Prog Artists...Why do they allow Streaming?

[Guitarplyrjvb]

I've been somewhat amazed at the amount of progressive music available on streaming services, particularly Apple Music. Given that progressive music is a niche market and fans are likely to buy CD's or even downloads to feed their obsession, why would these artists allow the music to be streamed?

Certain purveyors of progressive music like Cunieform and DGM seem to have recognized this reality and don't allow their music to be streamed. This makes a lot of sense to me and that's what I would do if I were in the biz. However, a LOT of prog artists are available on streaming services: Echolyn, Nad Sylvan (and Unifaun), Advent, Mike Keneally, and a host of others. The economics of this don't make sense to me. These niche artists are likely losing sales to folks that can just stream the album for next to nothing. I suppose they're being held hostage to distribution deals from the parent label, or perhaps they're actually making money?

[bob_32_116]

Because streaming is to the 21st century what radio airplay was to the second half of the 20th century.

[Guitarplyrjvb]

^^ That may be somewhat true. However, you never got full albums from niche artists in high resolution formats from the radio. Radio may have spurred sales. Streaming takes them away.

[No Pride]

My former band's album (Bad Dog U - s/t) is on Apple Music too. I figure it's a chance to be heard (when chances aren't so abundant) and besides, everything is on YT anyway. If people like it, they might buy it; I know that's what I use streaming for. And if they don't, I'm still happy that it was listened to. I never had high hopes of making a profit, just recouping recording costs... and I've done that. YMMV as always.

[Guitarplyrjvb]

^^ I guess I don't understand your logic. Why would anyone with streaming service buy the album if they can stream it? I'd almost think you'd do better by applying the Cunieform model: put some stuff out on Soundcloud or even YouTube and whet folks' appetites with that. Then, make 'em buy it if they really want it. Otherwise, you're just essentially giving it away.

[battema]

For some folks (not all, but some), wider exposure is of greater value than physical sales.

[Guitarplyrjvb]

^^ That I truly understand. Many prog artists aren't in it for the economics, they just want their music to be heard by as many people as possible.

[Dean Watson]

Good point Battema, IHMO on this is that people who listen to this genre are more apt to purchase the CD after hearing the music streamed. We want the fidelity an MP3, or stream-on-computer-speakers cannot provide. It's more of a 'listening' genre. Not something to 'jog' to.

[gpeccary]

Yeah, this is a touchy subject for sure. Its a way for people to get exposed to a bands work. Not everyone buys the material, myself included, after hearing it. Back in the day I took a risk, if it didn't cut it, it got filed away in my collection. Things have changed, and agreeably, not for the better in most cases I think. But with radio playing the same old tiresome shit, college radio, where I used to get exposure to off the beaten path bands, aren't really around anymore, its a way to hear their work. I do honestly try to use sources where I know the band is being paid. And the amount they're "paid" is a far more tense topic, and I'll leave that for another thread.

[trurl]

We allow a few tracks on services like Spotify to act as promo and to have a presence but that's it. Prog as a genre is lucky enough (depending on how you look at it) to operate by some old-school rules where the consumer places value on the music and wants a physical copy. For most of the industry the recorded music has become a loss-leader product to drive fans to the live show- an exact 180 from how it used to work.

[Scott Bails]

Why would anyone with streaming service buy the album if they can stream it?

Because they're not mutually-exclusive?

Because some of us use streaming services as a way to preview prospective purchases?

Because some of us like to support the artists that we like?

[No Pride]

^^ I guess I don't understand your logic.

Well, I tried. And it's my personal logic, not anything I'm recommending for anyone else. Lots of good points have already been made since my last post. Besides, what's the difference if it streams on Bandcamp as opposed to Apple Music or Spotify?

[Sunlight Caller]

I'm not much into streaming at all, so tend to buy based on recommendations or reviews. From time to time I will seek something out and give it a listen in advance of a purchase, but being a collector and old school, I really like to own the physical media, and so streaming is never going to lose a physical sale on my account.

[Splicer]

Then I suggest putting out some music, not streaming it and watching your sales skyrocket.

[kenschwartz]

Because they're not mutually-exclusive?

Because some of us use streaming services as a way to preview prospective purchases?

Because some of us like to support the artists that we like?

For me, the second and third (especially the third) point

[Kcrimso]

^^ I guess I don't understand your logic. Why would anyone with streaming service buy the album if they can stream it?

I constantly buy albums that I have ability also to listen from Spotify. Why? Because I like to own cd and I also want to support artist.

[Guitarplyrjvb]

We allow a few tracks on services like Spotify to act as promo and to have a presence but that's it. Prog as a genre is lucky enough (depending on how you look at it) to operate by some old-school rules where the consumer places value on the music and wants a physical copy. For most of the industry the recorded music has become a loss-leader product to drive fans to the live show- an exact 180 from how it used to work.

This approach makes the most sense to me rather than relying on the altruistic sensibilities of the prog consumer.

[dleone]

IMO, not streaming really isn't an option for anyone who wants to release music anymore. I realize that some labels are opting out of it, but it's almost like saying, "I'm a niche artist, so my plan is to make my music even harder to hear". In prog, I know there are die-hards who choose to buy physical product whenever possible, but unfortunately, that is not the way of the world that I live in.

The solution I used for my most recent record is to opt in for iTunes, Spotify, etc, but do most of my "selling" from Bandcamp. Yes, people can still stream the album, but anyone who really wants it can buy it (and thus far, they have). Furthermore, anyone who searches my name in the streaming services will find the album, which is something you can't really put a price on. What *few* sales I might miss out on due to streaming I more than gain on accessibility (in the commercial, exposure sense).

[Guitarplyrjvb]

^^ Glass Hammer, DGM, and Cunieform seem to have the right approach. Just put a little bit of stuff out there to whet the appetite, then let the consumer buy it without giving them the whole thing for nothing. That uses the streaming services more like radio used to be: a method for auditioning a band's music for a prospective audience.

This is the only approach that makes sense economically, to me. If economics isn't a concern, then that's a different story. Maximize exposure and give the music away.

I suppose the model of giving music away in hopes of building an audience for live performance makes some sense, too. However, I would think this would work better for more mainstream artists then prog-related artists. Prog artists have a hard time getting gigs in general it seems.

[dleone]

The thing is, I'm probably considered "old-school" by some people simply because I like to have mp3s on my phone to listen to, rather than streaming. Thinking long-term, what will happen first? The last generation to grow up with physical product (or even just digital files) will die, or somehow, the notion of owning physical product will come back? I don't know the answer, but I can see the way things seem to be heading now, and I don't want to wait to have my music heard until I'm not around to reap any benefits from it.

Also, I don't want to see progressive music (in all its forms) go the way of classical music, where the only people who really have access to seeing it performed, or who know anything about it, are either wealthy, or in university systems (themselves already paradigms of privilege). Prog has nowhere near the cultural legacy of classical music, so when you think about its future, you have to hope that at some point, it is taught and valued in a way that would keep it afloat even in the face of dire economics. Even with that advantage, classical music is *barely* in the public conscience, due mostly to years of institutionalized caretaking, and old money keeping symphonies funded, and music grants awarded. I can't rely on *any* of that, so have to use what means I have at my hands to get my music recognized, and in the best case, bought.

[Phlakaton]

Cuneiform lets you stream a whole album on bandcamp (digital releases)... 3 times I think. Steve?

[bob_32_116]

In 1975 I paid 6 pounds sterling to attend an all-day concert at Wembley stadium in London, featuring Elton John, the Beach Boys, the Eagles, joe Walsh, Rufus and Stackridge. That amount of money probably would have been approximately the price of two LPs at the time.

In 2015 I paid AU$65 to see Anathema at a local pub. That's about four times the cost of buying an Anathema album - and that's just one band. To see Elton John here in 2015 would have set me back at least $105 - about five album's worth, assuming I paid RRP rather than getting them from a discount bin.

Is that right? Perhaps we should turn the question on its head and say is there anything wrong with the new state of affairs? It always did bother me that the cost of buying a mass-produced LP or CD seemed out of proportion to the cost of seeing and hearing the artist in the flesh. I would say the relative costs are now a bit more reflective of what they actually should be.

The other thing to remember is that not all of us are fortunate enough to live in places where these people choose to come and play. For me to attend a Steven Wilson concert would cost me several hundred dollars at least, because he won't play Perth and I would have to fly to wherever he was playing.

This post may seem rambling, but I am getting to my point, which is that I think music is returning to the original paradigm that operated before recording technology existed, viz. the artists' chief income deriving from performances. In the future, the period in the late 20th century in which it was possible to make a handsome living as a recording artist will come to be seen as a historical aberration.

[Polypet]

^^ I guess I don't understand your logic. Why would anyone with streaming service buy the album if they can stream it? I'd almost think you'd do better by applying the Cunieform model: put some stuff out on Soundcloud or even YouTube and whet folks' appetites with that. Then, make 'em buy it if they really want it. Otherwise, you're just essentially giving it away.

Well - there are different ways of (and reasons for) "streaming" or "broadcasting": online streaming (which is fine for some folks), downloading (imo often illegally) , genuine 'broadcast' streaming (radio), streaming from one's own website (see Mike K's fabulous Radio Keneally or our own website), managed streaming content services (very useful - see Cuneiform, myself and others via Soundcloud, Bandcamp, et al), torrents (don't get me started). Media technology on the internet is a continuum.

And though it's been a boon in many ways, there are many problems with it especially in a commercial context. It's useful on the one hand to be able to "self-broadcast" or "self-publish". But ownership and control are the main issues, at least for me.

YouTube for example, sniffs the net for any legal digital content associated with an artist (no matter how obscure, btw), auto-generates a playlist with said artists stuff in along with a 'lovely' video and streams the music for free to you. TO YOU. But it monetises the video, meaning there can be ads based on their algorithms. If you are the artist, you may not be super pleased about that. For example, i was not, although i am a champion of online streaming. I could a) OPT-IN to their commercial program and get a piece of their pie or b) Give them a takedown notice on copyright grounds and publisher rights. I did the latter but... i like the little videos. If a fan had done it, i'd almost be cool with it. If YouTube did it as a service or something and didn't monetise it, i'd almost be ok with it. But something about it didn't smell right. As a programmer, i tip my hat. As an artist, i poop my pants a little


Excuse me

I like streaming. I think it's fine. I think it's more about choice and the rights of the artist to sell their work (however feeble the money may be).

My two cents

[Steve F.]

Cuneiform lets you stream a whole album on bandcamp (digital releases)... 3 times I think. Steve?

3 times. That's the minimum they allow. I'd make it 2 otherwise....

It's an experiment we're trying. If it doesn't kill our sales, it is nice to allow people to hear what they want to buy. But ultimately I do need them to buy it or we're dead.

This allowed us to set a definitive limit over how many times people can hear it for free and I'm pretty happy with the idea of it and BandCamp in general.

Too soon to say how the experiment is working.

[Phlakaton]

3 times. That's the minimum they allow. I'd make it 2 otherwise....

It's an experiment we're trying. If it doesn't kill our sales, it is nice to allow people to hear what they want to buy. But ultimately I do need them to buy it or we're dead.

This allowed us to set a definitive limit over how many times people can hear it for free and I'm pretty happy with the idea of it and BandCamp in general.

Too soon to say how the experiment is working.

I cant speak for how its going for you as the business end... but for me as a music lover and consumer - it's fantastic. I've bought MORE music because of this. Hope it works well for you guys.