- |
  |
| Streaming | General Discussion, FAQs, debates, etc. |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Apr 20 2017, 06:26 AM
Post
#281
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364 
 
|
My biggest peeve about streaming is not the changing ratio business, but that the musical merits of songs are becoming ever less important - nowadays it's whether your fans like to stream.
|
 |
 
|
|
Apr 24 2017, 11:27 AM
Post
#282
|
|
 New Entry
Joined: 27 February 2017
Posts: 38 User: 26,518 
|
Streaming seems rather fanbase-dependent, with younger artists gaining significantly more benefit than those who established themselves during the physical sales or even download era.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2017, 07:15 PM
Post
#283
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 19 April 2015
Posts: 162 User: 21,769
|
Streaming is hugely manipulated by Spotify not allowing to skip the songs.
Only paid users streams should count therefore. Otherwise people listen to songs they have been put artificially onto the playlist and they can do nothing about it |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2017, 07:17 PM
Post
#284
|
|
 you never forget your first time...
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 19 April 2011 Posts: 121,600 User: 13,530                 
|
They could, you know, stop listening
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2017, 07:22 PM
Post
#285
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 19 April 2015
Posts: 162 User: 21,769
|
QUOTE(JosephStyles🐶 @ Apr 10 2017, 04:06 PM)  They are totally different, and here's why: - YouTube is video streaming, not audio streaming. Huge difference, on Spotify you're going to listen to the song itself, but on YouTube, you might be more interested in the music video. It's a songs chart really, and videos are separate entities. - The above applies to iTunes video downloads too really, not the same because it's not a song on its own, it's a video. - Radio plays are also separate because the listener is not choosing what they play. People interested in videos using rather porn websites Ask anyone why does he lvisit Youtube - for sound or video Check how 'popouar' are videos with no sound only - negative ratio of 97% and full of haters comments People visiting youtube want toi listen to the sound without regostration hassle They have song available straight away and simplicity is the reason they visit Tube |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2017, 08:26 PM
Post
#286
|
|
 Chart Chat Slave
Joined: 19 March 2006
Posts: 64,343 User: 275
  
|
QUOTE(ankietarrr @ Apr 26 2017, 09:22 PM) People interested in videos using rather porn websites Ask anyone why does he lvisit Youtube - for sound or video Check how 'popouar' are videos with no sound only - negative ratio of 97% and full of haters comments People visiting youtube want toi listen to the sound without regostration hassle They have song available straight away and simplicity is the reason they visit Tube I know the answer, people visit Youtube for sound AND video. Of course videos without sound are not popular because a lot of them are on purpose without sound, they were silenced because of legal reasons. You forget that Youtube is also full of ads, annoying pop up messages (although you can switch them off but still), region blocking etc. I don't get that after 1 -1,5 years you are still don't get over the fact that Youtube isn't counted towards the UK singles chart. Are you a spokesman, a promoter for Youtube or are you working there? 
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2017, 08:28 PM
Post
#287
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 19 April 2015
Posts: 162 User: 21,769
|
So why songs from youtube when there is not video but audio only are not included?
Those are open for one reason only - AUDIO There are numerous examples of those song - to be honest minority of songs have no music video or video is released much after song release Youtube does not pay anyone they only accept the money  I rather smell Spotify pays to OCC and other parts of industry to keep youtube and others off the chart buzz This post has been edited by ankietarrr: Apr 27 2017, 08:30 PM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 28 2017, 03:23 PM
Post
#288
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 19 April 2015
Posts: 162 User: 21,769
|
This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
All the best then The Vamps and their stupid recording company in 'conquering the charts' |
|
|
|
|
Apr 28 2017, 07:38 PM
Post
#289
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 19 December 2015
Posts: 20,102 User: 22,776
|
QUOTE(ankietarrr @ Apr 28 2017, 04:23 PM) This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. All the best then The Vamps and their stupid recording company in 'conquering the charts' Or maybe it's down to the fact that any song is copyrighted and posting a video with a copyrighted song gives more than enough reason to take it down...  EDIT - and how are the record company stupid in wanting their acts to chart highly? surely that's clever more than anything
This post has been edited by mdh: Apr 28 2017, 07:39 PM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 29 2017, 10:37 PM
Post
#290
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 19 April 2015
Posts: 162 User: 21,769
|
If they want song to chart highly they put it everywhere - as simple as that
Taking song down is a best way to kill the song before it charts as no one had opportunity to listen it Who do they think they are Drake? LOL |
|
|
|
|
Jul 1 2017, 02:35 PM
Post
#291
|
|
 🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,540 User: 11,746
      
|
An update to the FAQs section regarding the new chart rules regarding streaming, but let me know if anything has been missed.
Why are some songs getting different streaming ratios? Since July 2017, the chart rules concerning streaming have changed so that newer songs have an advantage in the Singles Chart. A new release has the standard streaming to sales ratio of 150:1. This is now referred to as the standard chart ratio (SCR). After 3 consecutive weeks of decline the accelerated chart ratio (ACR) of 300:1 will apply, but only for songs that have spent 10 or more weeks in the top 100. Decline is defined as negative week on week variance of combined sales and streams and negative variance lower than the market rate of change week on week. A song on ACR will automatically return to SCR if it experiences an increase of 50% in combined chart sales, and in exceptional circumstances a label may elect to manually reset a track to SCR. This manual reset is limited to two tracks per artist album, only where the track in question is outside the Top 100 and subject to one week’s notice being given from the releasing label that they wish to implement a manual reset. Manual reset shall be strictly subject to Official Charts and CSC approval. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 1 2017, 09:21 AM
Post
#292
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
For almost the whole of their existence, the charts have measured how *many* people like a given piece of music, but since streaming they've tended towards measuring how *often* it has been listened to, especially where singles are concerned.
Which do you think the charts should be measuring? |
|
|
|
|
May 19 2018, 12:49 PM
Post
#293
|
|
 BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 3 January 2017
Posts: 10,139 User: 23,961
 
|
Peter Gabriel's albums are finally on Spotify now. I think he's the last major retro act that wasn't on there following Pink Floyd,The Beatles and Led Zeppelin being added in the last few years.
|
|
|
|
|
May 27 2018, 02:05 PM
Post
#294
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 21,089 User: 49
|
It does worry me how dominate streaming has now become and how far actual sales in both singles and albums have declined and continue to. There have been so many misleading articles from the likes of the Guardian etc. about it 'saving the music industry' when in the long term it's doing the opposite! The way it works at the minute not a lot of money goes to the most important people: THE ARTISTS. They have to work out a lot before it's anywhere near as beneficial as actually buying music and Spotify hasn't ever even made a profit and is in massive debt!
I'm sad enough to have figured it would literally take 252 Spotify plays or 128 Apple Music plays to even pay someone a penny! This is the reason so many old bands are reforming, concert tickets are becoming more expensive and they seem to be tour all the time as their royalties are drying up as paying people are paying £10 to listen to anything they want rather than pay for their music! (remember some artists need to sell records before they can actually go on tour) If it becomes the norm probably more people will write a song try to get onto a playlist or start with your main hook to avoid skipping for even really small artists then it's just going to kill creativity make everything so bland and boring, also what about growers? (like the new Arctic Monkeys album which I'm now loving) Will that concept die out? In general this it's completely devaluing music and making the chart very slow and boring, but it's probably too late to turn back now, I agree with some sentiments here that at the minute the chart now basically measures how much people listen to something rather than how many people like it so maybe free users should count less or the streaming ratio needs to be changed again to emphasise the importance of the sale and yes playlists should certainly count less! Look at the difference Bad Vibe being moved up in Hot Hits UK made! Surely the fact that one playlist makes such a difference means it's not a chart that represents what people actually LIKE! What gets me is that they allowed the 'listen offline' function so easily which I feel has contributed to people feeling they don't need to pay for music anymore. It's annoying as streaming prevents small artists from making the chart due to someone listening to the same playlist for months and it gives power to generic music meanwhile a slightly more alternative song can be in the top 20 biggest sellers and not even make the chart (Alice Merton) To make a real life example of how unfair the current system is if you owned a pub and told me to pay £4 for a pint you wouldn't like if I said "Actually I'll pay £10 a month and drink as much as I like in not only your pub but every pub I go to and you'll receive around 0.9425595p per pint,ok?" This article sums up most of my feelings: "No, Streaming Services Are Not 'Saving The Music Industry' Recent reports that streaming is now the 'biggest money-maker' for the music biz have prompted hyperbolic claims that Spotify and co have 'saved the music industry'. In reality, this could not be further from the truth This week it was announced that streaming platforms generated $7.1 billion in revenue in 2017, outstripping physical and other digital sales to become "music’s biggest money-maker". Cue articles like this, in The Guardian, which herald the dawn of a glorious new era of musical democracy, a world where bedroom artists and megastars alike are given equal access to a platform with the potential to make them huge, and a world where for the first time in a decade the people at the top have proper financial clout. Streaming, we are told, has apparently "saved the music industry". It is an attractive prospect to believe that the longstanding wars of grossly unfair artist revenues that have long-dogged Spotify and its ilk are now resolved, but this is wishful thinking. The amounts of money made at the top might be steadily increasing, but this means nothing lest it trickle down, and for many artists on the exciting fringes of music, the kind we cover here at The Quietus, that isn’t happening. Take the artists signed to one of tQ’s favourite labels, Rocket Recordings, for example – home to Goat, Gnod and Josefin Ohrn. For them the idea of streaming platforms as salvation is “A load of bloody nonsense. Yes, streaming income is going up for us,” says founder Chris Reeder, “but it is a minute amount.” The estimated amount of money that a single stream earns an artist on Spotify is $0.00397. Even though one listener might stream their favourite track hundreds of times, and a stream does not necessarily represent a missed sale, this is a pitiful sum. It requires new listeners to find the music in the first place, and millions upon millions of plays for this to translate to anything approaching a decent revenue. This can be done, of course, by arena-fillers like Ed Sheeran, but those not as popular in the mainstream must almost always bend to the will of the platform and become stream-friendly. “We are told we have to feed the 'algorithms' to help us be able make more pennies from it, which we are trying to do, but I can see it being a lot of hard work for very little reward,” continues Reeder. As The Guardian notes, the very nature of popular music is changing as a result of this pandering to fit the Spotify algorithm, getting rid of a long introduction from a song to make it less skippable, for example, or releasing alternate versions of tracks to appeal to curated playlists like ‘Perfect Concentration’ and ‘Peaceful Guitar’. But to submit to this system comes at the cost of artistic integrity. An alternate version of a track created entirely to earn a spot on ‘Infinite Acoustic’ in order to squeeze more streaming money might make commercial sense, but artistically this is pointless, empty and vapid in the extreme. Why should a musician have to compromise their work so drastically in order to make the money they need to survive? Progressive music that goes against the aesthetics of whatever the mainstream might be at any given point by its very nature does not cater to the whims of a Spotify algorithm. Now that streaming is the industry's biggest money-maker it has become the overriding force in music consumption. This dominance will only increase as time goes on, and for artists to gain anything as a result requires them to conform or die. There are exceptions, most notably in zeitgeist-seizing movements like grime that are both artistically essential and buoyed by the kind of mass appeal that in effect bypasses the need for a leg-up from the algorithms, but such a lethal combination is rare indeed. Not everything that is great is as popular. With more money in the music industry, it is hoped this will naturally find its way back into recruiting new artists, but if high streaming figures and a spot on the ‘Walk Like A Badass’ playlist (562,000 followers) of generic rock stompers or the torturously soggy acoustic wash that is ‘Your Coffee Break’ (400,000 followers) are of primary concern, then up-and-coming artists who naturally cater to this will be of primary importance; major labels already have analytics expert to scout the unsigned talent that’s making the most impact within the algorithms. As Sahil Varma of the 37 Adventures label told The Guardian: “If you walked into any major label meeting this week, the thing they’d be talking about is how ‘Spotify-friendly’ an artist is. By that, they mean: can they get on Spotify’s playlists, such as New Pop Revolution or Chilled Pop?” This is of course, to some extent, how major labels have always worked; they have naturally always signed the acts who are the most marketable. The difference now, however, is that they are not selling directly to the public, but to the streaming platforms and their algorithms in the hope that the product is smooth enough around the edges to fit neatly alongside others of the same type. Both the industry’s direction and the consumer’s tastes are being shaped by playlists that aim for uniformity and bluntness, meaning that music itself will become increasingly uniform and blunt. This is the cost of Spotify ‘saving’ the music industry, and it’s a dear one. It feels unusual that there is a need to point out that artists should want to rail against homogeneity, but this is an era where if you want to be successful you must do precisely the opposite. For artists on small labels that once would have got by on a few thousand sales, there will be no great new influx of dearly needed cash to pay for equipment, studio time, mastering, manufacture and so on. Cosey Fanni Tutti, who as part of Throbbing Gristle, Chris & Cosey and Carter Tutti was able to make groundbreaking music in a time when underground records did sell, says that she feels that "a lot of musicians are in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' position. Access and accessibility to music is crucial but creativity is being devalued by giving away the work as if it’s 'disposable' wallpaper." She adds that established artists like TG and Carter Tutti "have a small advantage. Through their fan base they can to some (lesser) extent mitigate the loss of revenue through some physical sales - vinyl mainly or by performing live gigs (if you’re fit enough and can get bookings). The younger musicians don’t have that. Just how do people expect new music to come through when the value of it's vital place in our lives is reduced to a 'giveaway'." And, of course, there is still one area in which people contribute far more than a tenner a month to listen to music on streaming services: "People seem happy to pay the big business players though - buying a device on which they can stream the music they pay nothing for," Cosey says. Labels we speak to at tQ report selling only 10-20% of what they did before streaming, so where will the money come from to provide decent places to record, mastering, production and getting the music out there? The Spotify crumbs are never going to fill that gap. It might be easier than ever to get your music online, but for many artists it still costs a lot of money to make in the first place. If streaming platforms keep growing more and more influence over how music is curated and marketed by those in charge, while the revenue for those not mundane enough to fit their algorithms remains so pitifully minute, it is not that impossible to envisage the blandest landscape the industry has ever seen. Great music will continue being made, of course, but getting that music out to people outside of the algorithms will be so much harder. “I hope I am wrong,” says Reeder. “I hope the revenue from streaming does improve, because if it doesn't, well, who knows how positive the future will be for the majority of music makers and labels out there?”" Sorry for the wall of text! |
|
|
|
|
May 30 2018, 10:18 AM
Post
#295
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 21 April 2016
Posts: 139 User: 23,197
|
I read somewhere that labels (not even the artist) only receive around £1000 per 1million streams?
Which leads to me ask, do 200,000 singles or 400,000 singles or 600,000 singles financially mean anything anymore??? |
|
|
|
|
May 30 2018, 10:27 AM
Post
#296
|
|
|
🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,540 User: 11,746
|
Found this in a few seconds on google..
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/16...vices-pay-2018/ QUOTE Top executives at Spotify make millions while artists endeavor just to earn pennies. That's approximately $1 for every 250 streams. $1 is £0.75, so about £1 for every 333 streams.
At well over 60 million, Spotify has the highest number of paid subscriptions. Ahead of its Wall Street offering, the company’s valuation has skyrocketed to $19 billion. Top executives at Spotify reportedly earn seven-figure salaries. So, how are artists faring on the platform? Not so well. Last year, the service paid out $0.0038 per play. Not much has changed this year. With a reported 51.51% market share in the US, Spotify pays $0.00397 per stream. |
|
|
|
|
May 30 2018, 10:46 AM
Post
#297
|
|
|
BuzzJack Regular
Joined: 13 July 2007
Posts: 302 User: 3,909
|
And if Spotify pay out $0.0038 per play, how much of this would an artist actually get?
I always imagine it would be 10% of this amount if they are just the performer and another 10% if they actually wrote the song. The rest goes to record companies, agents, management etc. Is that completely wrong? |
|
|
|
|
May 30 2018, 10:48 AM
Post
#298
|
|
|
rip in peace Dickston
Joined: 29 January 2017
Posts: 9,534 User: 25,045
   
|
The amount an artist actually receives (from any source of income) varies greatly from label to label really.
|
|
|
|
|
May 30 2018, 10:51 AM
Post
#299
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 21 April 2016
Posts: 139 User: 23,197
|
Still seems rubbish. Around £3000 from 1million stream yet one million stream is equivalent to 7500 sales.
|
|
|
|
|
May 31 2018, 07:16 AM
Post
#300
|
|
|
wayback machine gif rescuer
Joined: 3 April 2013
Posts: 3,771 User: 18,564
 
|
QUOTE(crazytitch @ May 30 2018, 08:51 PM) Still seems rubbish. Around £3000 from 1million stream yet one million stream is equivalent to 7500 sales. Apple take a 30% cut on downloads (to my knowledge), so 7,500 full-price sales would pay out about £5,200. In reality, it would be less due to discounts, and 1 million streams would likely be closer to £4,000 as, according to the article, Apple Music pay out almost twice as much as Spotify. It's not really that much of a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 03:34 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
