Spotify Spotify signs Warner Music deal heralding new subscription tiers

[Burnside]

I think that Tidal supports artist better from what I've read and watched on YouTube, if your a music fan I think that Tidal supposedly supports artist better and I think still partly owned by an artist.

I often feel the involvement of record labels and rights owners are overlooked in this - after all, wouldn’t it be they who leased the music to the streaming companies and negotiated the terms/payments? Bet they’re taking their cut too…

 

[pieterv1]

Another big advantage of Tidal is that I can use Tidal with UAPP, USB Audio Player Pro (direct use of the phone's DAC) and Bubble UPNP.

How is that an advantage? Having to use 3rd party apps - some of them paid - to improve on what Tidal's own app has to offer?

We wouldn't be needing UAPP if they didn't mess up the compatibility with USB C DAC's in the first place (see last point in original post)

 

[simbun]

How is that an advantage? Having to use 3rd party apps - some of them paid - to improve on what Tidal's own app has to offer?

For streamers without Connect maybe.

 

[wiimamp user]

I ask myself if you buy a cd from an artist.. wouldn't they get the most out of it?
But if so.. i assume most of the regular customers will not buy them anymore will they?

I like it I can download them for instance from Bandcamp so sometimes.
Latest physical cd I bought was from Nynke Laverman.
Didn't listen to this cd it till now..
Have lots of cd,s but have to buy me a new( good ) cd player first.
Haven't made a choice yet..

I will use streaming Services and sometimes I like to buy and listen to cd,s.
Maybe some artist should bring it more limited editions,collector items..and offer the best possible listening experience, quality on the cd.
Artist who I highly appreciate..I am willing to buy merch or ,cd,s.
I would buy vinyl but it's to far from me because it could be expensive..

 

[slartibartfast]

I ask myself if you buy a cd from an artist.. wouldn't they get the most out of it?
But if so.. i assume most of the regular customers will not buy them anymore will they?

I like it I can download them for instance from Bandcamp so sometimes.
Latest physical cd I bought was from Nynke Laverman.
Didn't listen to this cd it till now..
Have lots of cd,s but have to buy me a new( good ) cd player first.
Haven't made a choice yet..

I will use streaming Services and sometimes I like to buy and listen to cd,s.
Maybe some artist should bring it more limited editions,collector items..and offer the best possible listening experience, quality on the cd.
Artist who I highly appreciate..I am willing to buy merch or ,cd,s.
I would buy vinyl but it's to far from me because it could be expensive..

When I buy from Bandcamp I go for the FLAC download as it's quicker and cheaper than the CD.

 

[Zap Rekowski]

How is that an advantage? Having to use 3rd party apps - some of them paid - to improve on what Tidal's own app has to offer?

We wouldn't be needing UAPP if they didn't mess up the compatibility with USB C DAC's in the first place (see last point in original post)

Well, yes - it is at least an advantage that Tidal gives alternative app providers the opportunity to integrate their service into their apps. As far as I know, none of the other streaming services apart from Qobuz do this (exception: HW-bound apps). For example, I've been using UAPP for many years to listen to music via headphones with my LG V40 because I simply like the app's options and I can find everything combined under one interface.
When I stream music from the NAS with Bubble UPNP and I decide to browse Tidal, I also like the fact that I don't have to switch to the Tidal app in this situation.

 

[Burnside]

Well, yes - it is at least an advantage that Tidal gives alternative app providers the opportunity to integrate their service into their apps. As far as I know, none of the other streaming services apart from Qobuz do this (exception: HW-bound apps).

Not sure what you mean here - there are interfaces for Amazon Music, Deezer etc etc in the WiiM Home app, it’s not just Tidal and Qobuz that have third party app interfaces.

 

[Andym1]

Been happening to me a bit quite recently too.
Also had it disconnect from the wiim a couple of times just from skipping to the next track.
Who to blame...?


No such issue here - I can fire up Tidal on multiple devices and tidal connect all of them to the same wiim and see / control volume, playback etc. from any of them.


As for spotify hi res, I'll only believe it when I see it!
The rest of the family use spotify exclusively, but I doubt they'll even notice if/when it arrives.
I'm sure I will though, as I pay the bill...

I'm with you on Spotify hi res, I started streaming back in 2018 and it was promised then and all we have had is false leads. I now refuse to pay for it but certainly would if they lived up what was promised. If much smaller companies can do it so can Spotify.

 

[pieterv1]

Not sure what you mean here - there are interfaces for Amazon Music, Deezer etc etc in the WiiM Home app, it’s not just Tidal and Qobuz that have third party app interfaces.

Yes and I think Spotify also provides the necessary API to do so. Take the integration with Volumio for example - which is not only Spotify Connect, but also a complete web interface to access your library.

It's just that Spotify seems to have everything in order technically and is widely supported by hardware already (Spotify connect, Airplay and Chromecast) + doesn't support lossless yet. So there's less incentive to integrate it in those serious, dedicated 3rd playback apps.

 

[Zap Rekowski]

Not sure what you mean here - there are interfaces for Amazon Music, Deezer etc etc in the WiiM Home app, it’s not just Tidal and Qobuz that have third party app interfaces.

Yes, these are the afore mentioned, HW-bound manufacturer apps that I don't use or favor due to their poor interface. The presentations are sometimes really ridiculous, see e.g. landscape mode, grid size for cover display in library mode etc. I think it's worth noting what WiiM has done with their old SW, but in my opinion it's nowhere near comparable. In this respect, it is an advantage that alternative app developers such as UAPP, Bubble, M-Connect can integrate Tidal and Qobuz under a reasonable, easily customizable interface. Amazon and Deezer don't offer developers this, and Spotify certainly doesn't.

 

[Optimust]

I often feel the involvement of record labels and rights owners are overlooked in this - after all, wouldn’t it be they who leased the music to the streaming companies and negotiated the terms/payments? Bet they’re taking their cut too…

According to estimates, only 10 - 20 % of the revenue generated by music streaming services through monthly subscriptions actually ends up with the musicians ... As you say, you can imagine where the rest ends up.
How much of it ultimately goes to the labels, for example, will probably depend in part on the artist's negotiating skills.
But I think that only a few mega acts are in a position to negotiate any special conditions with the streaming services.
The others can be happy if they get anything at all (end of sarcasm).

 

[hgo58]

Do anyone know if there is a difference on how much is payed to new artists compared to the ones that released their albums a long time ago?

I mostly play music from the 70's and have already paid for the LP or CD once in many cases. So maybe they get paid twice

 

[Optimust]

Do anyone know if there is a difference on how much is payed to new artists compared to the ones that released their albums a long time ago?

I can't imagine that there is a difference, but I don't really know.

The only thing I know for sure is that here, 70 years after the death of the artist, no license fees have to be paid for public performances anymore, but I can't say what it's like in other countries.

 

[wiimamp user]

According to estimates, only 10 - 20 % of the revenue generated by music streaming services through monthly subscriptions actually ends up with the musicians ... As you say, you can imagine where the rest ends up.
How much of it ultimately goes to the labels, for example, will probably depend in part on the artist's negotiating skills.
But I think that only a few mega acts are in a position to negotiate any special conditions with the streaming services.
The others can be happy if they get anything at all (end of sarcasm).

What are the costs of a Studio or a mixer in that studio?
Do you need those big record companies at all nowadays? Or lets say do you want to be dependent on them?

They will promote you i assume but doesn't this all come with a price..

There are smaller good studios I assume and small independent record labels who will not take the big profit.
I think it's important as an artist te realise such thing..big fame and full promotion his another side to this all.

You must play in that commercial tv show..there must come a new record now..
No I must not says the artist..i dont believe in this.
Thats what i mean...big promotion in this industry means often loose a very important thing..
If you have talent and if you take time to create.. people know, and appreciate.
Having said this.. Spotify or any steaming service must pay artist a fair price.
Music ( not the entertainment style) is very important ..as i mentioned its more then just simply entertaining..

 

[574stereo]

According to estimates, only 10 - 20 % of the revenue generated by music streaming services through monthly subscriptions actually ends up with the musicians ... As you say, you can imagine where the rest ends up.
How much of it ultimately goes to the labels, for example, will probably depend in part on the artist's negotiating skills.
But I think that only a few mega acts are in a position to negotiate any special conditions with the streaming services.
The others can be happy if they get anything at all (end of sarcasm).

Unfortunately it's no way near 10-20% of revenue. I work in the music industry as an engineer and see these deals at the coal-face.


Precisely what deals are being done with the streaming services is extremely opaque, so that can't be accounted for, but you certainly aren't starting from a great percentage after Spotify have done their business.

Next you have a typical 15% deal from the record label - label takes 85%

This is after recuperation has taken place which means the artist may see no money at all for the first few years for a lot of releases. This is making sure marketing, label A&R expenses (don't get me started on these), all sorts of other costs etc are covered first.

Then there's publishing which varies wildly from artist to artist. I do hear of some musicians on a 50% split with their publisher.
After this, artist management takes 20%.


The slice of the pie for the artist just gets smaller and smaller and smaller. Recuperation is a major killer (trust me, the labels will pile on their costs), even with that out of the picture, it's possible that for every £1 being generated from Spotify, as little as £0.06 gets through to the artist.

 

[Optimust]

Unfortunately it's no way near 10-20% of revenue. I work in the music industry as an engineer and see these deals at the coal-face ...

Very interesting but also very shocking, to be able to take a look behind the scenes.

So it's easy to understand, that some musicians try to do everything on their own.

This definitely gives me further incentive in my endeavour to change the provider!

 

[574stereo]

What are the costs of a Studio or a mixer in that studio?
Do you need those big record companies at all nowadays? Or lets say do you want to be dependent on them?

They will promote you i assume but doesn't this all come with a price..

There are smaller good studios I assume and small independent record labels who will not take the big profit.
I think it's important as an artist te realise such thing..big fame and full promotion his another side to this all.

You must play in that commercial tv show..there must come a new record now..
No I must not says the artist..i dont believe in this.
Thats what i mean...big promotion in this industry means often loose a very important thing..
If you have talent and if you take time to create.. people know, and appreciate.
Having said this.. Spotify or any steaming service must pay artist a fair price.
Music ( not the entertainment style) is very important ..as i mentioned its more then just simply entertaining..

Here in the UK base mix fees are around £500 a mix in the industry. This means one of two things...

- Mix engineer is being paid less than minimum wage
- Mix engineer is just using a mix template ('one size fits all' approach to mixing which makes all music sound the same)

There's always option 3 which is the mix engineer doesn't need to earn any money.


For a lot of small indie artists, it might be album 2 or 3 before they can justify finding £300-400 per mix. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why there's a lack of talent going into the industry at the moment both from an artist/musician point of view but also quality engineers, producers etc.


Add to this the closure of studio complexes and high-end producers/engineers often working completely solo, there's a huge problem with skills and knowledge not being passed down to the younger generation who do somehow make their way into the industry. For sure there are resources on the internet, but it's not the same.


As a result, record labels are often looking at what the younger generation of engineers, producers etc have to offer to them and figuring it's not worth risking the investment a lot of the time as very often the quality of what's being turned out just isn't quite there for a myriad of reasons. As a result, all the work is being hoovered up by a small number of people.


It's quite a difficult situation to be in.


One of the big questions of course is... do you need a label? Depends what you're trying to achieve. If you want to stay playing in front of audiences of 30-40 people... no, you don't need a label.

Do you want the resources behind you to launch a serious marketing campaign, get noticed by the right radio pluggers & streaming playlists? You'll probably need a label for this. Some of the smaller labels are offering something for artists here but they still take a significant percentage of ownership over the music for their services. And no money will be offered upfront, the label can't act as a 'bank' unless they're essentially a major or one of their largest subsidiaries. So there's not a huge amount on offer there.

If you sign to a major (very small number of artists doing this atm) - you have access to very large sums of money to 'get things done'. It of course has to be spent the way the label wants (which gets expensive) and it counts against your recuperation. Your choice if you want to enter into that world, it ends in tears 99% of the time in my experience.


There used to be this thing at labels which was 'artistic development' but they actually don't really have anything to offer on that front at the moment. In fact, it's a responsibility they don't want. There's an expectation from the labels that they should only be finding artists who already have a significant following (especially on social media, which is almost a full time job in itself). As long as you're successful and offering something they want/are looking for (which is usually based on a model of some other artist at the time), then you can get signed.

Oh also don't throw up too much resistance if they want you to do certain things with your music/image/career. You'll get dropped quickly. It's always been like this but it's bad nowadays. Don't forget there are only three main labels in operation, and they own all the larger small labels. If Sony drops you, many doors will shut in your face right across the industry.


What about the artists who manage to break through the label control (a la Taylor Swift etc)... well, they don't need the labels any more. That's a great position to be in.


Sorry for the negative rant, but the industry is not in a great position at the moment as you can see. Even the labels are wondering what's wrong (huge layoffs at all the major labels over the last 12 months, even though they're making record breaking profits).

Very interesting but also very shocking, to be able to take a look behind the scenes.

So it's easy to understand, that some musicians try to do everything on their own.

This definitely gives me further incentive in my endeavour to change the provider!

I'd suggest you buy records and CDs from your favourite artists if you really want to support them... or use Bandcamp.

If you want to use streaming, stick to the (IMO) better platforms like Tidal, Apple Music etc. Apple are great at curating playlists, both companies pay significantly more per stream than Spotify.

Spotify, YouTube Music etc... not great efforts on their behalves really. They could both be stepping up their game but they're in competition with each other and it's so far just been a race to the bottom for the last 10 years.


FYI, a friend just shared this infographic with me. I've seen many variations of this sort of thing from many different sources and there are differences of course, but it gives you some kind of idea.

 

[harkpabst]

This last example would be in the 10-20% revenue, at least, for an artist performing his own works. Probably a good case.

 

[574stereo]

That infographic doesn’t include the label taking their 80-85% cut on mechanicals by the way.

So most of those revenue streams will be approx 1/10th of what they are.

 

[Burnside]

What does each category mean in terms of who gets what - who benefits from "royalty pot" and "neighbouring rights" for example?