During The Oscars last week there was an interesting moment when they called up a whole crowd of the "grunt" workers in films to the stage and thanked them for their support during the actor's strike. They got a standing ovation from the crowd. Those workers didn't have to join in the strike, but they did anyway to show their support. Those are the people that have it the toughest during a strike, the one's who don't earn a million dollars for a film. The actor that called these people up to the stage then promised those workers that the actors would be there to support them if and when they needed it. As "Demloc" said above, I think you underestimate the level of solidarity in these industries. Even mega-rich actors struggled during some point in their careers. They know what it's like. The same is true for wealthy streaming musical artists. Most remember what it was like before they became millionaires.

How do I imagine such "Unionizing"? The same way it has worked every time in history a union was formed. As I said in my comment on page 2, YES, it would be tough on people at the beginning. But when a union does come together, unions often win. The way it would work in this instance is to have people start pulling their music off of Spotify. Along with that, a pressure campaign is started to convince more and more artists to remove their work from streaming. Let's face it, given the ridiculously low payments artists are getting from streaming it's not exactly a tough sell. If enough artists remove their work from Spotify, then Spotify starts losing business. Then the Spotify's of the world either negotiate or fold. It's generally one or the other. Musicians/composers have played this out thus far like they need Spotify. Time to recognize that Spotify also needs them.

Saint, you make it sound as if unionizing is some crazy unheard of notion. But it's not. It's happened hundreds of times with workers around the world. It's doable, but it takes some guts, and some suffering for a period of time. Once major, big-name artists, join in (and I believe they would because they're getting screwed too), the path becomes much more visible. By the way, I don't really follow Beatport at all, and have no involvement with the DJ market, so I can't really comment on that.

sisyphus, you get no disagreement from me that unions are far from perfect. They often let their members down, and on several occasions have been found to be corrupt. However, they do get results. The problem I have with your comment is that you offer nothing in the way of an alternative to see streaming artists get proper payment for their work. What do you propose, that streaming artists knock on Spotify's door and say, 'gee guys, can't you give us some better pay for this?' How far do you think you'll get going that route? The reason big corporations fight so relentlessly to stop the formation of unions is because they work, they get something done. You're correct, they frequently let people down but I've not yet heard of a better alternative. Like most things in life, you take the best route you can find, even if it's not perfect.

 

A better solution might be a legal requirement for standardized streaming rates similar the same way they established statutory mechanical royalties. At least the payout would be more uniform rather than streaming companies arbitrarily setting up streaming payments via private negotiations and nondisclosure agreements that hide their data and actual earnings to prevent artists from getting a proper audit of what they are really owed. The govt. sets all kinds of federal regulations for payment systems and depository institutions so it is only proper if they have regulations for this as well...

 

Last edited: Mar 17, 2024

I alsolutely see the value in unions... I'm not disrespecting others. I'm saying the music ones absolutely suck. And I've done my time in the barrel trying to 'fix' it, and a load of it. Didn't happen. Perhaps it could. And I would encourage any sane and rational approach to it, and have my vote heard... but to be honest, I'm exhausted from it. As again, I have spent decades doing this.

 

As I said in a previous comment, and as probably I shouldn't be that active on this thread.... I have spent decades dealing with these fucks, and my honest answer is to tell Spotify to go fuck the hell off in general.

I literally got a letter from Pandora or Spotify or whatnot about 5-7 years ago asking me if I was willing to take a cut on my royalties, as they realized their business model relied on having to PAY THESE PESKY ARTISTS who created the content on their sites/apps etc. I guess at the time they realized it was hard for them to get their 500 series Mercedes and whatnot when they actually have to pay the people who provide the means for which their little portal provides.

Fuck them, and it's a downward spiral and a race to the bottom.

If anyone figures out a way to get the lol "Musicians Unions" and whatnot to get anything done, sign me up, as I've done my tour of duty and it's someone else's turn right now as I need to maintain the fragile grip on sanity I still have left in that regard.

 

Really valid.
In the 80s Musicians Unions worldwide had opportunities to join with Bar Trades, Transport and Liquor Trades Unions. They declined. The results?
Everyone is seeing them now - Any left are almost toothless tigers and most people ask when told... "There's a Union??" Shame really, because it may have become an environment nobody would screw with.

The musicians unions then did not have the foresight to realize an establishment that decided not to pay its musicians at rate could not function without its staff, food and alcohol. In theory, there is no rate...none they have any strength to enforce now.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2024

Maybe this culture of being everywhere is not so good for the artist.
I make myself the same question, Why artist don't choose other ways of sharing their work?

 

It's not a bad idea korniceman3000, but I don't know how you'd get the necessary support from politicians to make the legislation happen that would be required. I'm currently residing in the U.S. where roughly half the national elected politicians are firmly in the camp of big business and the dollar donations those entities provide to their campaigns. Union membership would consist of musicians/composers who in all likelihood would all support better pay. The politicians needed for legislation here are bought and sold. The Spotify's of the world have very deep pockets to pay them off. Federal regulations would be great, but I'm not sure how it would be possible to make that happen. For example, the head of the RIAA has a long-term association with Washington D.C. politics, and was instrumental in allowing streaming in it's current form to happen. This is what you're up against in hoping politicians will rescue musicians.

Depends where you are and what unions you're talking about. I've done music-session work that was under SAG/AFTRA and have done very, very well because of it. Through a second union I've worked in pit orchestra on Broadway in NYC and the pay, though not as good as thru SAG, has been quite decent and sufficient to provide a very nice living, along with good benefits. I've rarely heard any major complaints about those 2 particular unions.

I'm also not sure that looking back to an era from before this streaming problem even began is really that meaningful. What we're dealing with now is far more damaging and destructive than anything musicians have ever really dealt with in modern times. Back in the 80's that you've referred to, recording musicians received very nice royalty payments for the use of their work on radio and TV. A product of your work that was getting national airplay could give you a year's income for what began as a few hours work! Fast forward to today, and you get a fraction of a penny for the airing of your work. Many working musicians would look back to the 80's as the 'good days' due to those royalty payments, unlike what's going on today.

 

Many people here have done what you have.

What I am saying is that it had an opportunity to be across the board. Sessions have always paid well and for doubling, and unfortunately, that is one of not enough areas that should be more balanced. Film scoring also still pays well, be it a fee or licensing and royalties as well. The likelihood of politicians supporting better pay has always been there, but it will sadly always require a majority, which does not happen, when other areas of politics are considered more important to invest their time and funding.

As for meaningful, if people do not give themselves a benchmark, regardless of whether they think it will be easily superseded or not, then they have nothing to base the success or failure of whatever they attempt might be. It's a good way to see if something has progressed or regressed.
Based on what you have said about the current environment being destructive, it certainly does not allude towards progression.

I believe it is meaningful to tell the current generation what it was like to be able to hear and see live music 24/7, 365 days of the year and that people could make a living and career from every facet of music. While it won't change in their lifetime, more likely their grandchildren's, it gives an ideology of that which can be great, that is passed down to eventually recreate an environment that benefits everyone, not just a select few. As I said not in our lifetimes sadly.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2024

I don't know how effective this US bill would be and whether it has any chance of passing especially given the political turmoil in an election year but it might create a stir in how streaming royalties are paid.

https://www.billboard.com/business/...crease-artist-streaming-royalties-1235627390/

If all else fails, one can only hope for some new class action lawsuits/federal lawsuits against Spotify. At some point there is bound to have a case verdict that rules in favor of the indie artists over Spotify that will be used as precedent for future cases. If Richard Tornetta and his 9 shares of Tesla stock could sue Elon Musk and cause him to be stripped of his $56 billion pay out package, anything is possible.

 

It is the payout per stream. This is the text after that picture:

"In 2022, Beatport paid an average of $0.10808333 per stream, while its service aimed at open-format DJs, Beatsource, averaged $ 0.17773333 per stream — that’s more than 30 times the industry-wide blended average streaming rates across platforms in the United States was $.0053 per stream. "​

 

Gold star. The reason the appalling rates exist is for that very reason - lack of unity. Pretty much where the Unions came from.
There is a can of worms too in ASCAP and all the other Global royalty collectors. Instead of fighting them, they simply collect the royalties from them without complaint. You should check it out how many could have but never did. Sad really.

 

Okay, so tell me, what would your idea be for "making it right ourselves"? How would you propose to do that, what would your game plan be?

 

The problem is that every company that starts off for the little guy, once large enough in scale, members, and influence eventually becomes bought out by a larger corporation or entity. As long as it is a business and monetary transactions are being made for profit, the primary focus will always be on financial security and solvency of the institution itself and not protection and fairness for it's members.

 

Bandcamp was acquired by Songtradr in Sept. 2023 and one month later they fired half of the bandcamp staff. I've also seen this warning in numerous threads and forums from reddit to gearspace warning about their business practice. If this is in fact true and I am more inclined to believe that it is, then bandcamp will no longer be the artist friendly community it once was...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/uxz4ws/music_distribution_with_songtradr_you_better_know/

"Music distribution with Songtradr. you better know this before is too late!

Hi!

If you are an artist that have your music on the Songtradr platform waiting to be license or you are using that service for music distribution of your songs you should know that you could receive this email anytime:

Betty (Songtradr)

May 20, 2022, 1:03 PM PDT

At this time, all releases have been blocked due to numerous artificial streaming strikes and you are no longer able to use Songtradr services.

Songtradr takes fraudulent activities seriously and is committed to upholding the integrity of the distribution system for artists, distributors, and other service providers.

This email is to notify you that we are terminating your account and terminating your access to all Songtradr services. Pursuant to Section 4(e) of our Digital Distribution Services Agreement with you, Songtradr has the right, in its discretion, to terminate your account.

All funds will be withheld and subject to review pending potential claw back from DSPs. We will revisit your account after this period and if we have received no claw backs from DSPs, your funds will be used to benefit the music community in a manner of our choosing.

Songtradr Support
Santa Monica, CA
www.songtradr.com
M-F 9:30 - 6PM (PT)



that means they decide to cancel your account and take all the money you had collected and that you will collect in the future, with the excuse that your releases has artificial streaming.

Without any probe, without any report, without any warning of that activity. They just want you to assume that you are guilty of using artificial streaming on your releases.

They just close your account without any warning or probe and take your actual money and your future money with this statement:

All funds will be withheld and subject to review pending potential claw back from DSPs. We will revisit your account after this period and if we have received no claw backs from DSPs, your funds will be used to benefit the music community in a manner of our choosing.

Awful!!

so artist friends watch out and if you are using Songtradr you better take your money and music out of it before that happens to you.

That happened to me, and I haven't done any artificial streaming services as they said. Remember that no artist control how that their music is added to the thousandsplaylist inside Spotify, imusic, etc.

Last, don't waste your time trying to contact them, and don't spect any solution, supposedly they just care about the relationship with the Distribution Services Providers.

watch out dear friends artist.

stay away of Songtradr.

and good luck"

 

Short FYI - BANDCAMP still only deducts 15% and pays. I am sure if that changes it will be common knowledge.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2024

BandCamp is more like the old times digital shop. The problem is the number of customers that use this service.
Where is the equilibrium, bt market shares, and revenues?

A good alternative, would be your own streaming service, your own platform, webservice, or app. Where you engage more with your people. But there are some time and learning facts there.

 

A few people I know who have large reputations investigated this idea two years ago. The financial establishment costs, marketing, advertising, getting other major artists to the new platform, drawing their existing successes and future releases and swaying the major labels who already decided to go along with and accept the Spotify's of the world to their new concept, outweighed the viability. They estimated they'd have to run at a loss for many years. You have major labels, indies, royalty collection agencies and many major artists who are either too afraid, or too hesitant to go against what exists in case they lose what they have already gained, even though it is far less than what they gained in prior decades. While that is not an exact quote, it's not far from it.

EDIT - The other thing to contend with is the artists who made millions on the current 21st Century music streaming platform, which is all they know, even though the amount of musicians/performers prior to the streaming platforms who made millions exceed the current by ten to one. This is like asking a millionaire to risk their millions. They won't.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2024

It's like the saying goes: "If you can't beat them, join them."

However, there is bound to be someone or some company willing to take on years if not a decade+ of losses saddled upon millions if not billions of debt before finally coming out on top but it will need to be a persistent visionary with the will power and compelling argument to convince dedicated investors to continue their support regardless of failure to ensure a positive future outcome. We wouldn't have had youtube and amazon if no one took that kind of long term financial loss with zero short term rewards and high risk of bankruptcy....