Forbes: Cut To Streaming Royalties Could Impact Broadway Cast Recordings

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

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.

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.

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."

But, maybe the exposure on Spotify is worth it?

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.

It seems like an unnecessary insult to the artists.

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 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

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 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 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.

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).