Forbes: Cut To Streaming Royalties Could Impact Broadway Cast Recordings

[zainmax]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 10:48am

Cut To Streaming Royalties Could Impact Broadway Cast Recordings

Great comment from Van Dean @ Broadway records. Spotify should support artists.

Updated On: 11/8/23 at 10:48 AM

[spicemonkey]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 10:55am

I hope this does not discourage producers from making cast recordings :/

 

I recently switched from Spotify to Apple Music. Hope Apple pays a bit more to artists.

 

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 10:57am

The new Spotify model is bad, but I don't think it will have that great an impact on cast albums getting made. There's so little money to be made from them anyway and they are more or less a loss-leader for raising awareness about a show + generating licensing & ticketbuyer interest.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 11:25am

Spotify is a DISGRACE.

They give Joe Rogan twenty million dollars, but genuine artists 0.003 cents per stream.

Now they're making audiobooks free to stream to Premium subscribers.

Unless you are Taylor Swift, or Beyoncé, Spotify does nothing for your income. Listeners know this, but still use it because it is convenient. Sad.

Updated On: 11/8/23 at 11:25 AM

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 3:31pm

Spotify saying they're not paying any royalties for under 1000 streams a year really just seems like they're taking advantage of artists in an area where smaller artists have already been taken advantage of.  I wonder if people who are fans of the smaller artists may consider switching platforms if their music ends up pulled from the service. 

I remember in the past, Apple Music didn't have all the cast albums so I'd use Amazon music to supplement (since I had access through being a Prime member and didn't want to deal with the ads on Spotify), but now if anything's on one streaming service, it's pretty much guaranteed to be on all of them. Maybe that will start changing again soon, though I guess it doesn't really cost the artists anything to keep their music on Spotify so they might continue to do so for "visibility" and the hope that it'll pick up steam like any of the other shows mentioned in the article.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 3:40pm

Another thought, I wonder if this would cut down on the model where cast albums have dialogue only tracks to separate the dialogue from the songs, and they would just lump it in with the songs more so that they'll count under the listens for the songs.  Or maybe I'm just overthinking it and nothing would realistically change from this...

[JSquared2]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 3:44pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Spotify is a DISGRACE.

They give Joe Rogan twenty million dollars, but genuine artists 0.003 cents per stream.

Now they're making audiobooks free to stream to Premium subscribers.

Unless you are Taylor Swift, or Beyoncé, Spotify does nothing for your income. Listeners know this, but still use it because it is convenient. Sad."

 

[jpbran]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 3:49pm

I recently switched from Spotify to Apple Music. Hope Apple pays a bit more to artists.


Historically they’ve paid almost double. Still a tiny amount, but… double. 
 

 

[zainmax]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 4:40pm

But, maybe the exposure on Spotify is worth it?

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 5:42pm

zainmax said: "But, maybe the exposure on Spotify is worth it?"

That's already the case. It costs $200-250 thousand to make a cast album. Only albums that really blow up make back any money. The only recent ones I can think of that likely turned a profit are Woods, Funny Girl, and Sweeney. Woods is the only one I'd be 100% sure about. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 6:03pm

Let's try the math. And also: it's $0.003, not 0.003 cents as suggested above.

To have the royalty cut because you had <1000 listens in a year, you would lose less than $0.003*1000=$3.00 per year. 

Even if royalties were increased to a full penny per stream, an artist would lose less than $10.00 per year.

Let's attempt a slight tethering to reality:

1. No artist's survival depends of $3/year.

2. No cast recording was ever not recorded because of $3.

3. The theatre business "geniuses" at Forbes have gone overboard in their level of embarrassment this time.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 6:13pm

If it is so little, why do it? Are Spotify struggling? This only adds to the humiliation. Also paves the way for further cuts in the future. Chip by chip.

[zainmax]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 6:35pm

It seems like an unnecessary insult to the artists.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 6:52pm

There's a song called "Who the hell is Edgar?", which features this topic. Teya and Salena are the artists.

The lyrics go "...0.003, give me two years and your dinner will be free, gas station champagne is on me, Edgar can not pay rent for me... 0.003... at least it pays to be funny" ...

and now they want to rob poor Teya and Salena of their gas station champagne. Luckily for them this song has over 20 million streams, but the point still remains that earning money from music is even harder than it used to be. Impossible, even. People who try can easily get discouraged, and just throw the towel in. Become a plumber or schoolteacher instead. This in itself is enough to harm Broadway.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 7:01pm

No successful musician does so on the back of their releases. For most WORKING musicians, it's live gigs which is what the recordings promote. For FAMOUS musicians it's brand deals and merch. Not to say streamers shouldn't be paying them more, but it's just such a falsehood to preface as if anybody is living or dying based on their CD sales or streaming numbers that this is negatively going to affect. This is as meaningless an argument now as it was during Napster. 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 7:15pm

Right. Most working musicians need to tour relentlessly. From coast to coast, continent to continent. Deal with the hassles of venues, travel etc. Then put effort and money into producing merch to awkwardly hawk. Stand in the lobby after shows with a sharpie in their hand, desperate to make a sale. Posters, t-shirts, mugs... vinyls. Which is another reason vinyl has had a resurgence. People actually pay for them, if only as an act of charity to support the acts they like. Artists need to leave their families for weeks and months at a time, only to just about get by. They need to pay their band, their crew, insurance. If they are very lucky, they MIGHT just about have enough to record another album. All to start the same cycle over again.

This is what Spotify does.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 7:38pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Right. Most working musicians need to tour relentlessly. From coast to coast, continent to continent. Deal with the hassles of venues, travel etc. Then put effort and money into producing merch to awkwardly hawk. Stand in the lobby after shows with a sharpie in their hand, desperate to make a sale. Posters, t-shirts, mugs... vinyls. Which is another reason vinyl has had a resurgence. People actually pay for them, if only as an act of charity to support the acts they like. Artists need to leave their families for weeks and months at a time, only to just about get by. They need to pay their band, their crew, insurance. If they are very lucky, they MIGHT just about have enough to record another album. All to start the same cycle over again.

This is what Spotify does."

This is needlessly melodramatic and just seems like... the most pessimistic view of what being a working musician is... lol. I know this sound crazy, but a lot of musicians who do this for a living... actually enjoy everything you're describing in the most negative ways possible. 

For real, do you get off on being the turd in the swimming pool? Always a new evil boogeyman. Like... how much should Spotify be paying people? Surely it should be negotiated on a per performer basis if we really want to get into the nitty gritty of it and their VALUE to the platform. And that answer for a majority of them is they bring none, but they're still hosting the content. 

And Vinyls had a resurgence because they're a niche nostalgia item having a resurgence, like everything else that comes and goes. Not a soul actually owns modern vinyl because it's the easiest convenient way to listen to music. 

Spotify doesn't maintain the touring musician, please be serious.  This is more like getting pissed at the radio stations for not paying up enough money...

Updated On: 11/8/23 at 07:38 PM

[zainmax]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 7:45pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Right. Most working musicians need to tour relentlessly. From coast to coast, continent to continent. Deal with the hassles of venues, travel etc. Then put effort and money into producing merch to awkwardly hawk. Stand in the lobby after shows with a sharpie in their hand, desperate to make a sale. Posters, t-shirts, mugs... vinyls. Which is another reason vinyl has had a resurgence. People actually pay for them, if only as an act of charity to support the acts they like. Artists need to leave their families for weeks and months at a time, only to just about get by. They need to pay their band, their crew, insurance. If they are very lucky, they MIGHT just about have enough to record another album. All to start the same cycle over again.

This is what Spotify does."

Looking at musicals, though, what's the logic of a cast album? Some of them like FUNNY GIRL are independently, separately financed so the investors actually think that they'll see any money from them or is it more of a preservation motivation? I'm serious.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 7:54pm

Spotify does not maintain touring artists. Yes, I agree, that's what I'm saying. It's not about how much Spotify pay, or should pay... it's a matter of Spotify obliterating the music market completely. Almost to the point of extinction. Streaming in general.

Musicians love performing to crowds, of course, it gives them a rush and brings joy. It's just the offstage physical toll that drains them. It's fun at first, but people age. Lives move on, children are born, crowds dwindle because the cycle comes around too often. It takes up so much of their energy and time that it becomes harder to even find inspiration to write and record.

I'm glad you have heard about different experiences TF4, but I can only tell it as I find it myself from tales in my own life.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 8:00pm

Zainmax, I can not answer your question. For most artists it is all about love of the craft anyway. Not business. Bringing something into the world that wasn't there before. Finishing the hat, as someone once said.

I think cast albums would get more than a measly three dollars, as HogansHero suggested. On average, 20 songs per album, assuming the listener gets through the whole thing would be sixty dollars per thousand listeners. Which is still nothing. PS Classics do it for nothing but preservation and love. Don't know about others.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 8:11pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Spotify does not maintain touring artists. Yes, I agree, that's what I'm saying. It's not about how much Spotify pay, or should pay... it's a matter of Spotify obliterating the music market completely. Almost to the point of extinction. Streaming in general."

Again, very few musicians have ever made livable wages based on album sales or even a significant component. Spotify did not obliterate anything, it's a procession of time and people are listening to far more varied musical genres now than they ever did before because they have ready at their finger tip access to them for free (or a flat monthly fee). Word of mouth isn't... "Hey... listen to this song that I'm listening to on the one CD that I have with me!" it's "Look up this band on Spotify, they're really good." It's linking them on your Instagram stories, playing them on your tiktoks, generating new followers to their social media. I have a hard time reconciling that the state of being a working musician is worse now (in terms of their success) than prior to the streaming age. 

Like I know streaming is the big boogeyman now, but it absolutely brought accessibility to media that did not exist prior. ESPECIALLY in the audio format where it's largely not a fight between having to pick a particular one to have access to a specific artist. So many niche artists are able to link up with so many niche audiences now. 

Napster didn't destroy anything, neither did Spotify. 

Updated On: 11/8/23 at 08:11 PM

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 8:11pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Spotify does not maintain touring artists. Yes, I agree, that's what I'm saying. It's not about how much Spotify pay, or should pay... it's a matter of Spotify obliterating the music market completely. Almost to the point of extinction. Streaming in general.

Musicians love performing to crowds, of course, it gives them a rush and brings joy. It's just the offstage physical toll that drains them. It's fun at first, but people age. Lives move on, children are born, crowds dwindle because the cycle comes around too often. It takes up so much of their energy and time that it becomes harder to even find inspiration to write and record.

I'm glad you have heard about different experiences TF4, but I can only tell it as I find it myself from tales in my own life."

How do you know all this? Have you done some sort of survey with various musicians and came up with that conclusion? How do you know that they don’t always like greeting their fans? How do you know for a fact what it is that makes it hard for them to write songs? Clearly you don’t and you’re just pulling this info from out of thin air. 

Anyways, I do remember a good few years back, Taylor Swift wouldn’t allow Spotify to stream any of her music because they essentially gave nothing in terms of royalties to artists. But, when Apple Music came into the picture she had zero issue with her music being on that streaming service because apple did pay royalties to the artists. Not to mention the fact that the Apple Music store was and still is a very popular place to buy digital music.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 8:18pm

Islander_fan said: "Anyways, I do remember a good few years back, Taylor Swift wouldn’t allow Spotify to stream any of her music because they essentially gave nothing in terms of royalties to artists. But, when Apple Music came into the picture she had zero issue with her music being on that streaming service because apple did pay royalties to the artists. Not to mention the fact that the Apple Music store was and still is a very popular place to buy digital music."

Nobody is buying music on the Apple Music Store, they're buying a license that can be revoked at any time. Anyone foolish enough to purchase from it deserves to be parted with that money. Don't invest real money in digital media that doesn't exist. 

[BwayMusician]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 8:45pm

TheatreFan4 said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "Spotify does not maintain touring artists. Yes, I agree, that's what I'm saying. It's not about how much Spotify pay, or should pay... it's a matter of Spotify obliterating the music market completely. Almost to the point of extinction. Streaming in general."

Again, very few musicians have ever made livable wages based on album sales or even a significant component. Spotify did not obliterate anything, it's a procession of time and people are listening to far more varied musical genres now than they ever did before because they have ready at their finger tip access to them for free (or a flat monthly fee). Word of mouth isn't... "Hey... listen to this song that I'm listening to on the one CD that I have with me!" it's "Look up this band on Spotify, they're really good." It's linking them on your Instagram stories, playing them on your tiktoks, generating new followers to their social media. I have a hard time reconciling that the state of being a working musician is worse now (in terms of their success) than prior to the streaming age.

Like I know streaming is the big boogeyman now, but it absolutely brought accessibility to media that did not exist prior. ESPECIALLY in the audio format where it's largely not a fight between having to pick a particular one to have access to a specific artist. So many niche artists are able to link up with so many niche audiences now.

Napster didn't destroy anything, neither did Spotify."

This is simply not true. "Mid-tier" musicians used to make *actual* money from record sales - at least enough to cover the costs of making the album, all the way up to a modest profit. I know this from experience. I've done it. My peers in NYC used to do it, all the way back to the 80s and 90s when you truly could make a bit of money. If you're in a position that a few thousand dollars a year doesn't matter, you're doing a lot better than most musicians and artists out here.

1000 unique plays used to mean 100 albums sold. I'll let you do the math to determine how much of a difference that is between what Spotify is paying. Asking for a bit more money will not break the industry - the companies simply wouldn't be as profitable as they are now. I think we can all live with that.

Support artists of all stripes - lobby Spotify and Apple to pay musicians more.

[veronicamae]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 10:03pm

zainmax said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "Right. Most working musicians need to tour relentlessly. From coast to coast, continent to continent. Deal with the hassles of venues, travel etc. Then put effort and money into producing merch to awkwardly hawk. Stand in the lobby after shows with a sharpie in their hand, desperate to make a sale. Posters, t-shirts, mugs... vinyls. Which is another reason vinyl has had a resurgence. People actually pay for them, if only as an act of charity to support the acts they like. Artists need to leave their families for weeks and months at a time, only to just about get by. They need to pay their band, their crew, insurance. If they are very lucky, they MIGHT just about have enough to record another album. All to start the same cycle over again.

This is what Spotify does."

Looking at musicals, though, what's the logic of a cast album? Some of them like FUNNY GIRL are independently, separately financed so the investors actually think that they'll see any money from them or is it more of a preservation motivation? I'm serious."

Some shows hurry to record their cast album so they can use their music in their advertising to sell tickets - why? Because they can't afford the rights to a previous recording, the previous recording is not able to be licensed at all, the current production's talent agreements prohibit them from using another cast's recording -- or the most obvious, it's a brand-new musical with no previous recording whatsoever. Not having music that can be used in advertising is a huge challenge for musicals and a big motivator for new ones to hurry to make their cast recordings.

An example like the Lea Michele Funny Girl falls more in the "because it will sell" category. I don't recall what music they used in their ads up to the point of having the Lea recording; was it always instrumentals? (Another workaround).