Tidal Royalties No Better Than Spotify

[manicm]

So only on HiFi Plus do they actually meaningfully support artists. They're just as big as a......s as Spotify then.

I'm still sticking with them because their CD quality option does sound good indeed for the same price as Spot where I am.

 

[bigfish786]

I’ve tried streaming services several times now, and I just can’t get on with it. It just feels soulless.
I know loads of people use them, but to me, it just doesn’t satisfy my hifi/music needs.
I enjoy the collecting of music, the physical searching for records or CDs whether in a shop or in my own collection.
I can see how streaming can be a great solution for lots of reasons, but I’ll stick with the physical formats. If the artists benefit more from the physical media sales then all the better.

 

[12th Monkey]

Agree with all of the above, though playlists for background when we have guests is perfect.

 

[robdmarsh]

I think streaming is great in many respects: good quality across the board, discovering new artists, cost, convenience, fewer boxes and wires, except.... the point about artists not getting properly rewarded for their work.

I didn't actually know this for a fact but I suppose it's pretty obvious when you stop to think about it. How is Amazon music for this? I hardly dare ask, knowing Amazon's reputation.

 

[manicm]

I still always buy CDs. And with the number of reissues being released everyday the medium's demise is greatly exaggerated.

 

[TenTonTarantula]

So only on HiFi Plus do they actually meaningfully support artists. They're just as big as a......s as Spotify then.

I'm still sticking with them because their CD quality option does sound good indeed for the same price as Spot where I am.



View attachment 3180

"The companies tend to keep the information about how much they pay artists for each stream a closely guarded secret but a report from Tricordist in 2020 gives us a picture of the rough payments artists can expect.

According to the report, Spotify pays US$0.00348 a stream, Apple Music pays US$0.00675 a stream, Amazon pays US$0.00426, Google pays US$0.00554, and Tidal pays US$0.00876. Surprisingly, the fitness company Peloton comes out on top of the list, paying US$0.03107 a stream. Napster also rates higher than others at US$0.00916."

Four alternatives to Spotify: swapping is easier than you think

Whether you’re boycotting the service over Joe Rogan or just looking for something new, it’s a cinch to cancel and you can take your playlists too

www.theguardian.com

 

[jjbomber]

According to the report, Spotify pays US$0.00348 a stream ... and Tidal pays US$0.00876.

Title is rather misleading then. Maybe the OP can re-word it.

 

[RoA]

Streaming only these days well ... for some years. Haven't looked back yet.

 

[RoA]

So only on HiFi Plus do they actually meaningfully support artists. They're just as big as a......s as Spotify then.

I'm still sticking with them because their CD quality option does sound good indeed for the same price as Spot where I am.



View attachment 3180

Intellectual property, incl. music is worth as much as people are willing to pay. I am glad I'm over paying £10 plus for a recording.

As an aside, years ago, I've worked in care for peanuts. Can't remember any artist supporting me.

If they (Artists) don't earn enough they can always look for a P/T job to bolster income. I'm sure my ex-employer has some vacancies for a tenner an hour or whatever the rate is these days

 

[manicm]

Intellectual property, incl. music is worth as much as people are willing to pay. I am glad I'm over paying £10 plus for a recording.

As an aside, years ago, I've worked in care for peanuts. Can't remember any artist supporting me.

If they (Artists) don't earn enough they can always look for a P/T job to bolster income. I'm sure my ex-employer has some vacancies for a tenner an hour or whatever the rate is these days

So you're also only entitled to anyone paying you as much as they want to - if it's peanuts so be it

With an attitude like yours nobody would make a living, and artists would not be able to afford making albums.

I don't even know why I'm even dignifying your comments with a response.

You would be Thatcher's and Trump's dream citizen.

 

[RoA]

Oh come of your high horse you little defender of righteousness

 

[manicm]

Oh come of your high horse you little defender of righteousness

Righteousness? It's just common sense.

 

[Tinman1952]

Intellectual property, incl. music is worth as much as people are willing to pay. I am glad I'm over paying £10 plus for a recording.

As an aside, years ago, I've worked in care for peanuts. Can't remember any artist supporting me.

If they (Artists) don't earn enough they can always look for a P/T job to bolster income. I'm sure my ex-employer has some vacancies for a tenner an hour or whatever the rate is these days

Agreed. The entertainment industry is notorious for being a precarious way of earning a living. At least 50% of actors are out of work at any one time. Only a very few music artists are 'lucky' enough to make a decent living...they knew what they got into when choosing to go down that path. No one is 'entitled' to a decent income.....it's a life choice!

 

[cyclingman3]

I think streaming is great in many respects: good quality across the board, discovering new artists, cost, convenience, fewer boxes and wires, except.... the point about artists not getting properly rewarded for their work.

I didn't actually know this for a fact but I suppose it's pretty obvious when you stop to think about it. How is Amazon music for this? I hardly dare ask, knowing Amazon's reputation.

It is well known that artists are paid a pittance by these streaming services, who make a fortune out of them.

 

[12th Monkey]

It's getting a bit personal in this thread - please agree to differ.

 

[DCarmi]

It is well known that artists are paid a pittance by these streaming services, who make a fortune out of them.

Umm! Spotify did post one of its first profits of $2m on a turnover of $2.5billion in 2021, compared to the loss of $40m in 2020. I doubt they will make a profit in 2022, given their current troubles.

I'd be surprised if Apple and Amazon make much money from streaming. It will be more important for them to grow ecosystems.

Tidal has been a loss maker ever since it was founded, but maybe Jack Dorsey can turn it around. Deezer has been promising to make a profit for years and so far not achieved it.

I'd suggest that the biggest problem to artist remuneration are the labels who take 70% of the revenue from streams. The other is that the consumer needs to pay more.

 

[manicm]

Agreed. The entertainment industry is notorious for being a precarious way of earning a living. At least 50% of actors are out of work at any one time. Only a very few music artists are 'lucky' enough to make a decent living...they knew what they got into when choosing to go down that path. No one is 'entitled' to a decent income.....it's a life choice!

It's not about 'entitlement', it's about fairness. And most of the royalty revenue from streaming services goes to record companies, not the artists.

As I said, maybe you too are 'entitled' to much less than you're earning now.

This is not about every musician becoming a millionaire. If you can't see that, well there's none so blind.....

 

[RoA]

It's not about 'entitlement', it's about fairness. And most of the royalty revenue from streaming services goes to record companies, not the artists.

As I said, maybe you too are 'entitled' to much less than you're earning now.

This is not about every musician becoming a millionaire. If you can't see that, well there's none so blind.....

So the artist needs financing to make records, marketing and maintain a life style, whatever that means for an individual. In return they can do something they want but have to stay in a contract with the recording company/Publisher.

Said Publisher decides to add the artists work to a streaming service which pays the Publisher more than the artist ...

... which, without the Publisher could not have made the recordings in the first place.

I see this as artists choice. Just as we all have to make choices. If the artist gets next to nothing he/she either chose the wrong Publisher or folks don't want to listen to or buy their work. It did however allow them to do what they want. Don't moan if it doesn't work out.

Get a job instead.

 

[cyclingman3]

Umm! Spotify did post one of its first profits of $2m on a turnover of $2.5billion in 2021, compared to the loss of $40m in 2020. I doubt they will make a profit in 2022, given their current troubles.

I'd be surprised if Apple and Amazon make much money from streaming. It will be more important for them to grow ecosystems.

Tidal has been a loss maker ever since it was founded, but maybe Jack Dorsey can turn it around. Deezer has been promising to make a profit for years and so far not achieved it.

I'd suggest that the biggest problem to artist remuneration are the labels who take 70% of the revenue from streams. The other is that the consumer needs to pay more.

Why was the owner of Spotify thinking of buying a premier league football club not long ago if he's not earning any money ?

 

[RoA]

Why was the owner of Spotify thinking of buying a premier league football club not long ago if he's not earning any money ?

Other business interests?

 

[12th Monkey]

Why was the owner of Spotify thinking of buying a premier league football club not long ago if he's not earning any money ?

Alas, the people who run many companies, particularly in the tech arena, aren't necessarily remunerated with any real link to share price or profitability.

 

[manicm]

So the artist needs financing to make records, marketing and maintain a life style, whatever that means for an individual. In return they can do something they want but have to stay in a contract with the recording company/Publisher.

Said Publisher decides to add the artists work to a streaming service which pays the Publisher more than the artist ...

... which, without the Publisher could not have made the recordings in the first place.

I see this as artists choice. Just as we all have to make choices. If the artist gets next to nothing he/she either chose the wrong Publisher or folks don't want to listen to or buy their work. It did however allow them to do what they want. Don't moan if it doesn't work out.

Get a job instead.

Utter nonsense, most new artists finance their own recordings today even under a label.

 

[robdmarsh]

I see this as artists choice. Just as we all have to make choices. If the artist gets next to nothing he/she either chose the wrong Publisher or folks don't want to listen to or buy their work. It did however allow them to do what they want. Don't moan if it doesn't work out.

Get a job instead.

Good grief! I thought I was on community forum where people respected artists and if they enjoyed their work then they would at least all agree that those artists should be fairly rewarded for it without being taken to the cleaners by large corporations gorging themselves first....

 

[Tinman1952]

It's not about 'entitlement', it's about fairness. And most of the royalty revenue from streaming services goes to record companies, not the artists.

As I said, maybe you too are 'entitled' to much less than you're earning now.

This is not about every musician becoming a millionaire. If you can't see that, well there's none so blind.....

Well as I live on a state pension I couldn't really earn less than I receive currently! So please keep your offensive personal remarks to yourself... this discussion is about the rewards available to artists who decide to try and make a career in the music industry.

 

[RoA]

Good grief! I thought I was on community forum where people respected artists and if they enjoyed their work then they would at least all agree that those artists should be fairly rewarded for it without being taken to the cleaners by large corporations gorging themselves first....

You ever buy s/h physical media and feel bad that you have not contributed personally to the artist?