its definitely different, you dont become a drug dealer, getting people addicted to crack and exploiting said addiction. if money isnt youre priority, of course thats all he cares about

a lot of people in the industry are like that, their concern is about money, when in reality; they make enough, more than the majority of people in the states; to live comfortably. thats why their tickets are so much. they gotta pay to upkeep their mansion and 12 cars or they have no control and label decides for them. i mean i get it, having money is great but music is more important to me; its helped me through a lot, its my best friend. having that connect with people who value it enough to get tattoos on their body of lyrics or whatever, taking time out of their lives to come and support you and listen to it live. that matters more, bitching about streams is small to me

 

What is the value of your creations?

What is the value of anything in any job someone puts everything they have into it to create it?

The only answer that makes sense is that it is not worth nothing, it is not for free unless you personally choose to be a philanthropist of the highest order giving everything away, and it is definitely not worth losing 95% of whatever it sells for if selling it is what you do, no matter what that price is, when the seller had no hand in the process, funding or finished product.

In my opinion, and many others I know, if anyone gives what they do away for free then they are a slave, and if they sit back and let anyone walk all over them and take 95% of the work they did, then they are a masochistic moron and and idiot who enjoys being financially butt-fucked.

P.S. - So it's seen I walk my talk, I have music up online. It is not on a major ripoff streaming site though it is on a streaming site. They take 15% and that's fair. Anyone who creates for the sake of the Art never made the Art for the money. I could not care less how many people buy my music because I know the people who do and did, purchased it because they liked what I created. Anyone who is true to their Art, also will not let themselves get ripped off perpetually. If you make Pop music, EDM and commercially-oriented music, you do not have a lot of choice or options if money is all you seek, other than marketing yourself.

 

Last edited: Mar 9, 2024

When record labels and film companies signed deals for 100 years nearly prior to this century, they paid 100% of the costs in advance. So not expecting to get a huge percentage of return until that advance was repaid was normal. Because anyone born after 1990 will likely not have EVER encountered that, it's no surprise they do not know any better. It's not ignorance in a chosen self-denial form for many, it is ignorance generated by change and an unfortunate lack of exposure of how some things should be. Nobody can be expected to understand something they have never encountered or been exposed to.

 

Last edited: Mar 9, 2024

The DOGG literaly has his own brand of Cannabis, sold mainly in california where its legal. I don't know what else he sells but he has done endorsements for some big companies over the years.

 

He lying dog, he squeeled on tupac and biggie, he cashed in on everything and now lies about spotify, he actually made $450k-$800k, dig it up

 

music has become worthless, (not to me , I love making it) to most people (consumers) because there is no longer any controlled distribution to monetize it. Even though during controlled distribution, most of the money went to the controlled distributors,(record companies and retailers), but artists and writers did get something, maybe small, but they got publicity. cause the record companies and retailers wanted to make that money they helped promote the music and artists, thats all pretty much gone these days.

That publicity allowed artist to venture into geographic areas where they had never played and have a somewhat guaranteed audience. Thats gone for all but the biggest (mostly legacy) stars these days.

Streaming is like the old record companies/retailers. The streaming companies and the license holders get paid at a much higher rate than the actual artist due to the structuring of the contracts. But its more of a fixed amount based on total streams by all licensed products, rather than any exceptional benefit for a single or group of artists getting high streaming, so there's no incentive to promote artist for additional sales..

its basically fucked.

 

dude has literally never done anything except buy companies with blood money and make them worse

 

You don't seem to understand the difference between the production cost of a film and the retail price of a digital copy.

Not true if that something that I did gets commercially exploited by someone, which is obviously the case here.

You conflate caring about money with caring about nothing but money.

So you started yesterday with a display of fundamental misunderstanding of the topic, seasoned with a liberal amount of logical fallacies. And then it went downhill.

 

If you want to know why the "music industry" is just a harvesting ground for unscrupulous interlopers, buy Kanye West a beer.

 

I don't think Kanye would drink beer, his new teeth would get corroded... And judging by his late statements I'm not sure he has all the indians in the valley..

 

if i had 1 billion streams in one song, and got paid 45k for it, i'd probably swifty it

 

you are just not that smart. or are extremely young and wide eyed stupid.

 

An artist getting screwed over by a label due to signing a shitty contract happens more often than one would like. Unfortunately, the blame for that lies mostly with the talent who is signing the contract. There is significant advantage in getting contracts vetted (by an attorney or contract lawyer) before any signatures are put to them... it's well worth the attorney's fee in the long run... But yeah, legit contracts will basically treat all royalties as was stated above...

 

Last edited: Mar 10, 2024

Maybe it's high time that the "licence holder" and the "artist" remain the same person. Sooner or later these capitalist business assholes will have to be made to realize that without the "artist" they have nothing on which to capitalize. The only problem that could be foreseen with this model is that the artist could become so entrenched in dealing with the business end of things that they would have no time to create anything...

 

you uploaded music to a streaming platform, people didnt buy anything from you, your music most likely isnt the only music they listen too on said platform

if it wasnt beneficial for him to have his music on spotify, it wouldnt be on there. theres tons of other artists on there, like Neil Young, who own their masters like Snoop; but dont have their music isnt on streaming. no one is forcing someone who owns their masters to use DSP's, so no youre not owed anything, other than what you signed up. which is, this is how much you will be paid per stream (after a thousand streams) for your songs, this is what the company values it, what else do you expect? what else are you owed? it doesnt have to be on there, they paid you what you agreed too by using it, youre not owed anything else and you have a choice to not use it if its so negative

yet you cant form a valid response other than to throw insults and try to belittle someone, who most likely makes more money than you ever made in music. in any time in your life. i could not tour again and stay in my house, that i own and is paid off; and be okay for the next 30 years. clearly, im so stupid, my life is in shambles from not understanding the music industry. get off your high horse, cause mine can be higher

if you have an actual valid point to what i said, trying to insult me instead of discussing it; doesnt make you look too smart

 

Last edited: Mar 10, 2024

Doubt it. But ok.

Nah, it's just actually life is too short to try and unstupid the ignorant at this point.

If you think streaming royalties are fair and equitable, and there is no problem with how it works out with the artists, and the long tail consequences, ... enjoy.

 

Ok Grape let's say those streams earned $1.00 per stream. Where's the other $999,000,055 ?
How's that look to your free ass!?!?

 

$1 dollar per stream is wayyy to much. how is the listener supposed to pay for that?? if the listener paid a dollar per stream there still wouldn't be enough for spotify's share...

 

nowhere did i say this ever, so you cant handle this conversation on a discussion board; or read. got it, have a nice day

i guess it depends, in this scenario. am i getting paid more, but now people cant afford to stream my music because it costs too much? so my music reaches less people, resulting in less people coming to my shows and more stealing my music? or does everything stay the same, but i get paid more? of course im down for that

my thing is not just as an artist but as a music lover, streaming is great for consumers on every level. im listening to music right now playing from spotify on my speakers, im a big fan of music; its not just a come up to me, 1 Billion people being able to hear my music, thats amazing to me. i dont buy that its this all evil thats introducing this concept of exploitation thats new in the music industry

agree, they would just steal your music, especially with how technology is now