#31

Aye good point re new rap. Feels like the rap world are doing something right, finding ways to monetize what they do with huge loyal regional fanbases and just ignoring the normal channels. Or they get big regionally then get one song to pop off nationally. Then the big labels come hunt them down and the artist has more leverage and can set the terms of the deal they want.

i reckon Ive bought a few thousand CDs in my time. Got rid of most of them at this point.

1 Like
#32

Hmm. Did you regret that at all? I’ve done a semi cull, but I always end up thinking 'Ohh, the newer versions of Ironman don’t have Soul Controller on them. I’ll keep that. And Breaking Atoms is out of print now…" etc. And i end up binning about 4.

#33

I regret a few things for sure, but clearing space was necessary. I really never used them at all. I ripped everything I had at high quality so I have any lost gems digitally so I’m good.

What I miss the most is my No Limit collection from 95-99. I had just about every release on CD with those awesome colored plastic cases with the classic pen n pixel artwork.

not sure what i was on. I think i was in that short phase where i had cooled on raps like that and was fronting like i didn’t like that stuff any more… shame

2 Likes
#34

I culled most of my CDs after ripping, thinking if I really did want them again I can rebuy. Wasteful I know. But you need to be careful, some more obscure ones are hard to come by/expensive. I always associated rarities with vinyl to be honest but some CD editions are pricy.

#35

see my article above and this one for insight. http://www.youredm.com/2017/01/18/orfium-talks-soundcloud-monetization-future-streaming/

Streaming is now the #1 way that Americans consume music. How will you effectively increase the royalties that artists receive from streaming while keeping Orfium profitable? You pledge larger payouts, but SoundCloud pays a fraction of what Orfium does and has yet to make any money.

A lot of people have this idea that streaming and/or music platforms cannot be profitable and pay artists well at the same time but this just isn’t true. I think maybe that is just what other platforms want everyone to think so they can get away with paying lower royalties. SoundCloud’s reasons for not making money is its upside-down business model that charges artists rather than monetizing their music. In addition, Orfium offers multiple revenue streams that neither Spotify nor SoundCloud has, such as digital download sales, licensing, publishing, and Facebook and YouTube copyright detection monetization. I also have a hunch that Spotify spends a lot of money on growth and/or substantial advances for major label content which is why they have not yet turned a profit. I bet BandCamp in contrast is profitable because it appears they grew their site organically, from the bottom up without making major advances, and kept unnecessary overhead expenses down. Just based on the Facebook and YouTube rights management revenue streams alone I expect that Orfium will actually be cashflow positive and financially sustainable before the end of 2017, which is a huge because it puts time on our side and allows us to remain independent of investor influences and stay true to the mission.

Another consideration is that music platforms in general fall under the general category of marketplaces, just like Amazon and Ebay, except only dealing in music. Ebay operates on a 10% sales cut and Amazon takes around 15% not including fulfillment fees, and the only real difference between operating a marketplace like these versus a music marketplace is the higher bandwidth incurred in streaming music. However bandwidth costs are really not that high and are dropping exponentially. My internet speed today is about 100 times faster for the same cost as I was paying five years ago. Therefore in the long-run I don’t see any reason to indicate why a music marketplace couldn’t operate profitably on a revenue split that is closer to the standard for general ecommerce platforms.

#36

Ah, man. They look great all out on display like that. But if you keep them in a box, unplayed, then I suppose there’s no point. Great relic from that era though.

Wasn’t on No Limit, but a friend lived in the states for a year and brought me back a massive Juvenile ‘Tha G-Code’ poster. So awful/amazing.

1 Like
#37

^this I use spoitfy to check stuff out and if I like it enough and is easily obtainable I’ve buy the cd cosI still like collecting things.

#38

What you’re talking about here is mid/lower level subscriber channels within a streaming network/platform? Or everyone having their own streaming platform ? Or some kind of independent co-operative ? Or industry co-operative?

Aren’t all of these options just introducing an extra gaps between music producers & music consumers? Isn’t the core problem exactly that the distance between Sally Songwriter & Liam Listener or Steve Subscriber dictates an infrastructure in which Sally gets her cash siphoned off in the process?

The problem with streaming services not delivering significant sums to artists is a combination of an out-of-date top-down industry/label/media structure multiplied by an enormous market saturation of both a constant stream of new product & endless re-selling of legacy product

if there is a problem to be solved in bringing ‘ethical streaming’ to market then it’s surely this conundrum?

#39

or actually

maybe this isn’t a problem at all
because the intrinsic motivation of humans to make music irrespective of financial reward means that tech platforms don’t need to give a fuck about paying artists as the supply of content will never, ever run out

maybe it’s only labels who stop money disappearing from the (recorded music) industry at all via protecting their own assets & might therefore reasonably argue that they themselves do in fact deserve the lion’s share of royalties in order to fund their own continued existence & thus the continued existence of the industry as a whole

capitalism is shit
sent from my iPhone

1 Like
#40

I guess you could and it would help the artist a bit. But the risk is you make the musicians feel at best like buskers, at worst like beggars. It kind of devalues the work they have put in to their music.

#41

Does it? I mean surely you would give kick back to an artist you enjoy. It’s no different to a patron/kickstarter really.

#42

Interesting …cos I can make more money in 10 minutes busking than I could make from a year of streaming

#43

But the artist is in control of their Kickstarter and Patron campaign. If it becomes a standard thing on streaming platforms, it sets a different precedent.

#44

Hey, wasn’t knocking busking at all (hence the at BEST busking part).

#45

oh, I didn’t take it as you knocking busking, just thought is was a comparison worth highlighting as it is fairly absurd that it’s easier to make money singing someone else’s songs on a street corner than it is to expose your own music to an entire globe :slight_smile:

1 Like
#46

You make a good point!

#47

I mean it does and it doesn’t, but the pay what you want/can afford model is so popular these days that I think musicians need to adapt rather than hope the market bends to their will. If there was an impulsive method such as a tip button along the other buttons on destiny that people who are really enjoying an album can throw them micro payments on top of the standardized streaming commission and maybe put a tier system in place where if you tip a certain amount you can put into rewards such as a CD/record/digital copy of an album.

#48

This is of course right but I think we’re talking about general fans of music rather than those of us who are very into it?

The old model used the proceeds gained from those who were casual listeners to help boost bands who weren’t. I recall back in the Britpop days that grumbles about the Spice Girls were usually met by music industry people pointing out the profits from Spice Girls music were directly helping to fund artists on the label who didn’t make vast amounts of money.

The only way for a modern streaming system to work is probably via money from other sources supporting people producing music. I mean this isn’t meant to be a real analogue, but: if we imagine that the ‘old’ bands die out and then Apple find fewer people want their music hardware because there are fewer types of music around (because only rich dilettantes can make it) then it’s conceivable they would fund artists off hardware profits, because they need the music that people essentially get for free to sell their hardware.

#49

Bandcamp’ 17th straight profitable quarter and suggestion of a festival at the end there maybe?

#50

Sprint have apparently bought a chunk of Tidal. I can see streaming becoming something consumers don’t think of as buying as it is part of a mobile contract or even included in the phone purchase. I’m sort of surprised Apple haven’t just made it free with new iPhones. Maybe regulations prevent it (& that may end soon in the US at least).
Then again presumably Spotify & Apple can see a light at the end of the tunnel in terms of when subscriptions start to pay off the investment. As a model it makes sense once you start to get casual music buyers, who maybe used to buy a couple of CD’s a year, paying £120 every year without really thinking about it. So maybe it’s a case of seeing if anyone blinks.

Back to ethical streaming - would some sort of search with micro payments be possible in the future? Very few Spotify users will be streaming more than 2,000 tracks a month so 0.5p a stream would make sense. No idea if that is possible either technically or in terms of contracts etc but seems feasible to me.