Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 99

Thread: King Crimson on Spotify

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Kcrimso View Post
    God damn that this demonizing of Spotify is frustrating. Even if you use thousands and thousand of euros to music per year you are a bad person if you also use Spotify...
    Don’t let the luddites get you down. Streaming is here, it’s not going anywhere and there’s nothing wrong with using it. It works for plenty of artists and fans. Besides, it pays artists WAY better than buying second hand CDs!
    Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sony Music

  2. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    147
    Luddites? Because many people object to a commercial model that is very good for the record companies (because they're buying the streaming service companies) but appalling for the artists whose work makes it possible?

    Yes it's here and it's legal so go ahead and use it if it works for you but don't be surprised when others point out the issues involved.

    Oh and no it doesn't pay WAY better than second hand sales - it pays MICROSCOPICALLY better.

  3. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by taliesin View Post
    Luddites? Because many people object to a commercial model that is very good for the record companies (because they're buying the streaming service companies) but appalling for the artists whose work makes it possible?

    Yes it's here and it's legal so go ahead and use it if it works for you but don't be surprised when others point out the issues involved.

    Oh and no it doesn't pay WAY better than second hand sales - it pays MICROSCOPICALLY better.
    Luddite as in “a person opposed to new technology or way of working”, yes..in the context of the original post which referenced being made to feel like a bad person for using Spotify. Spotify is a legit platform using legitimately licensed content that pays rights-holders…from my perspective, anyone claiming that a person using that platform is somehow a bad person is displaying luddite-like behavior.
    Others are welcome to complain all they like but they’re not pointing out issues. None of the arguments I’ve read here are rooted in enough evidence-based facts to be more than complaints.
    You’re on questionable moral high ground when discussing another’s income in saying that something isn’t that much better than nothing.
    Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sony Music

  4. #29
    Member Jerjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    small town in ND
    Posts
    3,384
    Just remember, when you use Spotify you're not the consumer, you're the product

    https://thebaffler.com/downstream/bi...-machine-pelly
    I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart

  5. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    Donít let the luddites get you down. Streaming is here, itís not going anywhere and thereís nothing wrong with using it. It works for plenty of artists and fans. Besides, it pays artists WAY better than buying second hand CDs!
    I'd suggest that, speaking for myself, I'm hardly a Luddite; y whole adult career has been spent adapting to and adopting technological advancements...in most cases, happily.

    I rip audio from any media except SACDs, put it onto digital audio players and use them to listen to music. I buy as much music as digital downloads in high res as I do hard media now, which I must download, catalog and import into my music library (and of course, the software is changing all the time). When I moved to Mac in 2013, after a couple decades using Windows-based PCs, I paid the Apple store to migrate my data from one machine to the other (more out of convenience). When they could not figure out how to (turned out they use a piece of software ... and if it didn't work, they could not even figure our why) do it successfully, they loaned me a portable hard drive and told me I'd have to do it myself. Not only did I, but I figured out why their software failed..this, as a Mac user for 24 hours, and doing what their "genius bar" could not.

    Of course, this all omits the fact that I spent over 25 years in high tech, initially as a systems programmer (programming in assembler), moving into systems analysis and, ultimately managing a data centre for a decade.

    This is not to pat myself on the back, only to say: does this sound like a Luddite to you?

    No, most naysayers here aren't Luddites; we are simply people who are alarmed that some new technologies are, as we've posted already, not being implemented with a fair compensation model, one that ought to fairly compensate the people who give these companies something to stream...the musicians. Instead, labels and the compqnies owning the streaming services are well-rewarded (and don't let it get by you that one of Spotify's major shareholders is....Universal Music Group).

    And really, how new is streaming, technologically? Conceptually, it's just client server computing without the wires. The hardware and how software can be implemented has become far more sophisticated, of course, but the underlying concepts have changed very little since I got out of high tech at the turn of the millennium.

    i adapt to new technologies, both hard and soft, all the time - even as a writer, with AAJ, which is based on a very strong technological architecture that continues to evolve year in, year out, but which requires writers to become at least somewhat techno-capable. As managing editor I had to be far more techno-capable, as I had to work with the site at a deeper level.

    Far from against new technologies, I love them. But only if they make sense and don't come at the expense of the very people who are at the foundation of that technology....in the case of the current discussion. the artists who make the music.

    DIY home studios have proven a great technological advancement...to some degree, but it can also have its disadvantages. They're another example of technology working to help musicians. But it's still no substitute for real studios, under certain circumstances, and the result is recordings that can be great...but in some cases would be greater if the entire band was placed in the studio at the same time, playing in real time.. ."live," something about which too many have forgotten. After all, read my Crimson review and the differences in recording The ConstruKction of Light and Power to Believe. One, with great material but, amongst other factors, limited by Belew's home studio where, as one example, Pat Mastelotto simply couldn't play real drums, one contributing factor to the original album's weaker sound; the other, recorded in a proper studio and even employing an outside (co)producer, both absolutely contributing to its greater initial success.

    That said, that's not to knock the home studios...Pat, after all, did half of his replacent drum tracks at home, the others at an engineer's studio, with some great particularly great acoustic drums (check the snare on "ProzaKc" and "Frying Pan"). But that said, not only could Pat create initial new mixes for TCoL at home, he could share the files with three friends/producers/engineers for feedback, not just across the city, state or country, but across an ocean. So there are absolutely great benefits possible with technological advancements.

    Look at how Facebook, Google, Twitter ... major technological advancements. What say you about their coming under fire for poor use and privacy policies that allow edited videos, for examples, to be put up that mislead people into believing they are the truth?

    Does this sound like the ramblings of a Luddite to you?

    Technology is great, and advancements absolutely necessary. Sit still in the world of technological and you're doomed to fail. But not all technological advancements are implemented in ways that are fair from a business perspective; sadly, many streaming services (Spotify perhaps the biggest or, at least, most well-known of the bunch) are not doing so...and that is absolutely my problem. Not the technology.

    I repeat: Technology is great. How people (invariably the weak link) either implement it or use it? That's the problem...not the technology.

    Does that really sound like a Luddite to you?

    Cheers!
    John
    John Kelman
    Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
    Freelance writer/photographer

  6. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    91
    John, please see my reply where I give the context in which I’m using to describe the BEHAVIOR of those acting like “Luddites” which I’ll repeat here: “a person opposed to using a new technology or way of working”. Clearly anyone on this site is by definition NOT a Luddite or they’d not be here. But the notion that “streaming sucks because the compensation model is terrible, therefore if you use a streaming service you’re contributing to something evil” is behaving like a Luddite. If you don’t want to stream, fine. Don’t. But from my perspective, calling out those who do as morally bent is kinda shitty.
    I’m not defending the imperfect models of streaming services. Or social media platforms. Or search engines. I’d also point out that the music industry of the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s was also imperfect, and lots of people complained about the compensations models then too.
    There’s little chatter here about the upsides of the streaming revolution and while all of your points about how tech has helped your writing (and side note: as a chronic migraine sufferer, my hat is off to you for whatever tech you’ve put in place to help you continue you working through your chronic condition...chronic conditions SUCK) and helped with recording/audio restoration, let’s be fair...there is comparatively little discussion here about the benefits that streaming platforms have brought vs complaints about the perceived damage they are doing. So before this spins into “oh the major label guy just called the whole of PE a bunch of Luddites”, 1) I didn’t, and 2) can we agree that there is a tide of shall we say “selective ludditization” around certain issues that are perceived to be particularly damaging but the motives behind such feelings and behavior is largely pure and done out of fandom?
    Peace.
    Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sony Music

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    Hey, I've made 35 cents on Spotify so far this year! Bye-bye day job!
    And we're not even halfway through the year yet, so you're on track to make OVER 70 CENTS by the end of the year.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    Also, frankly, my cellphone data plan isn't enough to do regular streaming (I don't want to spend the kind of money you must to be able to)...not to mention that streaming, at least with Spotify (or, for that matter, playing tracks ripped to my iPhone) don't sound particularly good to my ears...because they use a very cheap DAC.
    Streaming also has a worse carbon footprint.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  9. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    John, please see my reply where I give the context in which I’m using to describe the BEHAVIOR of those acting like “Luddites” which I’ll repeat here: “a person opposed to using a new technology or way of working”. Clearly anyone on this site is by definition NOT a Luddite or they’d not be here.
    I apologize; I missed that, and fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    But the notion that “streaming sucks because the compensation model is terrible, therefore if you use a streaming service you’re contributing to something evil” is behaving like a Luddite. If you don’t want to stream, fine. Don’t. But from my perspective, calling out those who do as morally bent is kinda shitty.
    I've been pretty clear on this: hey, it's legal and so I cannot judge those who choose to use it. I don't think they're evil or immoral.

    However...because streaming services are one of a number of contributing factors to the decimation of music as a profession, and because, thanks to what I do, I've become a pretty vicious advocate for artist rights, I do feel it's not untoward to suggest to those using Spotify, for example, consider the potential consequences of their decision. Some people don't give a shit...and while I think that's a bad decision, as I believe they'll see the consequences (were already beginning to), it is what it is. In other cases, however, they simply either haven't given it much thought or are completely unaware. And for me, that's an opportunity, as if I can cause even one person to reconsider the consequences of their choice, then it's been worth my time posting about it. And if they don't? It is what it is.

    That said, I'd frankly rather someone say "I use streaming services because I save money and, frankly, am not concerned about the impact of using them on musicians" than having people try to somehow justify it ("I've given enough mobey to the record labels being one I've seen, which rankles me). It's hard to deny that Spotify's business model benefits everyone BUT those who give it its raison d'Ítre, so if you choose to accept that, then own it. Say "I don't care" gets more respect from me than the litany of justifications, because there really is no legit one, at least IMJO. Supporting live shows is great, except beyond the top tier musicians, many musicians find it hard to make money from gigs either (the "pay to play" model that has entered the live music side of the industry).

    I know I'm rambling and repeating... but to me this is important stuff.

    I also want to be clear that streaming services are far from the only problems musicians have today, and I tried to ID some of them in my last post - the advantages/disadvantages of DIY recordings and the benefits of an independent producer/coproducer, which are often beyond the budget of anyone but upper tier musicians. The misconception that most musicians are able to replace lost income from music sales with touring and merch, for example, barring upper tier and some particularly creative folks.

    Frankly, I'm a huge fan of BandCamp, as it's a streaming service...but one predicated on purchase of hard or soft media. I think I've over 400 albums purchased via Bandcamp. As has been written before, the problem with Spotify is its "all you can eat buffet" approach. If they had tried things like: limiting the number of streams/month based on how much you pay; or having genre-specific subscription services so, like TV services, you have to pay for every one you want - or, perhaps, be able to buy more value for money bundles, that save the consumer money while still sending more in the direction of the artists.

    The only problem is that Spotify would likely have a hard time justifying changing their approach to subscriptions now...if they'd have rolled them out differently at the start, that would have defined how things work in a way that perhaps could more fairly compensate musicians...but you can't, as they say, put the toothpaste back in the tube now...so I don't know how they can fix this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    I’m not defending the imperfect models of streaming services. Or social media platforms. Or search engines. I’d also point out that the music industry of the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s was also imperfect, and lots of people complained about the compensations models then too.
    True. But history now shows that it was a whole helluva lot better than it is now. Sure, people got ripped off by unscrupulous label's, managers and agents back in the day. But the overall landscape was far less challenging. I mean, as I said, if a bar band that was good (not great, but we were good), and played the bar scene within a few hundred miles' radius of its home base, could make $3500/week for 5-6 nights in a club and $1500/night for a high school gig, back in the mid-'70s, that says things were much different and more lucrative, even for low-tier groups. And because clubs actually booked bands for 5-6 nights/week back then, it meant your overall travel costs were less as you'd, say, play four clubs in a month and so only traveled four times as opposed to now, when you're lucky to get one night gigs and have to travel every njght from gig to gig.

    Note also I'm NOT addressing the top percentile bands, who make plenty of money and can adjust to how things are. I'm talking about lower level bands trying to make a living that was possible 30-40 years ago but is no longer. Also, as I wrote somewhere else recently, for musicians wanting to make a decent living (not big money, just the same kind of living most aspire to: a roof, food, a family, etc), there was a time when you could get a gig in an armed forces band...and that was a full time gig, which you could then supplement with weekend club gigs. Those have largely disappeared, pushing more and more musicians into teaching....meaning supply far exceeds demand, at least if wanting enough students to actually make a living,

    The state of things today is very big and very complex, with streaming services like Spotify only one contributor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    There’s little chatter here about the upsides of the streaming revolution and while all of your points about how tech has helped your writing (and side note: as a chronic migraine sufferer, my hat is off to you for whatever tech you’ve put in place to help you continue you working through your chronic condition...chronic conditions SUCK) and helped with recording/audio restoration, let’s be fair...there is comparatively little discussion here about the benefits that streaming platforms have brought vs complaints about the perceived damage they are doing.z
    First, thanks about the writing....but the bottom line is, despite chronic pain and fatigue issues, I'll be damned if I cannot write at least a certain amount. If I were unable to write at all, I think I'd probably pack it in. Beyond my wife, cats and friends, writing is the thing that gives me the most pleasure, so if I were no longer able? I dunno, man. But I've learned to work through pain and work through fatigue (and I'm not saying I'm special...many people work through potentially career-halting problems), but thanks for the kind words.

    And you're right about little talk of the benefits of streaming. All I can say is this: it ain't the technology that's the problem, it's the business model used to implement it that is flawed, the ability to listen to music anywhere any time on a small portable device is great. Now, I tend not to stream as a general rule - more a fiscal issue than anything else, as I have the cheapest plan I could get for my iPhone, with just 3Gb/month of data...and that really ain't much when it comes to streaming - choosing instead, to use a DAP with a collection of microSD cards that contain the bulk of my collection. But when I'm covering a show/festival out of town, for example, if I'm in a pinch trying to find music I need for a review, I'll use a streaming service. And when people tell me they use streaming to check music out, buying if they like it, how can I argue with that!? But I know you know that's a relative minority.

    I also like that if I am using bandcamp and don't have an album with me that I bought, I can stream it. Again, the technology is fine...it's the business model (not bandcamp's, though; nothing wrong with theirs). And if isn't just streaming. This whole PledgeMusic debacle is outrageous...well-intended tbougb it may have been, that they used the money reserved to pay back to musicians, leaving someone like John Zorn out somewhere between $200k and $300k? Beyond the musicians affected by this directly, it has rendered the
    Whole crowd-sourcing thing as slightly suspect...or, at least, musicians may be a little more nervous about doing it through one of the remaining major services (even though they all seem to be running properly), which is really unfortunate...as crowd-sourcing has been another recent "invention" that has made it possible for musicians (and others) to get enough money to meet their recording budget, which may include using real studios and it just DIYs (or, as per Pat M in my article, a combination of both). Again, I ramble...but just to say it's not all dark...though, as PledgeMusic demonstrated, even a great concept can be poorly executed, leaving who hanging? The musicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    So before this spins into “oh the major label guy just called the whole of PE a bunch of Luddites”, 1) I didn’t, and 2) can we agree that there is a tide of shall we say “selective ludditization” around certain issues that are perceived to be particularly damaging but the motives behind such feelings and behavior is largely pure and done out of fandom?
    Peace.
    I think I can live with that
    Back at ya!
    Last edited by jkelman; 1 Week Ago at 12:44 PM.
    John Kelman
    Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
    Freelance writer/photographer

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    However...because streaming services are one of a number of contributing factors to the decimation of music as a profession, and because, thanks to what I do, I've become a pretty vicious advocate for artist rights, I do feel it's not untoward to suggest to those using Spotify, for example, consider the potential consequences of their decision. Some people don't give a shit...and while I think that's a bad decision, as I believe they'll see the consequences (were already beginning to), it is what it is. In other cases, however, they simply either haven't given it much thought or are completely unaware. And for me, that's an opportunity, as if I can cause even one person to reconsider the consequences of their choice, then it's been worth my time posting about it. And if they don't? It is what it is.

    That said, I'd frankly rather someone say "I use streaming services because I save money and, frankly, am not concerned about the impact of using them on musicians" than having people try to somehow justify it ("I've given enough mobey to the record labels being one I've seen, which rankles me).
    Yes, that.

    The industry has changed, and we can't turn back the clock, nor should we try to. But nor is it the case that how things are now is how they will always be. They will change, and we can collectively push them to change for the better. We should, as music fans, be aware of the consequences of changes in distribution mechanisms and be willing as consumers to make choices that are about more than our personal convenience.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  11. #36
    Member chalkpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    3,193
    Do they sell Spotify at Ikea?

  12. #37
    KrimsonCat MissKittysMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    74
    I developed an aversion to radio when I was growing up, and radio was terrible (AM only, bad country and top-40 only), while I grew up on classical, both as a listener and student performer. That aversion persists today with Spotify, Apple music, and the rest. I choose the music, gorrammit; no one gets to do that for me. My tastes are wide-ranging but eclectic, and in the end, I'm finnicky about what I put in my ears. And I pay for the music, either CD or purchased downloads, just as I pay for software, and expect people to pay for the software I write. (I work on medical software, and yes, we get paid well.) All my music is on either my tablet or my phone, backed up on OneDrive, but it's all paid for.

    PledgeMusic is no worse a debacle than some others over the years, as Robert Fripp knows very well; "Coda: Marine 475" commemorates unpaid royalties that literally sank to the bottom of the ocean. Given that Zorn has his own label, I'm not sure why he got talked into crowd-sourcing, but as he says, it was from one of PledgeMusic's founders who was no longer with the company, and who went back (too late) to try to salvage the mess. But at least Zorn had a Plan B. I bought Book Beri'ah as downloads through PledgeMusic. Zorn has reached out to those of us who bought through PledgeMusic, and asked people to buy special edition vinyl albums (with or without autograph) to help recover for the loss. I don't do vinyl, but I did buy Beri'ah again, this time as a box set of CDs. It arrived today, and is sitting beside my keyboard as I type. I pay for the music I listen to, and I expect part of that payment to go to the artists.

    YouTube is another quandary. Piracy aside, there's a lot of stuff out there that no one gets paid for. My piano teacher is a retired opera singer; after decades on stage, often as a guest star and leading role, he scrapes by teaching piano and voice. YouTube is his lifeline to the larger world of classical music. I'm not going to talk to him about piracy or people not getting paid for their performances.
    I think the subtext is rapidly becoming text.

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Kcrimso View Post
    God damn that this demonizing of Spotify is frustrating. Even if you use thousands and thousand of euros to music per year you are a bad person if you also use Spotify...
    You can enjoy anything you want anyway you want and the approval of other people (especially those on PE) is not required for you to continue doing so.
    No matter what anyone says, you are the decider of how you will listen to music.

  14. #39
    Member Kcrimso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by Splicer View Post
    You can enjoy anything you want anyway you want and the approval of other people (especially those on PE) is not required for you to continue doing so.
    You are right. Preaching to the music fans just seems so futile. If streaming services are so evil maybe musicians should take their fate on their own hands and avoid those at all costs. I have great respect for Wayside Records who stay out of the Spotify because they feel that is the right way. I hope other labels and artists would do the same.
    "A waste of talent and electricity." John Peel on ELP

  15. #40
    Yay Red and Court are on now! Ace!

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Kcrimso View Post
    You are right. Preaching to the music fans just seems so futile. If streaming services are so evil maybe musicians should take their fate on their own hands and avoid those at all costs. I have great respect for Wayside Records who stay out of the Spotify because they feel that is the right way. I hope other labels and artists would do the same.
    The record labels and artists are also free to distribute their music as they see fit. I don't begrudge them their avoidance of streaming services. Frankly, I don't have to listen to those artists since there are so many others to choose from already. I don't miss them and wish them well otherwise.
    No matter what anyone says, you are the decider of how you will listen to music.

  17. #42
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    426
    Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t artists choose to allow their music to be available on streaming services? I always thought it was a great business model for niche music, like the kind we love, to refuse to allow streaming in the current climate. Less availability means more demand/sales.

    All of this is voluntary. If you really want to help musicians, send them cash! Mozart, Bach, and all those guys had patrons. You could be one, too!

  18. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarplyrjvb View Post
    I always thought it was a great business model for niche music, like the kind we love, to refuse to allow streaming in the current climate. Less availability means more demand/sales.
    It also means that only those people who are part of the niche music information pipeline will know about it to be able to listen to it. That doesn't offer a lot of opportunity for exposure to the people outside of that pipeline.
    No matter what anyone says, you are the decider of how you will listen to music.

  19. #44
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    426
    ^^Therein lies the choice in todays world: exposure or profit? The artist isn’t being forced to do anything.

  20. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarplyrjvb View Post
    Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t artists choose to allow their music to be available on streaming services?
    Yes and no. Often the choice is made by the label and the artist doesn't get a say, based on a contract signed in the 1970s that obviously didn't explicitly talk about what would happen when digital streaming was invented!

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarplyrjvb View Post
    ^^Therein lies the choice in todays world: exposure or profit? The artist isn’t being forced to do anything.
    The artist lives in a socio-economic context. Broader societal forces affect us all.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  22. #47
    As a struggling artist/musician/small record label, here's my take on it:
    I'd PREFER that everyone buy my CDs.
    If you won't buy my CDs, (which practically nobody is) please listen to my songs on streaming services. Better yet, like them, share them, and add them to your playlists. Will I ever get rich from streaming? Absolutely not. But every little bit helps. I'd say I am right now averaging $2-3 a month from Spotify, but that's for about 120 songs from 5 different bands. Multiply that by 5 or 6 streaming services, then maybe double the size of my audience (maybe if every member of this site streamed two or three of my songs a day? ) and then rather than being negligible, my streaming income would be almost negligible. And the truth is that Farpoint, Greyfeather, etc. aren't getting near the amount of plays that a King Crimson or their like will get. So, again, if you want to buy my CDs, I'm forever grateful. if not, stream away. As others have said, streaming is not going anywhere. So while it's far from ideal, I'm trying to make the best of it. I've scratched out a living as a musician for about 6 years now, but that's included teaching lessons, playing every gig that comes my way including weddings and funerals, recording and mixing for other artists, etc. It's hard work. But it's a labor of love. And it beats working for a finance company.

    Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. Carry on.
    Last edited by Farpoint Kevin; 6 Days Ago at 02:38 PM.
    "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter"
    -Yoda

    www.farpointband.com
    www.greyfeather.net
    fromthemorning.net
    kevinjarvismusic.net

  23. #48
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    426
    Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting during his lifetime. Somehow, he still managed to become a master. Yes, he went mad. .....Wait a minute.....!

    Art will still be made whether it’s by patronage, sales, barter, state-support, or something that hasn’t happened yet. No use holding a flickering candle against the winds of change.

  24. #49
    Personally, I don't care for streaming services. They don't sound good, and I don't like the minuscule returns artists receive (and not all artists get the choice of whether or not their music goes on these services, keep in mind). However, I certainly don't begrudge or judge anyone for using them and they are obviously here to stay. I prefer to buy my music from the artists themselves whenever possible, and for portability I rip everything to my PC and the put them on my MP3 player (which supports lossless formats for much better sound quality than streaming) for portable listening. My car has a CD player, so I use that when driving.

    I've heard very mixed opinions from artists themselves about streaming.......some are happy for the exposure and (extremely tiny, almost non-existent but better than nothing) extra income. Some hate that they can't make a living doing what they love because more people would rather ditch buying the music and do all their listening over streaming (mostly young listeners, but all age ranges are doing this more and more nowadays). I just try to support my favorite musicians in any way I can.

    It's worth remembering also that in the 70's, 80's and even into the 90's, album sales were how musicians made their money. Tours were loss leaders and done primarily to promote the album (where the real money was) and keep the artist visible to the general public. Nowadays, that has shifted and live shows with merchandise sales are where they money is for most artists. As pointed out earlier in this thread, smaller name artists have a much more difficult situation because it's hard for them to get gigs and they often end up loosing money touring, even with merchandise sales factored in. This is very true with many modern prog bands.

    Anyway, my significant other uses Pandora for streaming, so I'm certainly not judging anyone here for using streaming services and they are obviously here to stay. They are also far preferable to everyone just downloading music completely for free, as was widespread prior the streaming services starting up.

  25. #50
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by bondegezou View Post
    Yes and no. Often the choice is made by the label and the artist doesn't get a say, based on a contract signed in the 1970s that obviously didn't explicitly talk about what would happen when digital streaming was invented!

    Henry
    Those 70's guys signed a lot of dumb contracts. They signed 'em, though! I think we're talking mainly about new artists or those that never "made it" or fed at the trough that those 70's bands had their snouts in!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •