RecPit

I'd not heard about this, it's an interesting ruse:

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ ... playlists/

I assume everything is fake these days by default

Rev. Juda$ Sleaze wrote: ↑July 10th, 2017, 11:54 pm I'd not heard about this, it's an interesting ruse:

Just like Bernie Madoff is an "interesting" guy.

Spotify loses money despite ripping off indies.

This scheme allows them to rip off majors as well by diluting the payments among fake as well as real payees. So Spotify takes its 30% + off the top, then pays itself under the names of numerous fake artists (or doesn't pay anyone and just waters down the per stream payments, same thing.)

There are other ways for scammers to get paid by Spotify also -- names of artists and songs that are almost identical to top acts, "artists" putting a hundred songs on an album so it rises up the charts by people accidentally playing the songs, etc.

Streaming under these circumstances is a scamtastic way to ensure that the money goes everywhere but where it should -- it's almost the exact opposite of a meritocracy.

Stating the obvious I guess, but that can only lead to self-destruction. It's similar I think to what I've seen in retail around here, with sporting goods stores in particular. They used to stock good stuff. Then, to boost struggling profit margins, they started removing entire departments and selling only cheap nonsense that no one with any money wants to buy (including me)

They were probably doomed anyway though.

Streaming seems pretty saturated. I wonder if there could be "a new name" that storms the industry and becomes the de facto standard at this point. I mean, people seem bored with FB and it's been uncool for awhile now, yet nothing has taken its place (for what it is).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall reading that Spotify would be just fine financially if they required subscriptions for every member. Considering the value of the service as a listener, this seems like a no-brainer. Are they afraid everyone will just revert back to piracy if they require a subscription? Are they really making that much off ads?

dr. casino wrote: ↑July 25th, 2017, 8:21 pm Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall reading that Spotify would be just fine financially if they required subscriptions for every member.

Maybe. But they may have to scale back some of the salaries, bonuses and perqs of their officers and employees as well.

Spotify is the only company I know of offhand in which if an employee or spouse of an employee gets pregnant, that employee gets 6 months time off with pay. That sounds very progressive until you realize that the money to pay for it was stolen from indie artists and/or the equivalent of high interest loans from investors.

And I don't know of any other company that gives such generous compensation packages while losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Considering the value of the service as a listener, this seems like a no-brainer. Are they afraid everyone will just revert back to other, more obvious forms of piracy if they require a subscription?

FIFY

People will go to youtube. Especially if google kills off torrent sites (I'll be starting a thread on that shortly).

I might be missing something but the user experience seems about the same whether you use Spotify's free tier or youtube. My guess is that some people would start paying for Spotify but most would migrate to Youtube.

nobby wrote: ↑July 27th, 2017, 3:06 pm People will go to youtube. Especially if google kills off torrent sites (I'll be starting a thread on that shortly).

I might be missing something but the user experience seems about the same whether you use Spotify's free tier or youtube. My guess is that some people would start paying for Spotify but most would migrate to Youtube.

I guess it's hard for me to understand. The user experience for both of those avenues totally sucks. Paying 10 dollars a month feels like stealing. I would pay 20. Maybe as a culture we're just way too okay with ads all over everything. They just bug the living shit out of me. Especially if I'm trying to relax and get into a nice chill mindset with some tunes. Who the fuck wants to listen to an advertisement while in that headspace?

My concern is that high school age musicians can no longer expect to earn a living playing music. That leaves us with just those who can afford music as a hobby.

Bob Olhsson wrote: ↑July 31st, 2017, 12:25 am My concern is that high school age musicians can no longer expect to earn a living playing music. That leaves us with just those who can afford music as a hobby.

That was my experience, not too long ago. Even "getting" to play live was seen as striking it rich, in my area. So of course playing for free was the default.

Bob Olhsson wrote: ↑July 31st, 2017, 12:25 am My concern is that high school age musicians can no longer expect to earn a living playing music.

I can't remember when they were. With few exceptions, high school age musicians tend to live with their parents, so that's not a big problem.

My problem is that when you take the words "high school age" out of the sentence, it still mostly rings true.

Music made by well-heeled dilettantes tends to be pretty underwhelming, IMO.

I'm showing my age but some of my high school friends were earning $100 a night each, i.e. their bands got paid $500 a night in the mid 1960s. They could look forward to earning a middle class living playing music. That all went away by the '70s and musicians' pay has been a downward spiral since then.

At least back during '80s bands (at least some bands) could have sustained living by touring and associated income (merch, direct album sales).
RHCP got their break after several releases and a lot of touring for a number of years.

A few people are sustaining themselves today by touring house concerts.

Bob Olhsson wrote: ↑August 2nd, 2017, 12:15 pm A few people are sustaining themselves today by touring house concerts.

We're hosting one later this month. The group is doing four in four days, spread all over California, in a whirlwind mini-tour.
M