Eh, someone who just had the most successful opening week of album sales of any record in years doesn't really need a publicity stunt.

"The same terrible arguments you're producing for Spotify are used by radio broadcasters to justify why they didn't pay artists any money to use their music on the radio. The notion that it "promotes" their music."

Is that even true, that artists aren't paid when their music is on the radio? Especially when they're signed to a record label? Also no need for scare quotes. Promotion is a real thing, even if it doesn't work all the time.

"Purchasing their records offers musicians a much better cut than what these terrible streaming services offer. Perhaps you don't care if people are being ripped off. Fine."

You can do both. And by being on a streaming service they do get *some* money, and a wider audience that hopefully will see them live, where the artist makes more money still. Certainly not the most stable way to make a living, but when has music ever been so?

"It neither has to be given away for free and lots of people do not go to expensive concerts. Neither of these things follow. There are other, better models of distributing music."

Fine. Then do those too. All I'm saying is that streaming services have a role.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/17/musicians-radio-royalties/2829099/

No, radio doesn't pay artists for the songs they play.

"Certainly not the most stable way to make a living, but when has music ever been so?"

Well, numerous musicians have stated that it has become much less stable since streaming has exploded. I find that worrisome. You do not. Fine.

" All I'm saying is that streaming services have a role."

Not a positive role.

"No, radio doesn't pay artists for the songs they play."

Well, they pay the songwriters. Aren't they artists? This is about paying performers royalties when the performers are not also songwriters. It's not some blanket rule that "artists" are not paid. And is it really so outlandish that the writer gets paid from radio appearances and the performer gets paid by, you know, performances? Maybe it is, but it's a harder question than you're making out.


"Well, numerous musicians have stated that it has become much less stable since streaming has exploded. I find that worrisome. You do not. Fine."

I certainly don't find it "worrisome." Musicians who make good music don't get into it for the money, because it's so unlikely to ever make a lot of money even if you're very talented. They do it for the passion they have for making music. That will continue regardless of whatever roadblocks have, do, or will exist.

@Invictus,

You can say that anyone who loves their job in any position does it for the passion. But that does not meant they shouldn't be paid well for it if the service they provide is cherished by millions. In the music industry there is no reason that people who do what they love should just bow to the whims of people who have recently jumping on creating streaming to turn a buck.

Lets turn that argument around. If the people who provide streaming are passionate about providing other people music cheaply then they should be willing to give a larger cut to the musicians since they are providing their service for the sheer passion they have towards streaming right? Otherwise they are just providing the service as a means to make money, in which case, why can't musicians do the same?

Well said, jay-mo

It's not as if this is the only way musicians can make money, though. Artists should see Spotify as a way to augment the money they make from live performances or actual sales of music. If they think Spotify pays too little, then they can choose not to go on it.

"Well, they pay the songwriters. Aren't they artists?"

Yes. And so are the recording artists. And so are comedians. Why shouldn't they be paid when it's their performance of that written song or comedy act that is making the radio broadcasters money? Nobody would make this argument for any other job. Why are people making it for musicians?

"And is it really so outlandish that the writer gets paid from radio appearances and the performer gets paid by, you know, performances?"

Yes, it is outlandish that recording artists do not get paid for the publication and distribution of their recordings, which make the radio stations money. It is very outlandish. People should be paid for the work they do. This is not the controversial position you are making it out to be.

"Musicians who make good music don't get into it for the money, because it's so unlikely to ever make a lot of money even if you're very talented."

You could say that about anything requiring talent. I guess we shouldn't pay anybody for anything then, because they'll just do it regardless. Because money doesn't have any an impact on compelling people to quit their dreams and go be another cog, somehow.

Happily supporting conditions which make producing art impossible, has a terrible impact on art in a country. But like you said, you don't care about art or culture, so it's "no big deal" if none of them are paid.

"It's not as if this is the only way musicians can make money, though. Artists should see Spotify as a way to augment the money they make from live performances or actual sales of music. If they think Spotify pays too little, then they can choose not to go on it."

Except 1) artists don't have always have that control; 2) streaming has gutted the sale of music; 3) unless you're a big name you're not making a killing off these vaunted live performances; and 4) most importantly, none of this justifies or excuses Spotify and other services paying artists so little.

"Why shouldn't they be paid when it's their performance of that written song or comedy act that is making the radio broadcasters money?"

I don't know if comedy slides in here as readily as you think. Comedians write their own material, after all.

And they are paid at some point. This is about whether they get paid by the radio station as well. I assume this came about by a policy decision where songwriters are paid at this end and performers are paid at the other. Maybe that's not the best way of doing things, but it doesn't strike me as plainly absurd.

"People should be paid for the work they do. This is not the controversial position you are making it out to be."

But they are paid. Somewhere else. And there is a real argument, which you seem to totally dismiss for some reason, that they're paid here by the publicity. People hear the music on the radio and, if they like it, do things where the performer actually gets a cut.

Incidentally, this makes Spotify look a lot *better* than radio, since the performer gets paid when the song is played and gets the publicity.


"Happily supporting conditions which make producing art impossible, has a terrible impact on art in a country. But like you said, you don't care about art or culture, so it's "no big deal" if none of them are paid."

I don't see how this is making art impossible. We're not lacking for music and I don't see how we ever can be.

Where exactly did I say I don't care about art or culture?

"1) artists don't have always have that control; 2) streaming has gutted the sale of music; 3) unless you're a big name you're not making a killing off these vaunted live performances; and 4) most importantly, none of this justifies or excuses Spotify and other services paying artists so little."

1. Well, that's life. Even the Beatles had these sorts of complex legal disputes on control. This is just something you need to prepare for if you go into that business.

2. Of course. And streaming is here to stay. The light bulb gutted sales of whale oil lamps too. This doesn't mean music is doomed. It means people will have to adapt.

3. Unless you're a big name, you're not making big money at all. It's a tough business.

4. If artists don't like what they're paid, they just don't sign up. Simple solution to their problems with Spotify.

It are probably primarily successful multimillionaire artists that complain about making losing profits because of streaming. Even if they're right. A couple of multimillionaires having their profits reduced a bit? I really couldn't care less. They still make a shitload of money.

Meanwhile through Youtube, social networks, streaming services, Patreon etc. a lot of artists that make excellent music but are nonetheless less well known can make a decent living of off their music even without the support of those few multinational companies in the music industry that used to be the gatekeepers of music for us all.

The new business paradigm that these new technologies are forcing onto the music industry is a win both for consumers who have access to a richer and more diverse supply of new music, as well as for all those less well known artists that are far larger in number than that relatively small group of multimillionaire superstar idols.