#fix streaming

[thezachariassmithexperience]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Musicians' Union (@wearethemu)

[aeolianblues]

Soon, a new generation of kids will be around who, in larger proportions than before, may have only heard music regularly through streaming, you know what I mean? On YouTube or through Spotify or whatever, but not as downloaded mp3s or CDs/vinyls or by any other such means. The fundamental difference between offline and online, streamed music has been the audio quality available. Since streaming sends you audio files, maybe repeatedly, by transferring them from data centres potentially on the other side of the planet, they prioritise being able to send it at as low a cost as possible, as opposed to sending you a high quality recording (yes, even with cache. They send you a smaller sized file, once. The file is still small). You’d realise this if you heard something offline and then streamed it. You’d probably even realise it looking at file sizes: you could pull an mp3 of an average-length song off YouTube and it would be about 3-8 MB. A good quality mp3 will be minimum 20 MB.

So what I’m saying is, won’t it be strange for kids to never hear everything that goes into the making of music? If all they hear is a lossy, compressed file where you can’t even tell different instruments apart… and if that’s the only thing you’ve ever heard. If that’s all you’re used to. What then? I guess for one, hearing music the old way will probably be an Earth-shattering Formative Experience, but, I don’t know. The cynic in me worries.

How do you, as a general public, understand what goes into the making of music, how many intricate parts and how many sounds, techniques and instruments—and god, money!—goes into properly producing studio-quality music? You can approximate stuff with samples and Logic and Ableton and whatnot, but anyone who has then gone on to use an actual studio will tell you it’s not the same.

But if you have no indication of that from just listening to the music at home, and all you know is stupid phrases like “bedroom producer” and “SoundCloud rapper”, then what are the chances that you’re going to care when someone like Spotify says “everyone can make music these days, it doesn’t cost money and expertise is for old-fashioned suckers and so we’ve decided we’re just going to pay musicians even less”? Will you care? For everything you won’t know, could I blame you for not caring?

I don’t know, I’m a known Spotify cynic, but I do worry. Sure, some people will try their hand out at music and eventually realise that making music sound good does cost something significant, but musicians aren’t the only ones, or even the main people using these streaming companies, and clearly, criticism from artists means scant little to these companies. If no one else knows, then who will care?

[aeolianblues]

Man, Spotify is such a fucked up beast.

Its primary existence is for optics. Musicians who put their music up on Spotify are literally only gaming an algorithm. There’s nothing at all to do with music about it. The only things that matter are little technical details: what’s your monthly stream count (“monthly listeners“), which ways does the algorithm count it and which ones does it not.

The nature of collaborations is changing for it. Notice that crediting artists as “features” is no longer popular (I.e. Musician A’s song featuring Rapper B, who did a guest verse). That is singlehandedly because of Spotify. If you are not listed as a co-credit in a song’s metadata, Spotify’s algorithm doesn’t count it towards your monthly listens. This means you have to be listed as a co-artist or co-producer, when you may really only have joined for a single verse.

This, which is called a “primary artist designation”, looks like a 50% split in the credits doesn’t it? So then why would you allow yourself to look like a co-writer on a song you wrote 100% of? Circle back to paragraph 1: optics. Spotify is one big fucking optics fest. Being able to ride the wave of another artist’s super popular collaboration will make your monthly listeners increase, which I guess acts like enhanced SEO but within Spotify: better searchability. Visibility. I guess.

So, you’re thinking. Make a few friends in high places, put together a Coachella for the ages on a single song, and you're golden? Make the next Get Lucky? We used to call that a supergroup (*granddad voice*) back in moi day.

But it’s not quite that simple! Only three artists can be listed as primaries. And that means the power to grant primary status, particularly say, to a rising hot shot, holds weight in negotiations. And we all know, where negotiations are involved, labels are involved!

There’s an impressive amount of red tape and fine print around record labels as it stands, now labels have to ability to, say, demand more money from one artist or their label, in return for a primary credit (which is listed in forms you’re more familiar with today: “Artist A & Artist B”; “Artist A X Artist B”, which honestly sounds like you’re crossing two brands rather than people working together… which I guess, indirectly or directly, is the point. Spotify is nothing to do with the music or the actual content. It’s all about the optics, the marketing, the branding. The goddamned #brand and riding the #trend. The breaking in small and meaningless bursts of PR. The death of longevity, etc. but that’s a discussion for another day. Today we’re talking pure decisions and their logistical and legal downstream consequences.)

Anyway, it complicates things. You as an artist could be prevented from getting a promised credit because your label has outstanding beef with your collaborator’s label. A label might deny you, on another label, primary credits because another of their artists has a release on the same date, and primary credits affect things like the “Appears On” playlists at the bottom, that are ordered by popularity and not release date. Sometimes it’s just in fucking bad faith. Either way, what it does signify is the death of the “featuring” credit. I’m not sorry to see it go, I found it annoying tbh.

But it is worth noting that Monthly Counts are only a significant contributor to algorithmic popularity on Spotify. Apple Music, Deezer, think of a few others… they don’t work that way. (Primary credits are not that important to them).

Today, less than 4% of all the Billboard Top 10 singles have had a ‘feature’ on them in all of 2022 so far. The entire music industry has changed for the whims of one single company.

And people still believe using or not using Spotify is simply an artist’s “choice”.

[aeolianblues]

Ngl high-key disappointed with my Spotify Wrapped. I share my Spotify with my little sister, and some how she's managed to be in the top 2% of all Doja Cat listeners to the point where there is actually nothing but Woman by Doja Cat in my Wrapped.

The verdict is in, I have been painted as a pop and anime themes fancier, who somehow, still managed to get away with Post Punk being my top genre.

But it also means I have zero hindsight on my own listening?? (I mean I know what I listen to. I don't need Spotify's algorithms to tell me that. My favourite genre is akshually Fuck-Spotify-Use-Bandcamp-Pay-Artists, but it would be nice to see the numbers say that Soul Mining by The The was my emotional crutch this year. It was.)

UPDATE: She says "I listened to that song like once. Wtf??" She broke the algorithm </3

[silverfoxlou]

UK Proposes Law Demanding Record Labels Pay Artists More for Streams

Major labels say the bill would stifle investment and ‘bind British music in red tape.’

LONDON – The U.K. government has proposed a law requiring record companies to pay musicians and songwriters a bigger cut of revenue from music streams on platforms like Spotify and Apple Music, a move that would bring streaming closer in line with radio and television broadcasts in the country.

The Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians) Bill was published Wednesday (Nov. 24) and will be presented to Parliament on Dec. 3.

The Bill would obligate record companies to pay performers ‘equitable remuneration’ when music is streamed. A similar statutory right already exists in the U.K. for TV and radio broadcasts, where performers receive 50% of the revenues distributed by the collecting society PPL, with the rest going to record labels and publishers.

If a version of equitable remuneration were applied to music streams it could result in a significant change from the current arrangement, in which DSPs retain 30% of streaming revenue, with around 55% goings to record labels (who then pay a royalty to artists), and 15% passing to the publisher and songwriter (typically split 80/20 between songwriter and publisher). The proposed copyright reforms state that revenue splits resulting from equitable remuneration would need be negotiated between performers and labels.

The bill also calls for labels and music publishers to provide performers and songwriters with comprehensive quarterly reports detailing how their works are used online and what income is generated.

While artist and songwriter groups have welcomed reforms to the streaming economy, record labels and rights holders reacted harshly on Wednesday to the new bill. Industry groups argue that equitable remuneration would impact their ability to negotiate competitive deals with streaming services on behalf of artists and would greatly reduce the amount of money they would have to invest in new artists, marketing and A&R.

The bill “would bind British music in red tape, reduce income for the most entrepreneurial artists, stifle investment and innovation by record labels, and disproportionately harm the independent sector,” says a spokesperson for labels trade body BPI, which represents all three major labels and many independents.

“It completely misunderstands today’s music business,” says the BPI, “and the value that labels provide in finding and nurturing talent.”

Independent labels group AIM said it was also concerned about the proposals. “The approach to streaming should be data first, discussion second, and law last,” it tweeted. “Legislating before this is reckless.”

Other proposed changes to the U.K. law include a “contract adjustment” right for performers and songwriters where they believe their royalty rates are disproportionally low. This will most benefit heritage artists signed to ‘legacy’ contracts where royalty rates are far lower than the 20% to 25% that’s typical for new artist deals.

MP Kevin Brennan, who is driving the law change, says the bill “seeks to allow performers and composers to access means to ensure a fair sharing of revenues generated from their works.”

Television and radio broadcasting, which is licensed under equitable remuneration in the U.K., generated £85 million ($113 million) in 2020, compared to £628 million ($838 million) from streaming, around 1/7th of the total, according to BPI.

The legislative proposals come on the back of a high-profile artist-led campaign for U.K. musicians and performers to receive a higher share of streaming revenues. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee, made up of 11 MPs, including Kevin Brennan and chair Julian Knight, spent eight months investigating the U.K. music industry.

It published a damning report in July recommending a “complete reset” of the streaming business, arguing it was unsustainable in its current form, and said the dominance of Universal Music, Sony Music and Warner Music was “distorting the market.”

Last month, the U.K. competition regulator said it was launching a review of the streaming sector, further ramping up the pressure on major label bosses. Preliminary work on that probe by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is underway ahead of it conducting a market study of the U.K. music business. The CMA is also currently investigating Sony’s $430 million acquisition of Kobalt Music Group’s independent distribution and label division AWAL.

In the U.K., the three majors make up 75% of the recorded music market, with independents accounting for the remaining 25%, according to the Association of Independent Music (AIM). Streaming now accounts for four-fifths (80.6%) of all music consumption in the U.K., according to BPI.

“The growth of the streaming market has diverted too much wealth to multinational record labels at the expense of music makers,” said Graham Davies, CEO of The Ivors Academy, welcoming the bill. “These market distortions must be fixed.”

In October, 44 MPs wrote to the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson calling for the introduction of equitable remuneration to grant performers a greater share of streaming revenues.

The proposed bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons next Friday. If it passes, it will then go to Committee Stage before passing through to the House of Lords.

Getting the reforms passed into law is a lengthy and long-winded process, however. The proposed bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons next Friday, where MPs will debate its general contents. If it passes, it will then go to Committee Stage and then a Report Stage, where detailed examination of the bill takes place, including any suggested amendments and new clauses. After being approved by the House of Commons, the bill still has to be passed by the House of Lords, which also requires multiple readings, before it receives Royal Ascent and passes into law.

[aeolianblues]

Behind the music: The real reason why the major labels love Spotify

Helienne Lindvall: No wonder the majors speak so highly of Spotify – they receive 18% of shares in the online streaming service. It's justy

THIS POST IS FROM 2009. Why do we keep ignoring red flags and letting them get away with this??

[aeolianblues]

If someone paid me each time I wrote 1500 words on Spotify's clownery I'd be rich

Anyway, here's my roundup on the DCMS inquiry's findings. They're siding with the musicians on this, there will be changes happening around music streaming!

Music Streaming: Findings From The Other Side

The DCMS’s inquiry into the impact of streaming on the music economy is out If you follow this radio show (currently on hiatus as it is) or

[aeolianblues]

So the DCMS's inquiry into the impact of streaming on the music economy is out

And it is scathing. It agrees with most of the points that artists have been raising (particularly in the last year or so)

MPs call for complete reset of music streaming to ensure fair pay for artists

The music industry is weighted against artists, who see "pitiful returns" from streaming, MPs say.

Here is a short recap of it. Labour MP Kevin Brennan also posted his recap of the report on his Twitter. He has been pushing a private member's bill to amend the UK digital copyright laws to treat streams the same way music used in TV and radio is, where the royalties are split 50-50 with labels and artists (equitable remuneration), and also was involved with the committee that heard evidence from musicians earlier and that cross-examined streaming and record label UK bosses, in the lead up to this conclusion.

Kevin Brennan MP on Twitter

“Today the @CommonsDCMS Committee publishes its report into the economics of music streaming. Here's a thread of the report's findings and r

Some of the committee's other recommendations were:

Musicians and songwriters should be allowed to reclaim the rights to their work from labels after a set period of time.

Artists should be given the right to adjust their contract if their work is successful beyond the remuneration they received.

The government should explore ways to ensure songwriters, who receive minimal streaming royalties, can have sustainable careers.

Curators who make playlists on services like Spotify and Apple Music should adhere to a "code of conduct" to avoid bribes and favouritism.

The government should require publishers and royalty societies to inform artists about how much money is flowing through the system.

Warner and Universal Music should follow Sony's example, and cancel their artists' historical debts

(Sony recently announced it was dropping unrecouped remuneration from its legacy artists. It kind of goes without saying, but it just goes to show again that the record labels really... don't need 70 years worth of 80% of your income. They don't. It's not a "risky investment into undecided talent", it's exploitation. Don't listen to the BPI, they're talking through their arses (again). I bring up the BPI because the BBC have quoted their "cautious" response to the inquiry and they're too polite to point out this isn't the first time the BPI has spouted this clownery under the guise of defending "risky investment" into talent; you don't say the same of traditional investments BPI, pipe down)

Some of the standout stats which were shocking to me were that

- 80% of music consumption in the UK came from streaming. There is no alternative. For a streaming company to shirk responsibility and say people can just "opt out" is barefaced lies, and streaming is not a level playing field.

- I know YouTube pays out the lowest rates for music (less than 0.05p—not pounds, pence), but YouTube makes up 51% of music streaming, while it paid only 7% out to musicians.

It remains to be seen what the larger impact of the committee's recommendations will be, Spotify has always felt to me like a company enjoying the 7-day free-trial version of exploitation benefits. It's well known to anyone familiar with the history of music technology, or even tech in general, that laws are always about 10 years behind existing technology. We saw this happen with sampling as well, for example, where record labels were suing left, right and centre but the courts didn't have a unanimous definition for what legally constituted a sample.

Spotify always felt to me like a company whose 5-year plan was to make a profit off the fact that we don't have a legal definition for a stream, and it's starting to feel like the law is somewhat catching up. Of course, any changes will only be applied to payment in the UK, but such decisions are known to ripple around the world (see for example, Australia's legal suits against Google and Facebook over payment of royalties to news publishers whose articles both companies used for little compensation as google news results and the facebook news feed, has been followed by the EU suing Google €500 billion for failing to negotiate a fair deal with news publishers there in the 2 months it was allotted)

If you're interested, you really should read the entire report, which is available as a PDF on the parliament website here:

I'm hopeful about this!