Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   A look at why musicians are so pissed at YouTube   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Record label, YouTube, music industry, YouTube value gap, YouTube revenue, YouTube video, YouTube Red, EMI  
•       •       •

3941 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 15 Jul 2017 at 3:09 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-07-15 02:01:59 PM  
musicians have been farked as long as club owners, record labels, promoters and distributors have been around
yeah, youtube and spotify are farking them harder than ever
yeah, music wouldn't exist without them
but because playing music is so farking awesome, there's always going to be someone who says "fark it" and takes $0 in the hopes someone will listen to their work
 
2017-07-15 03:23:00 PM  
Record labels are musicians?
 
2017-07-15 03:26:38 PM  
Music labels accuse YouTube of using a legal loophole to pay less for songs than traditional music-streaming sites, calling YouTube the biggest threat since song piracy crippled the industry in the early 2000s.

No it didn't
 
2017-07-15 03:27:04 PM  
Music labels accuse YouTube of using a legal loophole to pay less for songs than traditional music-streaming sites, calling YouTube the biggest threat since song piracy crippled the industry in the early 2000s. The industry has pressed its case to regulators around the world in hopes of forcing a change.

No... it was because everyone finally transferred their music collections to CD from cassettes and other media and stopped buying crappy music.  It was those "music clubs" that did it.
 
2017-07-15 03:47:28 PM  
Wish I could find an article I read back in 2010ish. It looked at the actual effects pirating had on the music industry. As I recall the conclusion was that record sales/profits were down, but musicians were still making more money. This was because most musicians make their money with live performances. Record sales mostly go to record companies. So yes, pirating reduced the company profits, but because people were getting exposed to more bands concert profits went up.

\Grain of salt and all that, this is just my recollection.
 
2017-07-15 03:49:04 PM  
Would have loved to be able to read this article. I already used all my free views this month. Can we stop approving links that won't work unless you pay up?
 
2017-07-15 03:50:28 PM  
i bet they're upset because of money.  was i right?
 
2017-07-15 03:54:28 PM  
Is it the unskippable "grammarly" ads?

/DRTFA
 
2017-07-15 03:57:31 PM  
American Justice
Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp
Sober Farker
Fox News Intellectual
 
2017-07-15 03:57:54 PM  

Snapper Carr: American Justice
Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp
Sober Farker
Fox News Intellectual


And wrong thread, sorry.
 
2017-07-15 03:59:20 PM  
Oh the flip side, YouTub is the easiest way to share a song with someone if you want to let them hear a song you love. There's just too much incompatability between streaming services to easily share in other ways  (I use Apple Music so I can't easily share tracks with people who subscribe to Spotify, for example).

Take away YouTube as a vector for sharing music, and a lot of artists will be cutting their own throats.
 
kab
2017-07-15 04:02:54 PM  
Putting aside the music factor for a moment, I tend to think that Youtube's current situation is one where content providers need to get while the gettings good, so to speak.   Youtube is eventually going to realize that what's being paid out to video makers is nowhere near what they're pulling in as far as advertising money (largely due to ad blockers).

As for musicians themselves?  We go around and around continually on who's or what's at fault, bottom line is that society has more or less placed a value of zero dollars on recorded media, and being a musician has almost always been a scenario where the performer is the lowest rung on the ladder in terms of financial stability and income.   That's frankly more evident now than ever, and probably not going to change in the future.

You will always have the top sub-1% of acts that are heavily funded and appear to making shiatloads of money, but to consider them any representation of your average act is to equate powerball winners with your average median household.   Delusional at best.

Meanwhile, overall reductions in record sales tend to get offset by rising ticket prices (example:   an upcoming A Perfect Circle show at the local area = 54 bucks face value for nosebleed seats, $370 face value for front row), which tends to lead to increased cost for merchandise, and smaller shows and / or large lineup events to make all the financials work out.

"People will always have the desire to have their music heard".   To an extent, sure.   Playing music is cathartic on a personal level.  The act of sharing it (and the management of said word-spreading effort) is absolutely a business.    If you don't believe me, go ahead and try it yourself.
 
2017-07-15 04:07:15 PM  
The old "exposure is more valuable than money" argument
 
kab
2017-07-15 04:09:40 PM  

Jagernaut: Wish I could find an article I read back in 2010ish. It looked at the actual effects pirating had on the music industry. As I recall the conclusion was that record sales/profits were down, but musicians were still making more money. This was because most musicians make their money with live performances. Record sales mostly go to record companies. So yes, pirating reduced the company profits, but because people were getting exposed to more bands concert profits went up.

\Grain of salt and all that, this is just my recollection.


This argument tends to fall flat when one realizes that most acts aren't signed, and produce their first record(s) completely on their own dime.      Given that record distribution now is a non-factor, you'd wonder why any artist would even bother with signing a contract that doesn't give them full control and rights over their own music?   Most of it (I believe) simply has to do with up front advertising dollars that a band won't have access to themselves, including coverage by larger mags / sites.   Contrary to what they say, most big ' independent review' sites are anything but, and simply ignore submissions that aren't being put forth by a known promoter.

Any minute now we'll hear the "anyone can make an album for free with garageband and put it on youtube" schtick, I'm sure.
 
2017-07-15 04:11:58 PM  
You want to make money in music?  Sell t-shirts.
 
2017-07-15 04:18:04 PM  

Jagernaut: Wish I could find an article I read back in 2010ish. It looked at the actual effects pirating had on the music industry. As I recall the conclusion was that record sales/profits were down, but musicians were still making more money. This was because most musicians make their money with live performances. Record sales mostly go to record companies. So yes, pirating reduced the company profits, but because people were getting exposed to more bands concert profits went up.

\Grain of salt and all that, this is just my recollection.


I suppose the effect was "It depends". For unknown bands it may have had a positive effect. For most/many musicians, it was the death blow for a certain percentage of income from recording. I did a lot of session/backing work, that type of work pretty much went away forever. Budgets certainly got smaller, since the money would not be made from the actual recording. In other words, nobody was going to hire a string section or a brass section etc. on a product that won't make the money back and is being used as a calling card for a show.

I don't think it's been all gloom and doom. Ultimately I don't care, because it's here to stay. As a pro musician I recognize this, and have altered any paths or perceptions to stay ahead of the game.
 
2017-07-15 04:20:09 PM  

Snapper Carr: Snapper Carr: American Justice
Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp
Sober Farker
Fox News Intellectual

And wrong thread, sorry.


Yet, like most times this happens on Fark, it still kinda actually fits the thread.

Funny how that works.
 
2017-07-15 04:20:18 PM  

edmo: The old "exposure is more valuable than money" argument


Unless of course you're talking about your service's exposure to new and more returning people coming to it to listen to music, without which they wouldn't be there, or not nearly as much, leading to fewer clicks and less ad revenue.  Then money is somehow more valuable than the exposure your service gets because of the music.  So you have to keep 70% or more of the ad revenue and pay them a penny per 100 views, instead of per each view.  Even though they may be making something like 25 or 50 cents per view...  Even 5 or 10 cents apiece is grand theft at a tenth of a penny per play.

If everyone would just stop bloody stealing from the artists with both hands as fast as they can for one goddamned second, we could have a golden age of plentiful, cheap, varied music available on all devices, and everyone would prosper.  But noooooo, gotta strangle that golden goose as fast as you can catch it...
 
2017-07-15 04:28:05 PM  

kab: Jagernaut: Wish I could find an article I read back in 2010ish. It looked at the actual effects pirating had on the music industry. As I recall the conclusion was that record sales/profits were down, but musicians were still making more money. This was because most musicians make their money with live performances. Record sales mostly go to record companies. So yes, pirating reduced the company profits, but because people were getting exposed to more bands concert profits went up.

\Grain of salt and all that, this is just my recollection.

This argument tends to fall flat when one realizes that most acts aren't signed, and produce their first record(s) completely on their own dime.      Given that record distribution now is a non-factor, you'd wonder why any artist would even bother with signing a contract that doesn't give them full control and rights over their own music?   Most of it (I believe) simply has to do with up front advertising dollars that a band won't have access to themselves, including coverage by larger mags / sites.   Contrary to what they say, most big ' independent review' sites are anything but, and simply ignore submissions that aren't being put forth by a known promoter.

Any minute now we'll hear the "anyone can make an album for free with garageband and put it on youtube" schtick, I'm sure.


All good points. I can definitely see how a big record company would dramatically boost advertising and public knowledge. Very few people pirate an unknown bands first album unless they get big and well known.

A lot of industries that can be transfered digitally (games, movies, porn, etc.) are moving into post-scarcity territory. Our current economic system was not designed with this in mind. We're seeing interesting shifts in all of them. The big name AAA features still make money and have large companies behind them, but more and more were seeing tiny producers create a loyal following. They make their money by interacting with fans on a individual(ish) level, i.e. the rise of amateur porn and webcam models. I think there's still room for both models and we won't see either go away for a long time.
 
2017-07-15 04:38:04 PM  
You know who loves YouTube? Small acts who are just beginning to build a following and who can connect directly with their fanbases to circumvent all the music industry middlemen until they're big enough to demand favorable terms.

You know who hates YouTube? The people still trying to make money off the old system of album sales and club promotion. They see YouTube as a revenue channel instead of a tool to build a connection to the audience, and what they're going to get from it will diminish more and more over time because the handwriting is already on the wall for spot advertising. Product placement, 1:1 sponsorships and promotional content are the future for online platforms.
 
kab
2017-07-15 04:40:19 PM  
Jagernaut:
All good points. I can definitely see how a big record company would dramatically boost advertising and public knowledge. Very few people pirate an unknown bands first album unless they get big and well known.

A lot of industries that can be transfered digitally (games, movies, porn, etc.) are moving into post-scarcity territory. Our current economic system was not designed with this in mind. We're seeing interesting shifts in all of them. The big name AAA features still make money and have large companies behind them, but more and more were seeing tiny producers create a loyal following. They make their money by interacting with fans on a indivi ...


I agree.

I'm personally surprised that no up and coming bands haven't started utilizing Twitch.tv to stream rehearsals or even studio sessions   There's a surprising amount of money to be made there, with very little overhead.

Additionally, clubs can (and should) develop some sort of livestream subscription for all acts that come through a given venue over a set number of weeks / months.   Everyone gets a cut, everyone increases their revenue, and it may even allow for a reduction in ticket costs (thus increasing actual in-person attendance).    A place like the Knitting Factory would be a great example of a known club that could probably make use of this sort of thing.
 
2017-07-15 04:46:13 PM  
What I want to know is - when is YouTube going to do something about the thousands of fake live streams posted by bots????  They are easy to spot but still require you to sift through pages of bullshiat before finding legitimate live vids

/not even looking for live streams, just good quality bootlegs.
 
2017-07-15 04:48:56 PM  
When marginal production costs=$0.00 and average variable costs approach the limit of $0.00 then the fair market price of a good/service is $0.00
/news at 11
 
2017-07-15 04:55:20 PM  

kab: an upcoming A Perfect Circle show at the local area = 54 bucks face value for nosebleed seats, $370 face value for front row)


For that kind of money, you better get a free shirt, program, snack and a blowjob from the lead singer on demand.
 
kab
2017-07-15 04:56:05 PM  

mr lawson: When marginal production costs=$0.00 and average variable costs approach the limit of $0.00 then the fair market price of a good/service is $0.00
/news at 11


found one.
 
2017-07-15 04:58:13 PM  
"calling YouTube the biggest threat since song piracy crippled the industry in the early 2000s. "

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2017-07-15 05:00:00 PM  

kab: mr lawson: When marginal production costs=$0.00 and average variable costs approach the limit of $0.00 then the fair market price of a good/service is $0.00
/news at 11

found one.


Hey, If you want to argue against an economic theory that is accepted by all economist, knock yourself out.
 
2017-07-15 05:00:54 PM  

Thudfark: Record labels are musicians?


THIS.
 
2017-07-15 05:18:38 PM  
What's "killing" the music industry is the same thing that's "killing" the movie industry, movie theaters, the gaming industry, the pc industry, the console industry, etc.

It's called being managed by farkwits who think the average household can afford a small fortune to be spent each month in digital entertainment and hardware.

Sure, I can buy 2 or 3 15$ CDs a month. But add 2, 3 BR movies, 50 or 75 bucks a month for the yearly piece of hardware (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, TV, BR reader,etc), 2 games at 70$, 4 movie tickets at 10$ a piece (I only twice but I have to pay for someone else to come along otherwise I'm a sociopath), let's not forget to throw in 30 bucks for Netflix, HBO and some godforsaken cable channel I have to susbcribe to so as to be able to sound normal at the water cooler... Oh, and at least one night out at the restaurant. Put this at 2x30  = 60$ because, again, I have to buy it for someone.

Also add the Playstation Plus/XBox Gold service at 5$ and 40$ for the mobile plan.

Christ, almost forgot, yeah, I do buy the latest NYT Best Seller on Kindle, even if I never go beyond page 20. Add another 10$. Plus 30$ in comics, let it be the latest Batman or the latest half-a**edly drawn boll**kery from Portland about some depressed, transitioning comics artist with a chip on the shoulder.
Thankfully, being the average, model citizen, I don't have a subscription to a newspaper.

And just be thankful I didn't throw in Amazon Prime, WoW and that I live alone.

And yes, please, after I've spent all this money just to sustain this fantasy of an average, cool&connected citizen, please have Fox News break down my door and film everything so that Sean Farkin' Hannity can go on and wonder how I can afford all this shiat while on food stamps.
Who the fark wouldn't be after spending over 500$ a month on CGI-enhanced, Autotuned-to-fark tripe?

When they shut down extratorrent, I don't remember having a 10$ note magically appearing in my wallet so that I could buy additional content legally.

Music industry's dying ?
Good. Music will survive.
 
2017-07-15 05:20:50 PM  

Pjd1965: Would have loved to be able to read this article. I already used all my free views this month. Can we stop approving links that won't work unless you pay up?


Just dont click on WaPo articles - they're farking paywall wankers.
 
2017-07-15 05:47:18 PM  

secularsage: You know who loves YouTube? Small acts who are just beginning to build a following and who can connect directly with their fanbases to circumvent all the music industry middlemen until they're big enough to demand favorable terms.

You know who hates YouTube? The people still trying to make money off the old system of album sales and club promotion. They see YouTube as a revenue channel instead of a tool to build a connection to the audience, and what they're going to get from it will diminish more and more over time because the handwriting is already on the wall for spot advertising. Product placement, 1:1 sponsorships and promotional content are the future for online platforms.


I don't know, had an independent artist scold me a bit for linking to a YouTube video for their music, and asked me to use their Bandcamp link instead. Bandcamp certainly has advantages over YouTube, but it's not something that would be most people's automatic go to.
 
2017-07-15 05:53:01 PM  
Does that mean musicians might be reduced to putting on live performances for money? The horrors!
 
2017-07-15 05:54:11 PM  
Is it because they read the comments?
 
kab
2017-07-15 05:58:01 PM  

LectertheChef: secularsage: You know who loves YouTube? Small acts who are just beginning to build a following and who can connect directly with their fanbases to circumvent all the music industry middlemen until they're big enough to demand favorable terms.

You know who hates YouTube? The people still trying to make money off the old system of album sales and club promotion. They see YouTube as a revenue channel instead of a tool to build a connection to the audience, and what they're going to get from it will diminish more and more over time because the handwriting is already on the wall for spot advertising. Product placement, 1:1 sponsorships and promotional content are the future for online platforms.

I don't know, had an independent artist scold me a bit for linking to a YouTube video for their music, and asked me to use their Bandcamp link instead. Bandcamp certainly has advantages over YouTube, but it's not something that would be most people's automatic go to.


Bandcamp is a good (arguably the best) buy-direct setup for artists looking to sell their wares.  While the Youtube vid might have a bandcamp link in the details, most people watching aren't going to bother with that second click I suspect.

They even include all sorts of stats, so an aspirant can see how valuable their day job actually is.
 
2017-07-15 06:01:53 PM  

Snapper Carr: Snapper Carr: American Justice
Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp
Sober Farker
Fox News Intellectual

And wrong thread, sorry.


Rain on your wedding day.

/I'll take "things that aren't illustrative of the word the user wants to illustrate" for $100, Alex.
 
2017-07-15 06:17:56 PM  

Elzar: Pjd1965: Would have loved to be able to read this article. I already used all my free views this month. Can we stop approving links that won't work unless you pay up?

Just dont click on WaPo articles - they're farking paywall wankers.


My reaction when I click on links that hate on  my ad blocking:

img.fark.net


img.fark.net

 
2017-07-15 06:35:49 PM  
They looked at the comments?
 
2017-07-15 07:18:05 PM  

kab: Contrary to what they say, most big ' independent review' sites are anything but, and simply ignore submissions that aren't being put forth by a known promoter.


Which is why I use pirating sites as my primary source for what's new.  But I don't actually pirate 99% of the time and I'll delete or buy if I do and I buy what I like from the 99%, Bandcamp or Amazon.

/that 1% doesn't have a free streaming option, or releases their album in Europe 4 months before the USA which is a unique brand of stupid these days, or it's a leak of a band I really like and I'm impatient
 
2017-07-15 07:52:18 PM  

Pjd1965: Would have loved to be able to read this article. I already used all my free views this month. Can we stop approving links that won't work unless you pay up?


Can people stop posting this dumb ass shiat? Options, you haz them:

- use a private browser window
- support good journalism and pay for some content
- don't click the link

It's the same thing in every farking WaPo thread.

End rant.
 
2017-07-15 08:02:07 PM  

The Flexecutioner: i bet they're upset because of money.  was i right?


Nah, it's about who's winning the NL East.
You're pretty f*cking astute.
 
2017-07-15 08:05:49 PM  
Just get pi-hole, cheap and effective solution that doesn't require an ad-blocker on browser, sites can't even detect your using an adblocker so don't get those stupid blocker windows.
 
433 [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2017-07-15 09:04:56 PM  

abiigdog: Just get pi-hole, cheap and effective solution that doesn't require an ad-blocker on browser, sites can't even detect your using an adblocker so don't get those stupid blocker windows.


People can also open incognito windows in Chrome if they want to go for a quick and easy route without extra stuffs.  But I'll have to look into pi-hole myself, later.
 
2017-07-15 09:24:45 PM  
I stopped reading when they said song piracy crippled the industry in the early 2000's. NOT they had record profits.
 
2017-07-15 10:00:53 PM  
So in another article on Fark today it showed that Bruce makes 46 MM this year

40 million from touring

6 million from everything else.

2 MM from royalties and music sales...

This article is a waste of time.
 
2017-07-15 10:32:57 PM  

Bslim: "calling YouTube the biggest threat since song piracy crippled the industry in the early 2000s. "

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 774x517]


Was going to post something similar. Biggest crock of shiat.
 
2017-07-15 10:35:49 PM  

All Intensive Purposes: Pjd1965: Would have loved to be able to read this article. I already used all my free views this month. Can we stop approving links that won't work unless you pay up?

Can people stop posting this dumb ass shiat? Options, you haz them:

- use a private browser window
- support good journalism and pay for some content
- don't click the link

It's the same thing in every farking WaPo thread.

End rant.


img.fark.net

For most sites, just deleting everything in the HTML.class or BODY.class element clears that right up.
 
2017-07-15 11:04:06 PM  
I dont see ninja sex party biatching about this.
 
2017-07-15 11:10:35 PM  

kab: Additionally, clubs can (and should) develop some sort of livestream subscription for all acts that come through a given venue over a set number of weeks / months. Everyone gets a cut, everyone increases their revenue, and it may even allow for a reduction in ticket costs (thus increasing actual in-person attendance). A place like the Knitting Factory would be a great example of a known club that could probably make use of this sort of thing.


unless said club(s) have regular sell outs for even more obscure bands.... no. just farking no, god damnit.

It's hard enough getting people to come out to shows as is when there are so many other entertainment options out there. I've seen establish bands play for venues that are 10% full before and it totally kills the atmosphere of going to a live show - especially when they are a band that feed off of the energy that the audience throws back at them - resulting in a lackluster performance from the band as well. intimate? sure. but for the disheartened musicians they just go through the motions. it sucks.

on top of that - if they are playing a 500 person club and only 100 people come out - the promoter likely took a loss on the show and the venue probably won't want to book that band again (unless of course those 100 people consumed the alcohol equivalent of 250 people in 5 hours).

If bands want to live stream their performances - that is fine. but if people expect venues to do that for every show? no. fark that.

/part time promoter.
 
2017-07-16 12:07:43 AM  
No one's mentioning the fact that there's a change and people don't actually want to own their music anymore.  They don''t want  to have to haul around CD's and house physical media and they don't trust even the largest companies to handle licensing of owned music because they know if they stop the service or the company tanks then that's it....they've wasted money.

The music industry still has things pretty good for themselves even with the dramatic changes.  And mostly they've managed to achieve this by tightening the screws to artists they sign to contracts.  Once you put your name in ink with those people you either end up a superstar with the ability to hire the lawyers to get you a better deal or you end up heavily in debt and at the mercy of the label to decide whether you are deserving enough to let off the hook.

The labels still have a stranglehold on the industry despite how much some would try and convince you that it has changed or is changing.  There's no artist that has become a "break out" that did it without using the current system in place.  Sure, some have been innovative and made it work for them but they're still relegated to the third-tier (I'm looking at you Lindsay Sterling at CD signings at Barnes and Noble).
 
2017-07-16 01:29:43 AM  
I think the core problem is people assuming that if they always made money doing a thing, then that thing should always be worth that money. If the day comes when that thing isn't making that money, this means something is broken, or someone is being cheated. This is simply not true and never has been.

 Ask the horse and buggy people, ask the VCR people, ask the people who had businesses developing film. Things change and entire types of businesses are gone in a blink of an eye.

Maybe, just maybe, recorded music isn't worth jack shiat. Not many want to even acknowledge that as a possibility, much less a reality. Maybe recorded music is in that category of 'things people use for free'. When you go to a restaurant and wind up in the restroom because you ordered sauce hotter than you should have, do you pay for the toilet paper and the water you use to wash your hands(hopefully) and the air blower that dries your hands? No. That stuff is paid for alright, but not directly. The restaurant sells you on other things, and what you pay for those other things is the money that covers the 'free' stuff.

Recorded music needs to be seen this way from now on. At most, recorded music is a perk to entice people to pay for something else, something with actual value.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report