Buy the album or go to a show and buy a shirt. Almost none of these people would pay twice as much for a subscription even if all of that extra money went to the artists.
If you buy a song, and play it 100 times, it is the same compensation. If you buy a CD and listen to it roughly the same amount of times, it is roughly the same compensation. If you listen to it less than that; it was not worth the plastic pollution you paid for.
Yes. I noted that in the first part. Digitally is better. You do not need to waste plastic. My point was, if you buy music rather than stream it, you probably are not compensating the artist more than if you just stream it. What streaming does is split up song compensation more granularly. Micropayments to these artists for the number of times you hear a song is more economically efficient for you and the artist than otherwise. If you had to pay $0.99 for every song you wanted to listen to, you would listen to fewer songs and the same songs more often; reducing your selection and enjoyment. Because of this, there are some songs that maybe you hear 5 times. You would not pay the 0.99, so the artist would otherwise get $0, now he or she gets $0.05. Likewise, if there is a smash hit, and you listen to it more than a hundred times, the artist is compensated justly. More granular billing is better. It is more efficient for you and the artists. Also, I am making the incorrect assumption that the artist otherwise got the full $0.99 when you buy a song on iTunes. That is not the case.
Yes. I noted that in the first part. Digitally is better.
You don't mention digital at all
My point was, if you buy music rather than stream it, you probably are not compensating the artist more than if you just stream it. What streaming does is split up song compensation more granularly. Micropayments to these artists for the number of times you hear a song is more economically efficient for you and the artist than otherwise.
This ignores compound interest as purchases are front loaded.
If you had to pay $0.99 for every song you wanted to listen to, you would listen to fewer songs
This is the history of music. The reality is that streaming largely replaces radio plays which had similarly poor royalty rates.
If you buy a song, and play it 100 times, it is the same compensation.
This is meant to reflect the scenario where one buys a song from something like iTunes or Google Play. You can usually not buy one song on plastic. I continued with
If you buy a CD
I didn't know you wouldn't get what I meant in the first part.
Well, $.99 per is not the only price model. For about 20/Month you can get a streaming solution that has a lot of tracks. You could also tune to free radio...
If you buy a song, and play it 100 times, it is the same compensation. If you buy a CD and listen to it roughly the same amount of times, it is roughly the same compensation.
If many fans are pushing to raise artists compensation, they could simply send the artist additional compensation.
The numbers don't really matter here, beyond being zero more vs above-zero more. The point is that the fans could choose to send above-zero more yet don't do this. What they are doing is trying to make other people that are not themselves pay more when other people don't want to, while they claim to want to pay more and don't do so.
If you buy a song, and play it 100 times, it is the same compensation. If you buy a CD and listen to it roughly the same amount of times, it is roughly the same compensation. If you listen to it less than that; it was not worth the plastic pollution you paid for.
Wow.
I guess Environmental Impact will be what is ultimately scrawled on the tombstone of Ownership.
A band I was following for years stopped selling physical CDs. The interesting thing is many years ago they sold t shits are their free concerts in a local beer hall to raise money for their first CD, and then tried to recoup costs. I donâ(TM)t know if they ever did. It seems that the added cost of pressing and delivering a CD is substantial. They have their studio albums on iTunes.
It would seem streaming would be superior if you can get your song in the mix. A CD or download, you now have one s
Except for the most popular artists, I suspect it really makes the most sense to use a print-on-demand service for CDs. I know many books are now sold this way, and a quick search shows that there are companies doing the same with CDs, including Amazon. So now a band can sell their CDs online, without having to press thousands, and they can price them based on the media costs plus the same price for buying the MP3s. And they can do a small bulk order (say 100) to have some to sell at their concerts.
I'm curious if these are actually "pressed CDs" or do they just use writable CDs. I know some local artists have been burning their own CDs using printable CDs and then printing the label on them. If you don't look at the data side of the disc they can look a lot like pressed CDs.
I wonder how many fans will be excited to increase the price of monthly subscriptions. Currently Spotify loses money, we don't know about Apple but it seems unlikely that their costs are meaningfully less than Spotify so it wouldn't be surprising to find out they were subsidizing Apple music subscriptions from another part of the business.
The recording industry is too busy looking stupid trying to pull the swords it fell on when it started going after streamers for streaming the licensed music from games by playing the games. So what happens? People stop playing the games that have licenced music, and thus people watching the stream never learn about it.
Fans and Compensation (Score:2)
Re: Fans and Compensation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fans and Compensation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I noted that in the first part. Digitally is better.
You don't mention digital at all
My point was, if you buy music rather than stream it, you probably are not compensating the artist more than if you just stream it. What streaming does is split up song compensation more granularly. Micropayments to these artists for the number of times you hear a song is more economically efficient for you and the artist than otherwise.
This ignores compound interest as purchases are front loaded.
If you had to pay $0.99 for every song you wanted to listen to, you would listen to fewer songs
This is the history of music. The reality is that streaming largely replaces radio plays which had similarly poor royalty rates.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a song, and play it 100 times, it is the same compensation.
This is meant to reflect the scenario where one buys a song from something like iTunes or Google Play. You can usually not buy one song on plastic. I continued with
If you buy a CD
I didn't know you wouldn't get what I meant in the first part.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, $.99 per is not the only price model. For about 20/Month you can get a streaming solution that has a lot of tracks. You could also tune to free radio...
Re: (Score:0)
If you buy a song, and play it 100 times, it is the same compensation. If you buy a CD and listen to it roughly the same amount of times, it is roughly the same compensation.
If many fans are pushing to raise artists compensation, they could simply send the artist additional compensation.
The numbers don't really matter here, beyond being zero more vs above-zero more.
The point is that the fans could choose to send above-zero more yet don't do this.
What they are doing is trying to make other people that are not themselves pay more when other people don't want to, while they claim to want to pay more and don't do so.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a song, and play it 100 times, it is the same compensation. If you buy a CD and listen to it roughly the same amount of times, it is roughly the same compensation. If you listen to it less than that; it was not worth the plastic pollution you paid for.
Wow.
I guess Environmental Impact will be what is ultimately scrawled on the tombstone of Ownership.
Didn't quite see that one coming.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem streaming would be superior if you can get your song in the mix. A CD or download, you now have one s
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the most popular artists, I suspect it really makes the most sense to use a print-on-demand service for CDs. I know many books are now sold this way, and a quick search shows that there are companies doing the same with CDs, including Amazon. So now a band can sell their CDs online, without having to press thousands, and they can price them based on the media costs plus the same price for buying the MP3s. And they can do a small bulk order (say 100) to have some to sell at their concerts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious if these are actually "pressed CDs" or do they just use writable CDs. I know some local artists have been burning their own CDs using printable CDs and then printing the label on them. If you don't look at the data side of the disc they can look a lot like pressed CDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? I suppose pressed CDs may be more durable. I think the number of players that care is exceedingly close to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
go to a show
Uh, COVID isn't over yet...
Re: (Score:2)
The recording industry is too busy looking stupid trying to pull the swords it fell on when it started going after streamers for streaming the licensed music from games by playing the games. So what happens? People stop playing the games that have licenced music, and thus people watching the stream never learn about it.
Great job breaking it hero RIAA.
Re: (Score:0)