Music Streaming needs a reset according to UK MP’s

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Just wondering what people’s views are on the announcement today from UK MP’s that Music Streaming in the UK needs a reset as artists just don’t get a fair share, figures banded around included a million streams equating to a payment of £37 in royalties.

I use stream not for serious listening but more for background or research into whether an LP is worth buying, but I know that many people are into this big time and it is their major source of music.

If royalties for artists are to be increased how would this happen, Apple, Spotify Amazon et all giving more to the artist and reducing their profit or us the user having to pay more for our music? I think I know the answer to that.
 

Tinman1952

Well-known member
Just wondering what people’s views are on the announcement today from UK MP’s that Music Streaming in the UK needs a reset as artists just don’t get a fair share, figures banded around included a million streams equating to a payment of £37 in royalties.

I use stream not for serious listening but more for background or research into whether an LP is worth buying, but I know that many people are into this big time and it is their major source of music.

If royalties for artists are to be increased how would this happen, Apple, Spotify Amazon et all giving more to the artist and reducing their profit or us the user having to pay more for our music? I think I know the answer to that.
Yes current system needs review…it’s all going to the record companies and ‘middle men’. I believe the artists get much more if their music is played on the radio than if it’s streamed…that’s barmy 🙁
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Yes current system needs review…it’s all going to the record companies and ‘middle men’. I believe the artists get much more if their music is played on the radio than if it’s streamed…that’s barmy 🙁

I knew that royalties from streaming were poor but not as bad as the figures banded around, if correct then an artist gets £0.000037 per song streamed.

If this payment were a musician’s only source of income it won’t take long for musicians to cease to exist, thankfully they can still get a return from physical sales and radio plays.
 

idc

Well-known member
I used to spend about £20-30 a month buying CDs. I pay £16.99 for a family Spotify membership and listen to significantly more music than I did when was buying CDs. I think the music streamers need to up their charges. Knowing how little goes to artists, as I have friends in bands who have music on Spotify and they had nothing back, I go to as many gigs as I can, and buy lots of t-shirts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oxfordian

Oxfordian

Well-known member
I used to spend about £20-30 a month buying CDs. I pay £16.99 for a family Spotify membership and listen to significantly more music than I did when was buying CDs. I think the music streamers need to up their charges. Knowing how little goes to artists, as I have friends in bands who have music on Spotify and they had nothing back, I go to as many gigs as I can, and buy lots of t-shirts.

There doesn’t seem to be much argument from the music buyer to increase fees, or have the fees more evenly distributed, the arguments come from the labels who seem to think that the current system is fair and that paying an artist £0.00037 per play is okay.

Reading a bit more the streaming companies don’t seem to get much flack, it’s all about what the labels keep for themselves.

It is going to be interesting to see how this pans out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tinman1952

Tinman1952

Well-known member
I used to spend about £20-30 a month buying CDs. I pay £16.99 for a family Spotify membership and listen to significantly more music than I did when was buying CDs. I think the music streamers need to up their charges. Knowing how little goes to artists, as I have friends in bands who have music on Spotify and they had nothing back, I go to as many gigs as I can, and buy lots of t-shirts.
I agree streaming means you can listen to a lot more music…particularly new releases. We have an Amazon family subscription which has dropped from £19.99 to £14.99 per month. Great value. The market and competition will dictate how much these services charge the consumer…but I think the record companies need to get their snouts out of the trough and be a little less greedy…. Reminds me of their arrogance years ago regarding music downloads which brought about the likes of Napster….
They need to get real…..again!
 

DCarmi

Well-known member
My take on this is that I put 90% of the blame onto the record companies. For years they tried to block extension of the "fair" rights of consumers and pushed people into piracy. I am not condoning piracy, but in a modern world I would expect that with a CD I have bought, I should be able to put that music onto my digital music player: phone, DAP, or whatever. In the UK it is currently (technically) illegal to do so.

I still have LPs with "Home taping is killing music" on the inner sleeve. In truth it did the opposite as music sales doubled, after the campaign. The home recording culture was endemic, as people wanted to use their Walkmans etc.

I also note that one of the current large music conglomerates, produces equipment suitable for home recording or storing media for playback. Companies such as, EMI even branded blank audio!

As a starter, I'd advocate that the record companies use a similar model to the app providers (which itself is criticised and I know the analogy is not exact). i.e. something like 70% for the artists and 30% for the record company. Currently it is pretty much the opposite.

Looking at the streaming rates should be done, but I'd probably leave that to those with more clout to sort out, i.e. the US and EU. I would be concerned, that we in the UK alone could end up subsidising increased rates.
 

idc

Well-known member
There doesn’t seem to be much argument from the music buyer to increase fees, or have the fees more evenly distributed, the arguments come from the labels who seem to think that the current system is fair and that paying an artist £0.00037 per play is okay.

Reading a bit more the streaming companies don’t seem to get much flack, it’s all about what the labels keep for themselves.

It is going to be interesting to see how this pans out.

If that is what Spotify pay, that means Stairway to Heaven on the IV album by Led Zeppelin, from Spotify plays, has generated £214,342.66 as of this post. That is a good income from one song. Many of the tracks I listen to are listened to in the 1000s, so 37p per 1000 listens.

I think part of the solution is for people to stop listening to the same old tracks and start listening to more lesser known bands.
 

jjbomber

Well-known member
I think part of the solution is for people to stop listening to the same old tracks and start listening to more lesser known bands.
Absolutely.

People would rather go to see cover bands playing songs they know that talented musicians writing their own material. Don't start me off on tribute bands; legalised identity theft.
 

Tinman1952

Well-known member
If that is what Spotify pay, that means Stairway to Heaven on the IV album by Led Zeppelin, from Spotify plays, has generated £214,342.66 as of this post. That is a good income from one song. Many of the tracks I listen to are listened to in the 1000s, so 37p per 1000 listens.

I think part of the solution is for people to stop listening to the same old tracks and start listening to more lesser known bands.
I don’t think the problem lies with established artists and in particular iconic tracks like Stairway…..it’s the new and upcoming artists who can’t earn a decent living from their creativity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oxfordian

Oxfordian

Well-known member
If that is what Spotify pay, that means Stairway to Heaven on the IV album by Led Zeppelin, from Spotify plays, has generated £214,342.66 as of this post. That is a good income from one song. Many of the tracks I listen to are listened to in the 1000s, so 37p per 1000 listens.

I think part of the solution is for people to stop listening to the same old tracks and start listening to more lesser known bands.

I have no knowledge of what is paid by whom to whom, the figure quoted is simply the rate paid to one artist for one million plays, the figures were in an article I read, BBC if memory serves me correctly.
 

idc

Well-known member
From the various people I know who have been in bands, the incentive is to have fun with their pals, get some gigs, earn a bit of money and show off their skills. They all realistically know that even moderate success is unlikely and all have other jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oxfordian

Oxfordian

Well-known member
From the various people I know who have been in bands, the incentive is to have fun with their pals, get some gigs, earn a bit of money and show off their skills. They all realistically know that even moderate success is unlikely and all have other jobs.

I think you’re right, most bands know that it is just a bit of fun, but for some they are good enough to earn a living from music, they can get good crowds at a gig and have a foot in the door for a recording contract, for these people streaming will help get their music across but it won’t pay them a wage under the current royalties system. Yet if they had the equivalent Record sales they could make a living, at least that’s my reading of the situation.

Also if streaming is going to expand and grow it needs new music, if payments are rubbish where’s the incentive?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts