Prog Artists...Why do they allow Streaming?

[Poisoned Youth]

Prog Fans like and rationalize their 'free' music just the same as any other fans.

True. But I'm not talking about them. I do think there's a clear vibe on a community site such as PE that support of the artists financially is important. You're more likely to read in a thread that "I bought this CD" instead of "I downloaded this". There's a contingent of people here that understand, appreciate, and support artists/labels in many ways. Mike is blowing that out of proportion and turning it into a cultural attitude.

[bob_32_116]

I think it's the height of arrogance for a musician to expect, as though it's their entitlement, that people should buy their recordings without having heard them, or heard a portion of them, at least once. I know some listeners choose to do that with their favourite artists, as in "autobuy", but that's their choice and their money.

[Steve F.]

I do think there's a clear vibe on a community site such as PE that support of the artists financially is important. You're more likely to read in a thread that "I bought this CD" instead of "I downloaded this".

No different than on a blues forum, bluegrass forum or any other 'specialized' forum. imo.

Some people get it. Most don't and don't care.

[Steve F.]

I think it's the height of arrogance for a musician to expect, as though it's their entitlement, that people should buy their recordings without having heard them, or heard a portion of them, at least once.

No argument from me. If you don't want to spend your money on something you don't know, you shouldn't.

I hope you agree that it's the height of arrogance that if it isn't available for people to hear for free, at least once, that that fact in no way gives people the right to hear it anyway by non-legal, non-authorized methods?

[thedunno]

When i grew up we had a group of 7 prog friends who visited concerts together, talked and exchanged music ect.

Op those 7 only 2 still buy new music, 2 lost interest and 3 of them download en stream everything they can find without paying for it.

Prog fans are saints? No way!

[Esoteric]

Its a complicated situation. Some labels will have it in the contract--so many "signed" artists you mention wont be able to "take it out" of the equation. We stream, but not for first 3-6 months and we will remove if someone is adamant they dont want it. We have to be relaistic in understanding that these days this is indeed how some fans "buy" . The thing that does get me most though is Amazon. Basically they have us all by the balls, you now have to allow streaming or you cant sell on Amazon as a direct sale , how many labels will want to do away with that!!! --Thats something that came in last year I believe. All I can say is that these days the only ways most indie labels can make momey is on physical and digital downloads and preferebaly by buying direct from the labels websites. So many thanks to all of you who do this--its always really appreciated.

[angelo]

Interesting topic. I think in the end it's about maximising exposure in order to reach an audience that can at least recover the costs of recording. Many PROG artists don't live from their music because the market is too small. We've heard ,,Cuneiform as record company now, but what about the artists - what do they themselves have to say?

And sideways related: artists aren't business people, and some resort to complaining rather than getting the market fixed. Understandable, but at the same time it gives a negative connotation to streaming that may not be fully deserved.

[battema]

Me as an artist: we're boned.

Me as a consumer: I love Bandcamp most of the various options. I like to think that most of the money goes back into the right pockets, and while I rarely stream from Bandcamp I do buy downloads often (and physical media whenever possible). In the past week I've probably purchased half a dozen new albums via Bandcamp.

But, as consumers go, I'm not the norm. Not even approaching the median. Hence...see item #1 above.

[Steve F.]

Me as an artist: we're boned.

p.s.

as I have stated, I like BandCamp very much too; I'd say it's about the only purely positive development in the music business I have seen in the last decade.

But it seems to me that the over-all tide of the shape of the business is working against what they do now. Which is very worrisome.

[PeterG]

I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it first. I don't but clothes without having tried them on first. Why should music be any different than other long lasting products? I have bought many albums after having listened to them on spotify or youtube. If anything, I would suggest, that free streaming actually increases sales not the opposite.

[battema]

p.s.

as I have stated, I like BandCamp very much too; I'd say it's about the only purely positive development in the music business I have seen in the last decade.

But it seems to me that the over-all tide of the shape of the business is working against what they do now. Which is very worrisome.

Harsh or not...I've kind of moved past worry to a sort of fatalism. Once it became socially acceptable to "steal" music (even using that phrase is enough to launch a protracted "negotiation" about whether its really stealing or not), Pandora's Box was opened. You're right...I've had conversations with folks who, in the same breath spoke of how much they loved my music while simultaneously asking me to let them just borrow a CD so they can rip it.

As a customer, I am so glad that outlets still exist for me to satisfy my collector's passion; as an artist it amazes and thrills me that we still sell as many physical products as downloads. Bandcamp may not last forever, but while it does I'm more than happy to support it

[No Pride]

I have done the same. However, I feel like when these discussions arise, no one discusses the elephant in the room - YouTube. As each 3-6 months passes, more and more content - full songs and full albums - find their way to YouTube. I know at least 5 people at my workplace that use YT as their "radio".

So my feeling is, you might as well stream your music because someone is already doing it.

I hinted at this in my first post on this thread. I'm pretty sure that recently, CD Baby put everything they have on YT. One day, I suddenly found my band's whole album there and I didn't put it there. I suppose I could take it down, but hell, what's the point? It came out 11 years ago and it's old news. I still get a check from CD Baby every month or two; somebody bought the CD and I don't know how they heard about it; I certainly never put tons of effort into marketing it, being the typical musician who has zero business sense. Maybe they streamed it first. I'm pleased enough to not have completely vanished down the black hole of obscurity and if that has something to do with streaming, I'm okay with it.

[trurl]

Again, at this point recorded music can be looked at (for a major act) as promotional material to drive interest in gigs; something that can be written off as an expense, basically. Smaller, niche artists are pretty boned. The other way to go is to do super elaborate collector sets and sell just a few for big $$$. That's a troubling route to me, personally. I suppose it works for reissues by older classic artists. I can't see putting out an edition of a new GH album with a 400 page hand illustrated book and vinyl in it. But that kind of non-downloadable value-added content is one way to go. Again, it seems to make te music itself almost superfluous. And someone is still going to upload the album on Youtube two hours after it comes out..

[Guitarplyrjvb]

The key thing, to me, us that If I want a King Crimson, Cunieform, or Glass Hammer record, I have to buy it. That's successful management in this day and age. If I want Echolyn or the other groups I mentioned in the first post, I can stream them through Apple Music or Spotify. That just seems rather shortsighted of those groups from a business sense. If you want to make any money in a niche market like prog, you can't allow streaming of your product. Steve and Fred seems to have found ways to use BandCamp and Soundcloud as a marketing vehicle while not allowing full albums to stream. They've really hit upon the only business model that will work in this digital age.

[AdventAlan]

Greetings,

Have been too busy to engage on just about anything here lately, but wanted to put in my $0.02 while I seem to have a few spare moments:

My view here, especially for most prog artists, is that exposure is the most critical element of the argument. Although I'm too young to remember the old "listening booth" days, the concept of hearing music you're considering purchase--and in whole if so desired--seems reasonable. As a fairly big music collector (owning well over 5,000 CD titles and 1,300 on vinyl), I can't being to justify all the albums I purchased based simply on reviews, interesting catalog descriptions, cover art/info, hearing a small sample, connections to music I knew I liked, or some combination of these factors--sometimes ending up with total gems but more often winding up wishing I'd heard any/more of the music first, which would have clearly led to my avoiding making the purchase. It was sort of like casino gambling in a way, although the rewards were certainly more than worth the failures.

Once providing a full stream of album became the norm, I personally found a lot of value in being able to hear full albums before making a purchase--and have, in fact, come to expect this as a consumer. (Coincidentally, am just listening to the new Juha Kujanpää album, Kultasiipi - Goldwing, on Bandcamp as I type, which I now know I will purchase today as well.) As an artist--and a progressive music artist with complex music that generally takes more than a cursory listen to appreciate in particular--I think it's vital we offer the ability for our music to be streamed free of charge for evaluation. Also, while there is virtually no money to be made when the music is streamed on services like Spotify or Apple Music, I'd rather get a microscopic pittance in this context than have to pay for the additional exposure. YouTube is even less profitable in this regard, but free is still fine as far as I'm concerned.

Furthermore, I think the argument becomes almost insignificant anyway as virtually every new album seems to immediately pop up on a vast number of illegal download sites anyway. (Once we surpassed the 100 mark, I stopped keeping track, in spite of our drummer diligently continuing to send off DMCA complaints to help flag them appropriately.) Whether you offer streaming or not, the pirates will be giving away your music--en masse--anyway.

From both musician and composer standpoint, I have to say that I really like Bandcamp in particular. In addition to providing a good interface and reasonable business/financial terms (although I like their new streaming payment model less than the older one), I love the idea of being able to download album immediately after buying a physical CD there--so I can start listening and also have a repository of high-quality digital files I can add to my iTunes library and/or portable lossless player if I like. Plus Bandcamp allows artists to offer hi-res albums (or versions of albums), which is particularly nice for those who really value high fidelity. (We were very happy to take advantage of this with the new Advent album, Silent Sentinel, which has provided a very practical way to sell and distribute the wonderful 24/96 masters that Bob Katz provided.)

For the record (no pun intended), I still buy a lot more music on CD (and mostly through the vendors I've used for many years) than in download form, but I really can't see the advantage of any current artist intentionally withholding their music from legitimate streaming unless they have a rather specific use case for doing so. The idea of making a consumer buy something just to hear it seems hopelessly outdated and impractical in my view.

All this being said, please continue to support the music you like by buying it, one way or another.

Cheers,


Alan

[Guitarplyrjvb]

^^ Why do you let your music stream on Apple Music, and I presume, Spotify? Apparently, you must think it doesn't cannibalize sales and serves as an audition platform for those that will eventually buy physical/digital product?

[Esoteric]

My personal choice would be not to use it apart from odd tracks for PR --but its not my say so, I know the general feeling at Cherry Red is that as any new album in particular will almost always be "up in full" on multitudes of illegal sites within days of being out then its a bit pointless not to stream and at least feed into the "people who liked this listen to this" kind of thing. To be frank as a consumer i like Spotify, I just dont like the business model of "all you can eat" in terms of making it work for artists. I personally have mentally been through much fairer ways and would love to do it, have discussed with others till the cows come hone but the fact is that you the consumer will go for the current model because Im going to have a hard job convincing you that to make it fairer I should restrict your streams to a "set number" so that each stream can have a "set value in terms of cash" to the artist/label . Would love to do it but on reflection I think it would be too hard to convince the paying public.

[Poisoned Youth]

I think it's the height of arrogance for a musician to expect, as though it's their entitlement, that people should buy their recordings without having heard them, or heard a portion of them, at least once. I know some listeners choose to do that with their favourite artists, as in "autobuy", but that's their choice and their money.

I think using a term like arrogance is harsh, but I've stated something somewhat similar on different occasions that goes more like "just because an artist decides to create and record music doesn't inherently give it value." And anyone who gets in the music making business these days should go in understanding that the likelihood that, in most cases, only a few people will care to pay for their music or even care that they made it.

[Poisoned Youth]

I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it first. I don't but clothes without having tried them on first. Why should music be any different than other long lasting products? I have bought many albums after having listened to them on spotify or youtube. If anything, I would suggest, that free streaming actually increases sales not the opposite.

I think the jury is still out on that. But to your point, the world is moving towards a subscription based model when it comes to media. People do this with movies, cable tv, music, and even eBooks. So streaming will continue to become the normal until a better model comes along. "Try before buy" risks becoming an antiquated notion.

[AdventAlan]

^^ Why do you let your music stream on Apple Music, and I presume, Spotify? Apparently, you must think it doesn't cannibalize sales and serves as an audition platform for those that will eventually buy physical/digital product?

Exactly! All the illegal downloads probably cannibalize sales, though--but I don't see anything too effective that can be done to prevent that.

All the best,


Alan

[chalkpie]

I have the answer and have had it for years, but nobody will listen to me: Be it illegal download or streaming, every 2 or 3 minutes while you are listening to a song, a 7-second snippet from Bette Midler's Greatest Hits pops up, just enough to force you to hit 'delete', 'stop' or 'Buy' the real thing. I am only half kidding too.

[battema]

And shortly thereafter, A.C.'s album "I Like It When You Die" soars to the top of the streaming charts

[chalkpie]

And shortly thereafter, A.C.'s album "I Like It When You Die" soars to the top of the streaming charts

[Yves]

I have the answer and have had it for years, but nobody will listen to me: Be it illegal download or streaming, every 2 or 3 minutes while you are listening to a song, a 7-second snippet from Bette Midler's Greatest Hits pops up, just enough to force you to hit 'delete', 'stop' or 'Buy' the real thing. I am only half kidding too.

In a similar vein, I would be sent records to review and at least once in every song there would be a voiceover telling us that we're listening to X Album by Y artist. Since getting the CD was my only payment for taking time to listen to, ingest, then try to put a positive spin on the record in question; and seeing as this was the new norm, I decided to stop giving the artists my time and effort to promote their music for free. (and I know the prog community as a whole is mourning my retirement...).

To the question at hand... Excuse my ignorance, but how is allowing unlimited streaming of material you don't own legal? I believe streaming to be invaluable to my music purchasing decisions, but I believe the model of allowing 2 or 3 complete streams to be ideal. I personally have never been to a streaming site... Bandcamp is where I stream because it's where I will be purchasing. I try the music on as it were before buying.

[Polypet]

That's the biggest pile of starry eyed, "aren't we wonderful and SO much better than everyone else", total HORSESHIT I've ever read on this site.

And that's really saying something.

but how do you really feel Steve?