Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Streaming leads music industry first growth in 20 years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IVyoncé
    replied
    Originally posted by aRat View Post
    Poor the gheys that refuse to accpet frih streaming as the golden standard
    I have no reason to fully accept it as long as streaming services still don't include every B-side, other bonusmaterial, certain special remixes etc. and aslong as regional releases are still kept locked to a certain region (especially for older releases), I have no reason to fully embrace it and will happily continue buying physical products

    Leave a comment:


  • aRat
    replied
    Poor the gheys that refuse to accpet frih streaming as the golden standard

    Leave a comment:


  • RayRay
    replied
    Originally posted by stevyy View Post

    rarely anyone releases or released (in the past) the same GH album over and over again. There are remixes, rarities, new songs, remastered songs etc on many of those "same" releases.

    For multi-generational artists - so called legacy acts, who have released music in like 3-6 decades... one GH album truely isn't enough. Imagine Madonna only having TIC (1990) and missing out on all her 90s / 00s hits - and the woman had plenty.

    Thence... for acts like her and other genre acts... it was quite reasonable to release multiple hits packages.
    Not really true though. Dionne Warwick, Diana Ross, Shirley Bassey... and so on, and so on.... have released compilation albums with slightly different songs, but most of the time not adding anything new for the fans.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mugen
    replied
    Originally posted by stevyy View Post

    rarely anyone releases or released (in the past) the same GH album over and over again. There are remixes, rarities, new songs, remastered songs etc on many of those "same" releases.

    For multi-generational artists - so called legacy acts, who have released music in like 3-6 decades... one GH album truely isn't enough. Imagine Madonna only having TIC (1990) and missing out on all her 90s / 00s hits - and the woman had plenty.

    Thence... for acts like her and other genre acts... it was quite reasonable to release multiple hits packages.
    The most famous example is The Eagles Greatest Hits album. One of the best selling albums of all time and it doesn't even include "Hotel California," one of their biggest hits.

    Leave a comment:


  • stevyy
    replied
    Originally posted by theMathematician View Post
    In the US, older artists have troubles selling records, this is not the case in Europe though, so more of a local tendency. Regarding greatest hits albums: It depends on the artist. Abba or Bob Marley sold so much of their biggest greatest hits albums, I'm sure they've been sold by all demographics, not just the same people again and again. But yeah, one greatest hits album is enough, not the same album released with 10 different names.
    rarely anyone releases or released (in the past) the same GH album over and over again. There are remixes, rarities, new songs, remastered songs etc on many of those "same" releases.

    For multi-generational artists - so called legacy acts, who have released music in like 3-6 decades... one GH album truely isn't enough. Imagine Madonna only having TIC (1990) and missing out on all her 90s / 00s hits - and the woman had plenty.

    Thence... for acts like her and other genre acts... it was quite reasonable to release multiple hits packages.

    Leave a comment:


  • theMathematician
    replied
    In the US, older artists have troubles selling records, this is not the case in Europe though, so more of a local tendency. Regarding greatest hits albums: It depends on the artist. Abba or Bob Marley sold so much of their biggest greatest hits albums, I'm sure they've been sold by all demographics, not just the same people again and again. But yeah, one greatest hits album is enough, not the same album released with 10 different names.

    Leave a comment:


  • LOVE+FEAR
    replied
    This thread aged well, especially during a pandemic.

    Just found this article in Forbes:

    If You Think Music Streaming Is The Devil, Think Again

    It seems like a week doesn't go by without someone from the "old music business" complaining about how small the royalty checks are these days and blaming it all on music streaming. Never mind that the music business paradigm was way different 20 to 50 years ago. Never mind that the music person making noise doesn't believe in aging out. Never mind that the person has no idea how the music streaming business works today. Never mind that their opinions are based on misinterpreted or inaccurate data. To them, it was better back then and it's pretty crappy now.
    The False Premise


    I think the biggest blind spot in this argument is that just because you had some success and consistent revenue way back when, that it would be the same today even if the business was still based on physical product sales and had not moved into digital. Tastes change and the ones who consume music most have always been in the 12 to 30 year old range. After that, life gets in the way, and no matter how much you may love music, you just don't have the same time and energy to listen. That means that the music veteran who's seen his or her income fall falsely blames streaming when it was going to diminish anyway regardless of the consumption model.

    To illustrate, I have a friend who's written several hits for a legendary 60s-70s rock star who recently complained about the fact that the labels are no longer putting out greatest hits albums. Every couple of years in the past one label or another would find a new way to repackage the same songs and sell it once again to more or less the same fans. My friend received a nice royalty check whenever that happened. No more, as you can only sell the same product so many times to the same people (or are consuming less as they get older as well. Not only that, physical product sales continue to fall, the album holds less importance than ever before, and today's listeners care more about playlists anyway.

    (...)

    FULL ARTICLE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyow...-is-the-devil/

    Leave a comment:


  • stevyy
    replied
    always on point, John. <3

    Leave a comment:


  • NothingFails
    replied
    Originally posted by NothingFails
    Regarding the idea of artists not making money... seen ticket prices lately? Artists with one album are charging more today than legends did 25 years ago even with inflation. They aren't starving by any measure.
    To me, seeing Michael Jackson is the perfect example. Saw him in 1988, he was 20 years into his career, the biggest star on the planet and in the middle of a recordbreaking #1 streak off Bad (Man In The Mirror went #1 the week after I saw him), great seats... $22.50.... inflation today would be $50. Today you couldn't get at the back of the nosebleeds and park and everything for $50 for someone that level.

    So don't cry for artists "losing money" when tween stars on their first album charge more for general tickets than the King Of Pop did with inflation when he was still #1.

    It's why I'm very selective about the artists I see live... someone like Madonna or Springsteen have earned their expensive ticket, some random act on their second or third album and will play less than an hour hasn't IMO. You should earn your concert ticket worth, and IMO $200 with one album out isn't "paying your dues"

    Leave a comment:


  • Nippian93
    replied
    Sometimes I feel like I am the only one who don't use Spotify, Apple Music etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • NothingFails
    replied
    Regarding the idea of artists not making money... seen ticket prices lately? Artists with one album are charging more today than legends did 25 years ago even with inflation. They aren't starving by any measure.

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmyOfMe
    Originally posted by stevyy
    well, but the fact that 1 billion streaming users across all available formats couldn't overtake physical/digital sales revenues says a lot, don't you think? So i don't get why the music industry tries to ignore us oldies who contribute the most.
    Because no one cares except a bunch of chart frea...ehm, geeks.

    No, I think charts will always be popular - they can demonstrate where a society is at and music will always be an important part of culture.

    The fact there can be 1 billion streams and still the revenue is smaller than an actual sale shows exactly how people prefer to engage with music now and anyone entering the industry needs to know they cannot make their millions just by selling music - it's about retaining the publishing rights etc and making sure you can back up our music with a live show.

    In the UK there are no rules on what can and cannot rechart (in terms of older releases) so the chart is still very much demonstrative of attitudes towards music - we just need to adjust how we determine who has 'sold' what.

    To be honest I'd rather the UK abandon calling them sales and think of an alternative.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmyOfMe
    replied
    Originally posted by stevyy
    well, but the fact that 1 billion streaming users across all available formats couldn't overtake physical/digital sales revenues says a lot, don't you think? So i don't get why the music industry tries to ignore us oldies who contribute the most.
    Because no one cares except a bunch of chart frea...ehm, geeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • MusicRecords
    replied
    I believe people find it easier to stream things (even if they pay a subscription)....without streaming most people would just download music illegally anyway, in general not many people would actually buy a CD or even an mp3 on iTunes or so...the fact is that music sales are going down anyway, and streaming was a way to adapt to that fact to allow people to have a different alternative from downloading things illegally...while also making at least a portion of the revenue that typical music sales had....better than nothing..

    Leave a comment:


  • stevyy
    replied
    well, but the fact that 1 billion streaming users across all available formats couldn't overtake physical/digital sales revenues says a lot, don't you think? So i don't get why the music industry tries to ignore us oldies who contribute the most. All of their measures as of late to strenghten streaming negates the importance of buyers. If all buyers would simply stop buying music, the industry would collapse in a heartbeat - like an oil state without oil left to sell.

    the industry tries to paint a picture of streaming being the future and hip and important while insinuating that those who buy music are old, stubborn and probably anti-music and anti progress. And yet, it is still OUR industry, which WE keep alive.

    the music industry has an image problem, it tries to sell itself to the teens - musically, artistically and financially. Hence, ageism has become a thing. The industry doesn't support veterans, and yet catalogue sales are dominating US albums sales. Why? Because 12 y.o. are the most fickle music audience while the oldies are the most robust. But we lack representation within the music industry.

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    Originally posted by stevyy
    Originally posted by menime123
    In an ideal world I completely, and utterly believed sales were the only true measure. But buying music is no longer has the largest market share when it comes to recording how people are listening to music. I disagree radio plays should be included in a chart position, but methods where people have to actively select the music they want to listen to - streaming, sales, YouTube etc - they should be included.
    sales do still have the biggest market share in most music markets around the globe. 75% of all music revenue comes from sales in Germany and Japan because those 2 markets rejected the digital age from the get go. The second and third biggest music markets on the planet have one of the smallest digital markets - or a digital music industry which doesn't reflect their international standing. The US and UK basically dominate the digital era with HUGE sales and streams while other big players are digitally underdeveloped. It is still an oddity if a single sells close to 1m copies in Germany (even if we include streams percentages).. and what does the #1 song on Itunes Japan sell? 10,000 copies?

    Well I don't know figures because, frankly, it's not something I'm hugely interested in, but I don't think you can look at revenue to determine how people are consuming music because we all know streaming pays a pittance.

    Leave a comment:


  • stevyy
    replied
    Originally posted by menime123
    In an ideal world I completely, and utterly believed sales were the only true measure. But buying music is no longer has the largest market share when it comes to recording how people are listening to music. I disagree radio plays should be included in a chart position, but methods where people have to actively select the music they want to listen to - streaming, sales, YouTube etc - they should be included.
    sales do still have the biggest market share in most music markets around the globe. 75% of all music revenue comes from sales in Germany and Japan because those 2 markets rejected the digital age from the get go. The second and third biggest music markets on the planet have one of the smallest digital markets - or a digital music industry which doesn't reflect their international standing. The US and UK basically dominate the digital era with HUGE sales and streams while other big players are digitally underdeveloped. It is still an oddity if a single sells close to 1m copies in Germany (even if we include streams percentages).. and what does the #1 song on Itunes Japan sell? 10,000 copies?

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    In an ideal world I completely, and utterly believed sales were the only true measure. But buying music is no longer has the largest market share when it comes to recording how people are listening to music. I disagree radio plays should be included in a chart position, but methods where people have to actively select the music they want to listen to - streaming, sales, YouTube etc - they should be included.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrLeonix
    replied
    Originally posted by stevyy
    that may be true, but it doesn't solve the problem that streams aren't sales. And that we don't have a methodology in place which could reflect albums streams and thereby determine an albums popularity. In the 90's you didn't combined singles sales and albums sales for the albums chart either.
    Well, the thing is that before, sales were pretty much the only factor that could measure if an album, song or artist was popular. But we can't change the fact things are getting different now and there's a significant amount of music consumers that are using streaming services.

    And yeah Streaming are not real sales but is one of the ways of consuming music these days and also one of the factors that reflect popularity in the current market. So maybe the charts is what needs to be changed. They need to stop doing charts sales-oriented and trying to pass streaming as sales. What they need to do is simply a "Points" system that properly ballances Streaming and sales and through simply points the charts reflect which songs, albums and artists are the most popular. Changing sales for "points" in this current industry is what I suggest.

    Leave a comment:


  • stevyy
    replied
    Originally posted by MrLeonix
    I do think streaming is one of the factors (not the only one) that reflects popularity towards a song, album or artist these days.

    The industry works very different now and I think a healthy combination of all: Streaming, Sales and Radio reflect overall popularity in the current market.
    that may be true, but it doesn't solve the problem that streams aren't sales. And that we don't have a methodology in place which could reflect albums streams and thereby determine an albums popularity. In the 90's you didn't combined singles sales and albums sales for the albums chart either.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrLeonix
    replied
    I do think streaming is one of the factors (not the only one) that reflects popularity towards a song, album or artist these days.

    The industry works very different now and I think a healthy combination of all: Streaming, Sales and Radio reflect overall popularity in the current market.

    Leave a comment:


  • stevyy
    replied
    Originally posted by menime123

    I'll never understand why people are against streaming. Streaming is a platform that provides access to your music - music you need people to hear so that they want to spend money on seeing it performed live. Making music should be seen as an investment, a tool that allows you to put on shows and perform. I don't believe you need to make money from music sales (and let's face it, that's why manufactured pop happened) - you make it from ticket sales.
    nobody is really against it, but it should be allowed to say that singles streams (and download) don't say anything about the album - or the popularity of an album - hence it should be allowed to criticize SPS and the inclusion of singles streaming towards albums sales or pretending like they were actually sales. I mean sales and streaming are apples and oranges, you cannot say one is like the other.. you simply can't. renting a movie is not the same as buying the dvd. and when you stream a show weeks/months later, it also isn't refelcted in an TV show's weekly audience either.. but somehow music is the exception and artists are proud of their new "sales" and present themselves in a manner i find cringe-worthy - better said, their labels are acting as if this n that albums sold this n that amount when it hasn't. It's cringeworthy. I am against that - not against streaming per se.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikerocha
    replied
    I only think the Spotify for free just leads the new entitled generation to believe they are entitled to everything for free.

    Singers make their music to sell it.
    The next person to tell me I won't pay because they already have money bla bla bla, I want to go to where they work, a restaurant or a chain store and demand the product they are selling because they already have money.

    Leave a comment:


  • innocenteyes
    replied
    Originally posted by JimJim
    Spotify is life tbh <3

    Leave a comment:


  • JimJim
    replied
    YouTube is life tbh <3

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X