Forbes: Cut To Streaming Royalties Could Impact Broadway Cast Recordings — Page 2

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).

Jay Lerner-Z 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."

I'll gladly substitute $60 for $3 because it does not alter the point I was making at all. I would point out that this assumes that every song on the album is played right up to the threshold, which seems quite unlikely. From what I have been told, most listens are repeats.

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Does Spotify contribute to the ridiculous ticket prices of today?

Why would anyone buy a CD in the lobby when they can get it for free on Spotify? How much revenue is lost?"

Well, for starters most people wouldn’t by a cast recording in the lobby on CD since CDs are starting to go the way of the dodo. The fact is that streaming is taking over and is a very popular way for people get access to music. Why sit at home listen to a single album when you can be out and have the ability to listen to any song/album you want on demand?

And, popularity dictates how much a ticket to a given concert costs. One may think that the price of a ticket to say, Swift’s Eras tour was beyond a bit much. But, there were clearly many many people who still bought them up regardless.

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

CDs have gone the way of the dodo, sure, but why is that? How come DVDs and Blu-ray are still around?

They're not around -- at least not for anyone under 60.

Islander_fan said: "JWell, for starters most people wouldn’t by a cast recording in the lobby on CD since CDs are starting to go the way of the dodo."

Crazy pricing is also an issue. When I saw Kimberly Akimbo last month, they were selling the CD for $35 vs. $15 at Amazon.

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

CDs have gone the way of the dodo, sure, but why is that? How come DVDs and Blu-ray are still around?

Spotify has a monopoly of the market, and give away other people's products for free. Can't we do better than this?"

People have been looking for a way to not have to buy albums for literally 25 years. Napster, then iTunes offering only buying the songs you want, then streaming services. It's incredibly clear that all of these outlets were in response to a desire. And Spotify doesn't have a monopoly on anything, you just said yourself they're giving away product for free! There are alternatives. Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, among many other niche avenues. Calling something a "Monopoly" when what you really mean is that a lot of people use it, doesn't make it a Monopoly. There's plenty of competition. Spotify isn't out here pushing legislation to crush the CD market. That's just called the passage of time! Trust and believe, I love physical media and prefer it but you have GOT to acknowledge that we are in the minority. People don't want, nor do they have space, for all that ****. I myself don't enjoy packing up all the DVDs & Blurays every time I move and I don't even have THAT many.