Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music

How Streaming Services Saved The Music Industry (cnn.com) 79

An anonymous reader quotes CNN: The music industry was in crisis just a few years ago. Sales were cut in half from their peak as single downloads, YouTube and piracy made the CD album go virtually extinct. But music has found its white knight: streaming. Last year, recorded music revenues in the United States went up by 13% to $11.1 billion — the highest level since 2006... "The music industry today is healthier than it's been in more than a decade," Josh Friedlander, the senior vice president of research at the Recording Industry Association of America, told CNN Business.

"Revenues from streaming services are more than offsetting decreases in physical sales and digital downloads." Friedlander added "it's hard to overstate the impact streaming music has had on the music industry...." Music streaming — which includes paid streaming, ad-supported streaming and streaming radio — represented about 5% of the music industry's revenues in the US in 2009.

In 2019, that number had grown to roughly 80%, according to the RIAA.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Streaming Services Saved The Music Industry

Comments Filter:
  • Streaming the oldies is saving the industry.
    • Saving the oldies... personally, I'm contributing to the salvation of Bob Seger, Don Henley, Sawyer Brown, the Wallflowers(Oxford comma) and Stevie Nicks; and, still, supporting the likes of Passenger, Lindsey Sterling, and Tyler Farr.

      Music's in the ear of the beholder, and no preference is wrong.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Shouting the words and autotune are just plain wrong and sound like crap, especially when you can readily recognise it. Most in the modern industry are rubbish and just autotuning it. Time to rewrite copyright laws and wipe them out.

        • by beep54 ( 1844432 )
          Mojo Nixon (of Don Henley Must Die fame) played in Austin a lot. Don Henley visits Austin a lot. So one magical time Don joined Mojo on stage to sing along to Don Henley must die. I gained a lot of respect for him for doing that.
    • For me, streaming oldies is free: https://www.internet-radio.com... [internet-radio.com]
      Or for ancient oldies: http://www.1940sukradio.co.uk/... [1940sukradio.co.uk]
  • by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:14PM (#59785652)
    Everywhere I look I see stories about how the artists don't get paid squat when their music gets streamed. The labels seem to be doing fine though.

    Sounds a lot like the 70s, where the managers gave the artists what they wanted, which was usually drugs and the odd car or two. Just enough for the artists to be happy while they sucked off 90% of the cash for "reasons, you aren't expected to understand".
    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:22PM (#59785672)

      The "music industry" isnt about the artists, it's about the labels.

    • by tg123 ( 1409503 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @09:28PM (#59785820)
      To understand why this is the case in the music Industry the most import copyrights are the production rights and the song writers credit. Most Music Studios will make the artist sign away the production rights on a song when they get a record (CD?) /streaming deal. This is why the artists get diddly-squat even if they are a popular musician if they play live music however they get to keep the performance fee. https://www.quora.com/Who-owns... [quora.com]
    • by Layzej ( 1976930 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @09:39PM (#59785846)
      Yup. Local artists, who made a living and even flourished during the peak of piracy, can't make a go of it at $0.006 / play.
      • $0.006 a play is more than fair. With the old model, then you bought a CD, it would cost you $15, and there would be 12 tracks on there. If you listened to it 100 times, then you're down to $0.0125 cents every time you played a song. Sure, a lot of CDs you probably never listened to that much, but there were probably a few that you listened to 1000 times. I think it all balances out. For something like a streaming service, you don't get a physical product that you get to hold onto. You can't resell it aft

    • That's how it's always been. It was the same with records, and with CDs. Only the very top-selling, super-star artists do well financially.

      The relationship between artist and label isn't equal. There are millions of artists desperate for a shot at the big time and possessed of sufficient talent, so the label can offer as bad a deal as they want to. If one artist isn't desperate enough to take it, another one will.

    • by Hinky ( 6346018 )
      It's the same as it ever was. Unless they sold tens of millions of albums, bands only made money from touring and song publishing. And a lot of those profits went into paying back their debts to the record companies for studio and production costs.
  • They would still be forcing us to buy physical CDs.
    • by The Rizz ( 1319 )

      No, vinyl records. CD's are digital, so you can make perfect copies. They'd also like to do away with cassette tapes, since it's cheap and easy to record onto cassette tapes. Only vinyl is both fragile and easy to break, degrades over time (it's not as solid as you think, so it will warp over time), and there is no reasonably priced option to record onto them yourself.

      • Vinyl isn't fragile and doesn't oxidize either so it should last an extremely long time. Unless you store records in a Texas attic they should last a century or more. Hell even the shellac 78s from the early 1900s are still playable.

        • by tg123 ( 1409503 )

          Vinyl isn't fragile ....

          ummm I disagree Vinyl is extremely fragile and you would get about 50 plays of the record till you got a scratch , 100 plays if you were really careful. My Memories of Vinyl are the awful static pop sounds you would get overtime from scratches and the endless loops that would happen if a scratch lined up perfectly and knocked the needle back to the previous part of song. Here's a website recordings of what scratches on a vinyl record sounded like. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi... [mynoise.net]

          • All of that comes from improper needle weight and tracking. Like people taping a penny to the end of the arm because the needle is so worn. The needle only needs like 2-3 grams of force max.

        • by Hinky ( 6346018 )
          Vinyl from the 60s and 70s, and really up until the recent vinyl fad, were quite fragile. At one point they started using recycled vinyl and pressed very thinly (to save shipping weight) and sounded worn even when they were new. And the thinness caused them to be warped, which affects the playback in several ways. And they were more susceptible to stylus wear. RCA was particularly bad about this. Vinyl that was properly cared for and played back on good equipment has survived fairly well, but a lot of used
    • by nagora ( 177841 )

      They would still be forcing us to buy physical CDs.

      No one's forcing me to buy CDs - I do it because it's cheaper and the artists actually get a half-decent cut. Streaming is fucking up the music industry, not saving it.

      And, the RIAA hate CDs because they can be copied and transported. One payment, lifetime usage.

      • I fail to see how buying CDs is cheaper than streaming. I can subscribe my entire family, up to 6 people, for about the cost of a single CD every month, and have access to thousands of albums, including every album that comes out every month. If I was spending the same amount myself, each person would have an allotment of 2 CDs per year, but with streaming, we might all listen to hundreds of new CDs every year.

      • by gero00 ( 5700568 )
        Word.
  • The music industry was drug over the ground, kicking and screaming into the 21st century. And they still are fucking it up.
  • more they could be making if places like Apple weren't taking 20-40% off transactions?

    And what about the artists?

    Is there an actual accounting process to pay them $.0001 a play yet? Or do I need to add more places to the right of the decimal?

    • I wonder if the labels have considered how much more they could be making if places like Apple weren't taking 20-40% off transactions?

      Probably about as much as they could have made if the retailers hadn't taken a similar cut between the wholesale and retail price of physical recordings.

      • I wonder if the labels have considered how much more they could be making if places like Apple weren't taking 20-40% off transactions?

        Probably about as much as they could have made if the retailers hadn't taken a similar cut between the wholesale and retail price of physical recordings.

        Which, by the way, was squat. Because neither the retailers nor the current streaming services would, or could, work for free. Yes, they could have built their own streaming services. But then they had to make them succes

      • by Hinky ( 6346018 )

        I wonder if the labels have considered how much more they could be making if places like Apple weren't taking 20-40% off transactions?

        Probably about as much as they could have made if the retailers hadn't taken a similar cut between the wholesale and retail price of physical recordings.

        Retail never had a big markup. It had the thinnest slice of the pie.

    • And what about the artists?
      Is there an actual accounting process to pay them $.0001 a play yet? Or do I need to add more places to the right of the decimal?

      I really don't know if streaming services are to blame on that end, I mean, seeing how they want to be legal, and need to negotiate with the record labels/rights agencies, who seem like they would hold ALL the leverage (AND have a history of fucking artists out of royalties).

  • They're healthy because they're continuing to raise licensing fees so that only a handful of commercial entities can afford to stay legal (who are ultimately passing it along to paying customers $ or time). There aren't a lot of small streaming radio stations anymore because the licensing makes it impractical and the licensing entities who are the go-betweens to the RIAA keep going out of business because again raising rates kills off the small streamers who have been their customer base.
  • by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:30PM (#59785694)
    with access to the FM radio chip, most phones have them but you can not use it as an FM radio tuner, it is just used for wide band audio during phone calls so you dont get the dopplar effect while driving (ask anyone that knows about mobile FM radio)
    • by leonbev ( 111395 )

      It doesn't really seem to matter at this point in the US, though, as many of the remaining radio stations got bought out by iHeartMedia. They have their own fairly popular music streaming app for iOS and Android. They even had a Windows Mobile version back when that was a thing.

      Most of the other large surviving stations have a streaming presence as well, so the only reason you would want that FM tuner is if you had a really limited data plan.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Thanks to the Communication Act of 1996, which eliminated ownership restrictions, the vast majority of radio stations in the U.S. are owned by 2 big companies. With no meaningful competition, radio (which was never that great to begin with) has become completely irrelevant and unlistenable.

        Turn on any radio station and the only thing you'll hear are endless commercials occasionally interrupted by a song that was a big hit 40+ years ago.

      • I only have 6GB and no signal between home and work, you insensitive clod!

        • Thatâ(TM)s why you download the podcasts at home, so you have something infinitely better to listen to than radio where there isnâ(TM)t signal. (I live rural and half of my commute has absolutely no cell signal at all... not even 1 bar. Havenâ(TM)t touched my car radio since I bought it).
  • by Berkyjay ( 1225604 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:40PM (#59785716)

    The artists are still being screwed as usual.

  • Because almost everything I want to listen to is on YouTube! Even if I have the album i search for it and usually end up on YouTube.

    I used to buy a lot of stuff - I have no desire to anymore. It's not even some old man's gripe about how they don't make good music anymore. I just see no reason to buy music anymore. It's already on YouTube and I'm not such an audiophile that I'm going to quibble with the bit rate.

    Plus I already have more than enough shit to listen to on CD and cassette if the internet ever goes down. The vinyl collection is lacking a bit. I'd wear that out in a week if that's all I had to listen to.

    Old people like me don't buy much music anyway. It's always been the young kids and teenyboppers. Not that there's anything wrong with being young

  • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:52PM (#59785750) Journal
    Well, whoda thunk it? Make it affordable, easy to use, convenient, and people will pay for it. It's almost as if some of us were saying that way back during the whole Napster kerfflufle and all that stuff.
  • Piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by idontusenumbers ( 1367883 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @09:11PM (#59785802)

    Is there actual evidence that the drop I sales was because of piracy?

    • To the extent the RIAA claimed, I don't believe a word of it. Think back to the time when Napster was th biggest thing going, there wasn't just music on the internet we were starting to see basic movie streaming, the promise of true MMOs online, the internet was a little lawless around that time but it was also full of experimentation. Tons of people were testing the internet to see what it could it do for them, many well known names we see today were getting their first taste of the internet and forming id

    • by Hinky ( 6346018 )

      Is there actual evidence that the drop I sales was because of piracy?

      There have been studies done that found piracy not only didn't hurt the music industry, it actually helped it. It said pirates were also the biggest consumers of physical media, and that others would have never bought what they downloaded in any case.

  • by AxisOfPleasure ( 5902864 ) on Monday March 02, 2020 @12:20AM (#59786132)

    It did seem at the time that the music industry didn't know its ass from its elbow, running around like Chicken Little waiting for the end of the music biz. The eat-all-you-like streaming services like Spotify have shown that there is still money to be made.

    Back in the 60s and 70s you have millions being thrown at just a handful of artists, music labels could be very picky about who they chose and nutured and with no other way to distribute music than vinyl and cassette, they controlled the whole damned chain. Along came cheap cassettes and punk rock, it said you just need to find some mates, some cheap instruments from a junk shop and a cassette player with record button and on a small scale you could write, record and distribute your own music. The labels still obsessed with throwing money at huge stadium acts ignored this underground movement, small labels with a little bit of borrowed cash sprang up, they paid for early artists to get into small slightly better studios, they arranged to have the music distributed in small scale and you got the independent label scene up and running.

    Fast forward to today now anyone with access to any kind of device can make music and with the internet can distribute to see if anyone likes it, consrequently you have a zillion people trying to make it as a musician, some are damned good. You can get your mates together in the morning, write a few basic songs over lunchtime, records something on a Mac/PC by dinner and in the evening your loading it onto a site to see who likes it! It can literally be that quick now. With such a democratic system in place the numbers will swell.

    The kicker is that we can have incredible niche interests in music because there are so many more artists able to serve our very specific tastes. An old record label can't possibly have a roster of 25,000 artists but a "free to upload your music" website can serve that purpose. People will still buy classic music from the labels but if you want free-form prog jazz with a hint of rap and metal, I bet you a $100 there's someone out there doing it and their not a major label, if I like it I'll give them my money through their website or if they're luck through my Spotify subs or Apple iTunes if their indy label can afford to sign up.

    The same is happening in publishing and photography. back in the 1970s my Dad would buy pro level camera kit every couple of years, a camera body would cost him 3 or 4 months wages, he'd have to save that up. Now you have people doing photoshots on their iPhones, anyone can buy a damn good DSLR camera from the local Walmart for maybe a few hundred bucks. With micro-stock sites, anyone can upload their pictures and see if they can make a couple of bucks a month for their trouble. I work a 9-5 job in a major city but I make almost $1000 month from taking photos in my spare time, selling prints, licenses and educational materials, I spent 7 years learning how to shoot photos and now I make some pocket money from my hobby.

    Technology costs come down and people embrace creative technology and find ways to make money in cottage industry ways, this impacts the major players after about a decade when people really get to grips with it.

    • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      Fast forward to today now anyone with access to any kind of device can make music and with the internet can distribute to see if anyone likes it, consrequently you have a zillion people trying to make it as a musician, some are damned good.

      Not if you want it to sound good. I'm preparing to record my second album, we use devices like phones and cameras for quick rough recordings that sound ok however compared to a properly recorded and produced music with quality microphones in a acoustically pleasing environment they sound like shit and something I would never let out.

      You can get your mates together in the morning, write a few basic songs over lunchtime, records something on a Mac/PC by dinner and in the evening your loading it onto a site to see who likes it! It can literally be that quick now.

      Done that to, usually on a four track, it's still only a rough copy. For proper recording we use 20 tracks at 96kHz, some bands use a lot more than we do. We have had 18 mic

      • The GP grossly oversimplified the point being made for the sake of expedience, but that doesn't make him wrong.

        Yes, one will get better sound out of a Neumann U67 and a Focusrite over some iRig-with-a-lightning-connector from Best Buy, but the latter will still get you at least halfway there, and far closer than was possible even 20 years ago with cassette-integrated recording boards. Yes, a fully mic'd drum kit with individual recordings and kitchen-sink-edition Protools with a metric ton of plugins is ide

        • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

          We can agree on its limited artistic expression, but there is room in the market for both stuff-that-costs-basically-nothing-to-create, and the labor of love you and your band mates are working on.

          Oh for sure, I don't have a problem with that, what I'm pointing out is it has limits and if everyone recorded that way there would be no room for Crank Dat, everything would sound the same. My experiences are that the complexity increases to produce a good sound especially if there is more than one musician simply because the art of production is mostly removing sound to make space for the instruments to be heard.

  • by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Monday March 02, 2020 @12:53AM (#59786182) Homepage Journal
    It's a terrible waste of resources to copy something over the Internet every time you want to access it. Real environmentalists keep local copies.
    • Not a lot of resources. A 10 MB file consumes a 10Gbe link for less than one millisecond, costing something like 20 mJ of energy. Okay, you have to multiply that by the number of links involved, but the total's still going to be fairly small. There's a good chance it compares favorably to manufacturing and running more local storage for everybody.

      Your playback device will consume more energy playing the song than it took to transmit to you.

    • Not really, as the other comment pointed out. And you have to consider the status quo that it's replacing: CD sales. Replacing physical items (many of which ended up in a landfill sooner or later) with digital ones that are orders of magnitude less expensive in terms of resources and energy per unit of data probably did an awful lot to help the environment. While local copies and/or heavy caching would help the situation even further, streaming is still a step in the right direction versus physical sales wh
    • Spotify has the option to store music on your local device. Has the added bonus of saving battery power and data usage. As a life-long music collector, I have to say streaming services line Spotify have opened up a whole world of music to me that was erstwhile difficult to find and/or buy. And I canâ(TM)t see how itâ(TM)s not an overall environmental win versus printing CDs/LPs etc, moving them by trucks to bricks and mortars, etc
  • We've been pirating hard, trying our best to kill the music industry, then you morons come in and save the bastards? Damn you!

  • I don't subscribe to any streaming service, though I do occassionaly buy & download music from Amazon.

  • The sales declines for CDs were heavily influenced by forcing everyone to rebut their vinyl and tape collections on CD. Then they all have to rebuy again for digital. Basically the entire music industry predicates sales against these format shifting periods which gives them artificially inflated expectations
  • They kept complaining against piracy, and, at the same time, showing progress in earnings. Before they adopt streaming.
  • by kaur ( 1948056 ) on Monday March 02, 2020 @02:51AM (#59786342)

    Art.
    Entertainment.
    Emotion.

    But not industry.

  • Napster (Score:4, Interesting)

    by beep54 ( 1844432 ) <b54oramaster AT gmail DOT com> on Monday March 02, 2020 @02:55AM (#59786348)
    CD sales were at their highest when Napster was active and probably because of Napster. People could easily find new stuff they like and, lo and behold, they'd actually go out and buy it.
  • RIAA says:

    WAAAH! Pirates are eating all our profits! We want them cracked down on and all arrested and deported and stuff!!!1!!

    Yeah, it be like that still doesn't it?
    Yet the content creators are still getting the short end of the stick, aren't they? :p

  • Just say no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xenobyte ( 446878 ) on Monday March 02, 2020 @04:15AM (#59786464)

    I've always disliked streaming. Here's why:

    - The selection never seems to include my kind of music.
    - Requires network connection to play
    - My (poor) music taste can be profiled on a daily basis
    - The artists often gets ripped off by streaming services.

    • A) Streaming services have grown a lot in recent years, likely whatever you like is there now.
      B) At least the big ones, Spotify and Amazon Prime for example, all allow you to download offline copies for use. We recently did this for a trip to Cuba.
      C) Yes well, at the same time it offers up said poor taste back to you in suggestions so there is that.
      D) It isn't like Artists weren't getting ripped off using all other previous distribution schemes.

      I will say however it recently became clear that the streaming

  • To which the music DISTRIBUTION industry is the leech on the neck that sucks your spirit and your wallet dry.

    So yay! More crap manufactured "music" *product*, off the assembly line.

    Yay, the music distribution "industry" still doesn't have to work for their (actually the artists' and fans') money, and can just call it their "property", to "justify" infinitely raking in money in return for letting you make a copy (to clog the lines) over and over again.
    Which is toootally unlike literally printing money, or ra

  • "All the sincerity in Hollywood you could stuff in a flea's navel and still have room left to conceal eight caraway seeds and an agent's heart." --Fred Allen, one of the most popular and forward-looking humorists in the Golden Age of American radio..
  • 11.1 Bn of which 11 Bn goes to Ed Sheerin and Drake.

  • For a couple reasons. I prefer to listen to DIFFERENT music, not the same 20-30 songs on a radio station play list. Not to mention the commercial interruptions. I listen to blues, southern rock and classic rock, but, the FM stations only play the same #$%& songs over and over again. With streaming, I've found so many new artists that they won't even play over the air.
  • Give the people an affordable options and they wont pirate stuff that much.... People are not trying not to pay for stuff... they want it to be affordable thats all.
    • by Hinky ( 6346018 )
      Record company greed caused all of this. Woodstock was the point at which businessmen who knew nothing about music noticed the potential for profits from popular music. Before that the industry was run by people who actually loved music. After that most of the labels were bought out and consolidated and acts were signed only if they had tremendous market potential. Then when CDs came around they used it as a excuse gouge prices. The artists got a little more, the labels got a lot more. In the late 80s distr

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake

Working...