In theory those things pay you - in practice the rights orgs are mostly attuned to the biggest acts/earners and at this point there are very few terrestrial radio options that play obscure independent music, those that do have to manually report. It's definitely easier for your average small-time artist to get paid via Internet spins or sync licenses than traditional radio in this day and age.
Case in point, I got a totally unexpected check in the mail from BMI a while back and it turns out it was for royalties from some random indie flick that licensed an instrumental from the Soul Purpose record. It eclipsed the sum of all checks we got from college radio back when the record was actually out...
Paid out $2 billion to labels? Swift $6 million a year? I wonder how much of that is actually going to artist.
I don't actually see it as benificial for artist to put blame on these services if numbers like these are correct. Shouldn't the focus be more on the deals they sign with labels?
As for the “traditional radio play vs. streaming” side of the debate, by my understanding, streaming rates for publishing were modelled upon broadcast rates for radio, despite many publishers thinking they weren't truly comparable. In the UK, broadcast rates have plummeted as audience figures have fallen.
AFAIK radio plays in the US result in a whopping $0.00 royalty for artists.
It's by far the most well thought out and elegant/likely to succeed solution to streaming on the performance side. It is also admittedly very much only for the "1%". However SESAC also isn't covered by the consent decree and so I predict a massive exodus from BMI and ASCAP to SESAC and also a concomitant creation of a dozen other new P.R.O.'s that are likewise not hampered by the idiocy of the Federal government.
PS, the equivalent radio audience to a #1-10 song on Spotify or Pandora would be about 10 times the largest audience on Top 40/CHR what-have-you and yet on the performance royalty side that song would be worth literally 1/1000 of a song with equivalent radio chart position.
PPS, the labels don't fight streaming because it has increased their bottom line substantially due to the much larger royalty they receive on the master side than artists, and also the so-called "black box" settlement payouts. The artists get fucked in the piehole majorly.
Because the most-popular songs now stay on the charts for months, the relative value of a hit has exploded. The top 1 percent of bands and solo artists now earn 77 percent of all revenue from recorded music, media researchers report. And even though the amount of digital music sold has surged, the 10 best-selling tracks command 82 percent more of the market than they did a decade ago. The advent of do-it-yourself artists in the digital age may have grown music’s long tail, but its fat head keeps getting fatter.
Because the most-popular songs now stay on the charts for months, the relative value of a hit has exploded. The top 1 percent of bands and solo artists now earn 77 percent of all revenue from recorded music, media researchers report. And even though the amount of digital music sold has surged, the 10 best-selling tracks command 82 percent more of the market than they did a decade ago. The advent of do-it-yourself artists in the digital age may have grown music’s long tail, but its fat head keeps getting fatter.
Depressing. But I'm so glad I don't listen to the radio!
Comments
Case in point, I got a totally unexpected check in the mail from BMI a while back and it turns out it was for royalties from some random indie flick that licensed an instrumental from the Soul Purpose record. It eclipsed the sum of all checks we got from college radio back when the record was actually out...
http://www.spotifyartists.com/2-billion-and-counting/?utm_content=bufferbf221&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Paid out $2 billion to labels? Swift $6 million a year? I wonder how much of that is actually going to artist.
I don't actually see it as benificial for artist to put blame on these services if numbers like these are correct. Shouldn't the focus be more on the deals they sign with labels?
http://www.americansongwriter.com/2013/10/songwriter-u-time-pay-artists-labels-fm-radio/
Apparently performers receive no royalties, just songwriters. I didn't even think it was that.
It's by far the most well thought out and elegant/likely to succeed solution to streaming on the performance side. It is also admittedly very much only for the "1%". However SESAC also isn't covered by the consent decree and so I predict a massive exodus from BMI and ASCAP to SESAC and also a concomitant creation of a dozen other new P.R.O.'s that are likewise not hampered by the idiocy of the Federal government.
PS, the equivalent radio audience to a #1-10 song on Spotify or Pandora would be about 10 times the largest audience on Top 40/CHR what-have-you and yet on the performance royalty side that song would be worth literally 1/1000 of a song with equivalent radio chart position.
PPS, the labels don't fight streaming because it has increased their bottom line substantially due to the much larger royalty they receive on the master side than artists, and also the so-called "black box" settlement payouts. The artists get fucked in the piehole majorly.
PPPS- Hi.
Is Dr Brown's Cel-Ray a celery-based soft drink?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-shazam-effect/382237/?single_page=true
Depressing. But I'm so glad I don't listen to the radio!