"Next Album" rumor / speculation thread *UPDATE AUG 22/2023*

[allwaystired]

You're kidding right?! I mean you can't seriously be suggesting that artists are doing better out of streaming? If so you must be the ONLY person in the world saying that.

This one isn't even a debate.  find me one musician, ANYWHERE who would rather you didn't buy their physical music, and I'd be amazed!

I agree completely.  As much as we love the internet, it completely destroyed the music industry.  And I mean FAR worse than record labels ever did.  Record labels were never perfect, but the internet sucked the life out of music sales AND opportunity for newer bands.

I recall the first year after pirate sites went online, CD sales in the U.S. alone dropped by a whopping 110 million.... in the first year!  Pirating and illegal downloading have never been successfully controlled, nor it is fully countered by these legit streaming sites even if artists make a few pennies more via streaming.

So yes, it is ALWAYS more beneficial to the artists to buy physical copies of albums.  As much as people bitched in the old days about having to buy a whole album for one song they like, the music industry overall was much, much better for it.

Absolutely. I'm amazed someone is attempting to say otherwise really. Literally no-one has ever said streaming/downloading is good for the artists. It's just accepted that artists are getting screwed.

[pilferk]

Ummm......as opposed to the streaming system?!

You're kidding right?! I mean you can't seriously be suggesting that artists are doing better out of streaming? If so you must be the ONLY person in the world saying that.

If it's a choice between buying physical product, or streaming, it's absolutely black and white which one benefits artists more. As literally ANY musician, or look at the facts, will show. This one isn't even a debate.

Sure, buy merch, see shows as well of course. That's all good. But find me one musician, ANYWHERE who would rather you didn't buy their physical music, and I'd be amazed!

As opposed to any system involving the labels.

But let me do the math for you:

If you buy a disc, you give the artist about .80, once.  You front load a larger contribution.

If you stream that album, you give them about .05 to .06 EVERY time you stream the album.  Or about 1/2 a penny for each track. Over and over.  I have sure streamed AFD way more than 10 times.  Probably more than 100 times.  That amounts to way more than the .80 I give them every time I buy AFD.

Over time, I give artists I want to support more money. Because I stream more (and contribute more) to specific artists who's material I like.

Now, the issue with streaming is that...if I only stream an album once, or a single track from the album...the artist is getting way less.  So, in that respect, streaming is worse for the artist community over all.

Neither system is good for the artist.  The label screws them either way.  Which was my original point.

Buy merch. See shows. Buying discs isn't helping your favorite artist much, if at all.  Streaming them, repeatedly, helps a BIT more.

Musicians largely want you to buy the disc because it pays off their advance and counts toward other financial metrics the label holds over their head.  Essentially you're buying their freedom from slavery when you buy that disc.  It's literally the ONLY reason I even consider buying physical discs....

[pilferk]

I agree completely.  As much as we love the internet, it completely destroyed the music industry.  And I mean FAR worse than record labels ever did.  Record labels were never perfect, but the internet sucked the life out of music sales AND opportunity for newer bands.

The internet sucked the life out of music sales because the labels insisted (and insist) on sticking with an outdated, outmoded, impractical distribution system that keeps them in control of the material, the artist, and the entire revenue stream.

Creators have found much better ways to distribute content, using the internet, while retaining a much higher share of revenue that content generates.  Patreon type models have also worked wonders for content creators. It wasn't the technology that killed music sales.  It was an abject failure to even try to meet consumer wishes for distribution...portability, convenience, more direct artist support...by the label system that fucked things up.  And when they finally, grudgingly, took minor steps to accommodate technology they did it in the most draconian ways they possibly could.

Streaming isn't a great implementation.  And it only works better for artists that garner a HUGE following, and who can make up on volume what they lose on up front.  I'm not saying it's a great system.  It's not.  I'm saying it allows FANS of specific artists to contribute more, over time, to that artist vs a single disc sale.

I recall the first year after pirate sites went online, CD sales in the U.S. alone dropped by a whopping 110 million.... in the first year!  Pirating and illegal downloading have never been successfully controlled, nor it is fully countered by these legit streaming sites even if artists make a few pennies more via streaming.

Not for nothing...and I'm not making excuses for piracy....but the piracy industry sprung up, and was so popular, at least in part because the labels didn't offer any real alternative to buying digital music.  And at that point, even encoding your own MP3s was difficult and took some technical savy.  Now, I'm not going to argue people's propensity for wanting free shit...that was definitely a major factor.  BUT, the label system didn't help themselves any.  Because they couldn't really figure out a way that they could screw the artists quite so hard in a digital platform, where revenue is a lot more transparent.  Eventually they figured out ways to do that....and yes, streaming was one of them.

So yes, it is ALWAYS more beneficial to the artists to buy physical copies of albums.  As much as people bitched in the old days about having to buy a whole album for one song they like, the music industry overall was much, much better for it.

No, it isn't. Not ALWAYS.  It is ALWAYS more beneficial if you are going to buy an album for a couple tracks, or are going to listen to it rarely, or if you want to buy your favorite artist out of servitude.  But from a strictly revenue generating standpoint...if you listen to an album even once a month via streaming, you are pretty much going to equate the revenue you give to the artist between disc and streaming.  So the "quiet debate" you have to have with yourself is what kind of utilization that disc is going to get vs how often are you going to stream it.

With GnR, for most fans on this board, I'm thinking streaming is going to net the artist more money over the long run.

I mean...sure, forcing customers to buy more than they want to get one small part of it will earn you more revenue. I'm not sure it's the most consumer friendly tactic to adopt, and it sort of goes to my point that the label system is icky.  Yes, in the mid 1900's (30's - 60's), that requirement was linked to physical medium. But as of the 70's, and certainly by the mid 90's, that was no longer true.  So you should adapt your industry to generate revenue based on new tech and consumer demands. There were certainly opportunities to do that, and to be both artist and consumer friendly.   The label system has proven they are 100% unwilling to do that, going into any tech shift kicking and screaming (and looking for the solution that most screws the artists, in the end).

The industry was also better because...heh heh...the labels were LESS terrible in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's (note: LESS terrible).  That changed in the early to mid 80s.  They got worse. MUCH worse. And they've gotten even worse as the industry has changed, and technology has advanced.  They've always been terrible at this.  I mean, they practically revolted over cassettes because they provided easily recordable formats.  But they have gotten more terrible, and more draconian, over time.  They are a dinosaur that needs to be abandoned.  When THAT happens, you will see a resurgence in the industry. Both in terms of revenue and in terms of creativity.

Edit: I think the suggestion this would need its own thread is correct.  I'll let my rants go.  

[jarmo]

Yes. People always tell you how much one stream pays, or how a certain amount of streams only makes the artist X amount of Dollars.

I tend to do both, buy a physical release and then also listen to streaming because it's convenient when you're out...

I keep telling people who think it's no big deal, but if you keep getting your music from somewhere without paying, there's gonna be less of it at some point. As far as I know, artists don't really base their tour routing on places where their music was downloaded the most.


We're living in a time when this is even more important because artists can't get revenue from touring and selling tour merch...




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Yes. People always tell you how much one stream pays, or how a certain amount of streams only makes the artist X amount of Dollars.

I tend to do both, buy a physical release and then also listen to streaming because it's convenient when you're out...

I keep telling people who think it's no big deal, but if you keep getting your music from somewhere without paying, there's gonna be less of it at some point. As far as I know, artists don't really base their tour routing on places where their music was downloaded the most.


We're living in a time when this is even more important because artists can't get revenue from touring and selling tour merch...




/jarmo

That's the big takeaway I think we can all agree on: Don't listen to music without paying, somehow.  Via ads, by subbing to a streaming service, by buying the album either physically or digitally.  Something.

We can debate which manner of paying for that music is best for the artist, overall and situationally.  There is zero debate that you should make sure the artist gets paid for the art you're consuming. 

[allwaystired]

I've honestly never heard anyone, in a band or at a label, say they make more from Spotify. You are the first. It's such am issue it's currently being debated in UK parliament whether there is anything that can be done to force streaming services to be more fair.

I mean it's convenient to say 'oh I don't have to put my hand in my pocket for music because I listen to adverts on Spotify', but it simply isn't true.

There's no doubt about the fact that streaming has resulted in musicians making less money. There isn't one musician or label who says otherwise!

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/apr/13/spotify-songwriters

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/spotify-1-million-plays-108-return-1944051.html%3Famp&ved=2ahUKEwi25ZPd9K_tAhW9WxUIHdCKCssQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3f5Z8YT_6nTRQ5uFm54Jhg&ampcf=1

The other point of course is why is labels making money a problem? Without labels we'd have none of the great music we have. And without labels making money, they don't have money to invest in new acts. GNR may still be playing bars in LA if it wasn't for their record label. The label saw an opportunity to make money though....and thank goodness they did. Streaming service providers aren't hanging out at dive bars looking for the next big thing, that's for sure! I'm happy if labels can make money too. They make the music I love happen.

[jarmo]

Of course they should make more money from their streams. The split isn't equal. But it never was, was it?


But if the options are: Illegal downloading without any compensation to song writers/performers or streaming services, which one is better?

Remember iTunes Music Store? One song for $0.99. And then you could spend eternity listening to it and the artist would only make his/her/their cut from that 99 cents.





/jarmo

[allwaystired]

Of course they should make more money from their streams. The split isn't equal. But it never was, was it?


But if the options are: Illegal downloading without any compensation to song writers/performers or streaming services, which one is better?

Remember iTunes Music Store? One song for $0.99. And then you could spend eternity listening to it and the artist would only make his/her/their cut from that 99 cents.





/jarmo

Oh, if we're comparing illegal downloading to steaming then of course there's no contest. I'd rather musicians made SOMETHING than nothing, even if that something is a tiny amount.

The iTunes store thing you mention though is about what you'd pay for a song an album when you think about it- 12 songs, $12.

I don't know - I don't really have the answers, it just sucks to see musicians not valued and not getting suitably financially compensated. All I can do is stick to my own thing- always buy music, go to as many gigs as I can afford and buy merch.  I suppose that's all my own little protest!

[jarmo]

Yeah, but iTunes made it possible for you to buy that one song you like instead of the whole album.

So instead the artist getting a cut from the money made on an album sold, it went to getting a cut of the money made by a song sale.

The artist makes the same amount of money no matter how many times you listen to it. Unlike with streaming....


But yeah, even if it's far from perfect, it's better than all those cool kids who wanna show the greedy rich rock stars that they can get the music for free... Until there's no music business. Record stores are mostly gone already. This year, live concerts disappeared (for obvious reasons)... But imagine when no one cares to pay for music, how will there be any artists touring? In a world where popularity is based on streams alone, songs/artists that are recommended to people by algorithms...


And how does it relate to GN'R? Well, GN'R hasn't released a new album with Axl, Duff and Slash since the 1990s. Things have changed. "Just release it" is the answer from the experts.....


/jarmo

[draguns]

I do miss the days of going to the record store and buying a cassette or CD. However, I'm not the most organized person in the world. One reason for that is due to my hand/arm disability. Another reason is just due to me. It's something that I have improved upon. However, streaming music has helped me to have less clutter and be more organized. From when I started digitalizing  music using CDs to Apple Music, Google Music,  to now with Spotify, it definitely helps me to have music in a digital format.

[allwaystired]

Yeah, but iTunes made it possible for you to buy that one song you like instead of the whole album.

So instead the artist getting a cut from the money made on an album sold, it went to getting a cut of the money made by a song sale.

The artist makes the same amount of money no matter how many times you listen to it. Unlike with streaming....


But yeah, even if it's far from perfect, it's better than all those cool kids who wanna show the greedy rich rock stars that they can get the music for free... Until there's no music business. Record stores are mostly gone already. This year, live concerts disappeared (for obvious reasons)... But imagine when no one cares to pay for music, how will there be any artists touring? In a world where popularity is based on streams alone, songs/artists that are recommended to people by algorithms...


And how does it relate to GN'R? Well, GN'R hasn't released a new album with Axl, Duff and Slash since the 1990s. Things have changed. "Just release it" is the answer from the experts.....


/jarmo

That's true yep. I hadn't thought of that angle- mainly because I never listen to individual tracks (unless I'm listening to the radio) , only albums in full! Sadly, I even get a bit annoyed if time/things to do mean I have to stop an album halfway through!

I think people also miss the fact that labels use the money they make from bigger artists to invest in smaller ones. So while they think they are stuffing it to the greedy rock stars.....they're actually harming smaller bands too.

I did actually say "just release it" in relation to GNR the other day! I do stand by that really. Hopefully there's a difference between myself saying it and someone saying it who hasn't thought about these things though.......

[Bridge]

I think people also miss the fact that labels use the money they make from bigger artists to invest in smaller ones. So while they think they are stuffing it to the greedy rock stars.....they're actually harming smaller bands too.

Yeah, that was the primary "argument" used to justify illegal downloading from day one.  "So what?  Who is hurt if we're illegally downloading?  A bunch of millionaires?"

Fact is, so many music "fans" never had any idea how many great bands they'd never hear because they had that attitude.

[pilferk]

Of course they should make more money from their streams. The split isn't equal. But it never was, was it?


But if the options are: Illegal downloading without any compensation to song writers/performers or streaming services, which one is better?

Remember iTunes Music Store? One song for $0.99. And then you could spend eternity listening to it and the artist would only make his/her/their cut from that 99 cents.





/jarmo

That cut of the .99? Less than a penny.

Like I said, I'm basically going to leave the debate since this isn't the proper place for my rant on the topic, but....it's not "the labels shouldn't make money".  It's "the labels shouldn't make 60% to 75% of the money, the retailer making 20% and the artist making (at max) about 8%".

The labels are not responsible for new music, or really anything good in the industry.  They promote, market, and distribute....all things other artists in other fields have figured out how to do on their own, for a LOT less than the labels take from the music artists.

Ok, done for real now.

[allwaystired]

Of course they should make more money from their streams. The split isn't equal. But it never was, was it?


But if the options are: Illegal downloading without any compensation to song writers/performers or streaming services, which one is better?

Remember iTunes Music Store? One song for $0.99. And then you could spend eternity listening to it and the artist would only make his/her/their cut from that 99 cents.





/jarmo

That cut of the .99? Less than a penny.

Like I said, I'm basically going to leave the debate since this isn't the proper place for my rant on the topic, but....it's not "the labels shouldn't make money".  It's "the labels shouldn't make 60% to 75% of the money, the retailer making 20% and the artist making (at max) about 8%".

The labels are not responsible for new music, or really anything good in the industry.  They promote, market, and distribute....all things other artists in other fields have figured out how to do on their own, for a LOT less than the labels take from the music artists.

Ok, done for real now.

Well, again, the bigger bands can promote market and distribute tings themselves, after they've made their money and have built a fanbase......but they absolutely need a label to get them off the ground. Hence why despite all the changes in the industry every band still searches for a record deal. It's a very simplistic view to say "labels=bad guys". It depends entirely on what deal has been signed as to the label/artist split.

[jarmo]

Also, there's a difference between major labels and independent labels.....




/jarmo

[allwaystired]

Also, there's a difference between major labels and independent labels.....




/jarmo

Yep. So many labels these days are run by really hard working, music loving people. I'm happy to support them with my money.

[Gavgnr]

Trouble is sometimes people make things as complicated as they want them to be and them complain how complicated things are 

[sky dog]

There is nothing complicated about no new songs in 12 years. Methods of distribution and artist royalties are irrelevant.

[jarmo]

GN'R is the kind of band who could go the independent route.

But I'm sure they are under contract with Universal Music.
Plus, Universal probably owns the masters for all GN'R releases. So then it's a question of, staying with them and have everything in the same house... Or go independent when/if you can, and have all your past recordings owned by Universal while releasing new things on your own...




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Well, again, the bigger bands can promote market and distribute tings themselves, after they've made their money and have built a fanbase......but they absolutely need a label to get them off the ground. Hence why despite all the changes in the industry every band still searches for a record deal. It's a very simplistic view to say "labels=bad guys". It depends entirely on what deal has been signed as to the label/artist split.

They absolutely don't.  Witness the rise of the youtube star and the tik tok artist....who labels glom onto AFTER those artists have done the heavy lifting.  Witness every other artistic pursuit, from fine art sold in personal online galleries to self published writers.  Labels are dinosaurs that serve little to no purpose.

People have been brainwashed to think the labels are this big supporter of the small artist.  They are not.  They take advantage of starving artists who they think they can make a shit ton of money off of and basically make them indentured servants. Or they manufacture "artists" (Milli Vanilli anyone?) who look nice and they can make sound decent with autotune, and they pay ghost writers to provide material for them.  If you think the labels serve any purpose other than to fill their swimming pools with money, you're sadly mistaken.  They are driven by greed, not any sort of artistic purity or benevolence.

jarmo is right. Some indie labels are basically artist consortiums and patrons who give the lions share of the money to the artist.  Unfortunately, they are far fewer and far between than I would like...and have less influence on the industry...than the major labels. When I talk about the label system, I'm talking about the major labels and the system they have imposed on the music industry.