Streaming Services Help Global Music Industry To Fastest Growth in Nearly 20 Years (billboard.com) 47
The global music industry grew by 5.9 percent in 2016, its fastest rate of growth since 1997, as revenue generated by streaming services surged 60 percent. From a report: The IFPI's Global Music Report (previously known as the Digital Music Report) states that trade revenue generated by the global recorded music industry climbed by 5.9 percent to $15.7 billion, with digital sales up 17.7 percent across the board. After digital revenue surpassed physical for the first time in 2015, digital hits another milestone in 2016, accounting for 50 percent ($7.8 billion) of all music sales for the first time. More importantly, 2016 marked the second successive year that the recorded music market grew after nearly two decades of continually falling sales during which revenues dropped by almost 40 percent at their lowest point. [...] Breaking down the Global Music Report findings, the mass adoption of streaming services such as Spotify, Amazon and Apple Music in both established and emerging markets is -- as expected -- the main driver behind the industry's sustained upturn.
Re: (Score:1)
Record growth, yet they'll still be complaining that evil pirates are destroying their business...
Meanwhile, behind the scenes are laughing all the way to the bank, as the cost to produce and distribute digital versus physical media is a fraction of what it once was... Meanwhile, the artists themselves are getting very little of this revenue (as has always been the case).
I blame piracy (Score:2)
Piracy is to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those poor bastards, I really feel for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do it's that thing in the car that their parent use to listen to the oldies and news.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong-o.
The radio is that device they continuously tune to avoid commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the device that you crank to power that Dad has in the basement for when there are tornadoes...
What little that's left (Score:1)
Music industry was gutted by piracy. Subtracting 40% and adding 5.9% still leaves you with a huge negative.
Result - Music has gotten STALE over the last ten years. Not even bad, just more of the same.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have Spotify, it's actually really good at creating automatic playlists for you, with music that you'll probably like.
I have 4 daily mixes being generated every day, with about 50/50 music I already like, and new music that is usually really damn good.
YMMV, I mostly listen to metal and prog rock. It may be different for other genres.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology has also opened up recording to the masses there are a lot of indie labels out there not associated with the RIAA now.
Re: (Score:3)
"Music has gotten STALE over the last ten years. Not even bad, just more of the same."
Nope. You've gotten ten years older and can detect patterns faster and are bored by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't know what music you're finding, but I'm continually getting awesome recommendations from Spotify's daily mixes and weekly discover playlists. Sure an uninteresting tracks slips through once in a while, but I don't mind. It's easy to skip to the next awesome new track.
Independent music (Score:3)
I'm glad streaming services are really taking off, it is lowering the bar of entry into the "industry" (ugh, I hate calling music an industry). Many more artists are able to get themselves heard without having to have a record contract. However, most streaming services rape artists just like record companies by giving them such a low percentage of profits. Sure this has something to do with streaming services having to pay royalties to the Big 4, but it still doesn't make it right. Artists deserve to be compensated more fairly for their work. Something that might encourage people to pay artists, not because they *have* to via music streaming revenue, but because they know that the majority of their payment will actually (gasp!) go to the artist, would definitely be something I'd take part in. Otherwise, I look at streaming services with the same goggles as I do if I were purchasing a CD in a brick and mortar store - by knowing full well that the artist who created the music in the first place will probably see 1-5% of my money. Fuck that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(ugh, I hate calling music an industry)
I hate calling these people 'artists' when most of them sound like a cat stuck in a rat trap.
Re: (Score:2)
Artists deserve to be compensated more fairly for their work. Something that might encourage people to pay artists, not because they *have* to via music streaming revenue, but because they know that the majority of their payment will actually (gasp!) go to the artist, would definitely be something I'd take part in.
So head on over to https://bandcamp.com/ [bandcamp.com]. They got free streaming through their website and app, and if you want to buy the release (digital or physical) they take a 35% cut, the rest goes entirely to the artists.
Artists set the minimum price on releases, but you can pay more if you want to.
Lots of interesting artists, and they got a weekly podcast showcasing lots of different music, which can be a great way to explore new territory.
Not affiliated, just a happy customer.
Re: (Score:1)
iTunes model is that the artist get 70% of anything paid to purchase an album. From their 5 song EP for $5, they would have received $3.50. If some o
still easy to pirate. (Score:4, Insightful)
it's also just easy to copy music with a computer.. (even easier than via napster i'd argue, albeit possibly slower)
step 1. spotify free/youtube, whatever
step 2. audacity
step 3. record whatever you like.
done.
as long as the analog hole exists, there will be pirates. the goal should be make purchasing the music as cheap and effortless as possible. because at the end of the day, they are competing against free. more carrot, less stick -- is the only way forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Some bands have successfully kickstarted albums, but it requires you to already have a fanbase.
two-edged sword (Score:3)
I'm a long-time audiophile (it's kind of a disease; a fun one, if you can afford it). Never in a million years did I think I'd pay for a streaming service. My main objections are lossy encoding (MP3 or similar) and not having any product whatsoever, digital or otherwise (CD, vinyl). But now that services are coming along that offer CD quality (PCM, 44.1 kHz/16 bit - or perhaps higher) I finally broke down and subscribed to one of them (Tidal). What I like the most is being able to browse the catalog and play new stuff, remotely piloting a Squeezebox Touch that feeds a DAC that feeds "the good stereo". Twenty bucks a month for an unlimited CD quality catalog is a pretty good bargain if you are a voracious music consumer.
At the same time, I continue to buy a little new and used vinyl here and there, but mostly for the fun of it, as I'm just old enough to remember when records were the main media for music. So if you are a format fetishist, you can buy records and CDs will be out there for a long time (and used CDs are cheaper than dirt).
I do wonder how the artists will fare with streaming. I suspect poorly, as always, and that the people who will make the money will be the labels and the streaming services. I hope I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Hoarding is a mental health condition you should get help for. Personally I consider those that glorify the music industry fools.
Hoarding? Hardly. I ditched all my physical media (hundreds of CDs) except records, and I only have a couple hundred of those.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
$20/month is definitely a sweet price for unlimited streaming!
As an audiophile I still refuse to use a streaming service. There are number of reasons for that:
* Compared to the 90's when I used to buy a ton of CD's my music purchases for the past 5 years has slowly dwindling. iTunes seems to fit the bit of convenience for the odd purchase I make these days.
* Part of the reason is that I'm still debating whether to upgrade to Martin Logan ElectroMotion ESL (ELectroStatics) when my current audio setup is "go
Re: (Score:2)
* Compared to the 90's when I used to buy a ton of CD's my music purchases for the past 5 years has slowly dwindling. iTunes seems to fit the bit of convenience for the odd purchase I make these days.
Since subscribing to Spotify Premium, my music listening time has increased greatly. I have millions of albums available instantly, I get automatically generated personal playlists based on my listening habits and which tracks I mark for "my music" (ie. my favorite tracks ever). Currently, there are four daily mixes for me, based on different genres, it's like having personalized radio stations with no ads.
I haven't listened to this much music in years, and it's great :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one is saying you have to ditch all your favorite obscure CDs, just because you subscribe to a streaming service.
I use Spotify, but I still have around 1800 MP3's of various content that isn't available on any streaming service, but I still listen to. I've uploaded those tracks to Google Play Music, so I can even stream those wherever I am.
Re: (Score:3)
My main objections are lossy encoding (MP3 or similar)
You will not be able to hear any difference between CD-quality and a 320kbps MP3 or Ogg Vorbis stream of the same master of the same track. It's a complete non-issue.