the revenue generated by recordings affects every aspect of the musical world from whether talented people are pursuing music to whether there are any recording engineers with enough experience to make a decent recording to whether any music is being created that is great enough to warrant appreciation. I don't mean to sound as "doom and gloom" as much as to illustrate the far-ranging implications, it is not simply "oh well, they'll tour more and play the festival in California once a year". To whatever extent we are already seeing the affects of changes in the music industry from the 70's through the end of the 90's, and the changes since then, this is a much, much larger change and issue.
That is also a far bigger issue than my income as far as I'm concerned. I would think that concern would be shared by other music lovers and not just musicians, but perhaps I am wrong.
I don't mind that we disagree on some things, I appreciate your genuine discussion, people disagreeing is not exactly rare. I do think it's important for people to be aware of the issues and consequences of their actions, as they are not easily reversible (as Napster has taught us).
Dave
Understood. But as a lawyer and economist who has dealt with music industry issues, copyright issues, royalty issues and business issues generally for many years, I have my own viewpoint on these issues that isn't entirely naïve either. I could see the recording industry's problems coming many years before things reached their current state, and yes, before the Napster fiasco, which I see as a symptom or result of the problems, not their cause.
It is a hidebound industry that was accustomed to making profits a certain way, and when their comfortable world began to be threatened by advances in technology, rather than embracing innovation they resisted it at every turn. They lobbied Congress for changes in federal copyright law and got some of them, that at most have stifled competition and innovation and in the long term have not and will not save them.
I think it will be many more years before this industry stabilizes. But my suggestion that wherever possible, people want to pay for access, not usage, is something I've seen emerging for years now. I see you disagree. Time will tell.
I've said next to nothing about who is at fault for the present situation, because as far as the topic at hand (effects of streaming services on the music industry) it's largely irrelevant. Instructive for how the music industry moved forward - of course - but it has no bearing on whether or not $9.99 streaming is viable for the music industry.
I don't necessarily disagree about access vs. usage, I disagree with your previous comments about phone companies selling music without paying royalties and people's expectations when they buy a phone. Streaming is certainly the model of the future, which is why its viability is a significant issue.
We're not so far off, just focusing on different things.
Dave
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: