fascinating (and gorgeous!) chart showing the evolution of recorded-music revenue over the last 50 years

the first thing that jumps out at me is how much smaller the overall pie is post-streaming. the streaming services and major labels have successfully managed a) to dramatically devalue recorded music and b) to put a much larger percentage of it directly into their own pockets. it's one of the single biggest upward transfers of wealth in history — from artists to billionaire corporations

@hilljam this looks awesome. I would love to enphasize that corporations take a bigger share from the streaming revenue than they did from physical sales- because spotify is largely owned by the major labels. And with music as a service artists become much more replaceable- so they dont get to negotiate as much as they did back in the day. Its a bad time to be an artist.

Edit: spotify is not largely owned by major labels. It's another large company though.

@FlippoFlip @hilljam Spotify is not largely owned by the major record labels and never was. The highest stake they ever had in Spotify was 18%. This has dropped over time.

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/heres-exactly-how-many-shares-the-major-labels-and-merlin-bought-in-spotify-and-what-we-think-those-stakes-are-worth-now/

Here’s exactly how many shares the major labels and Merlin bought in Spotify – and what those stakes are worth

Documents from 2008 reveal much about Spotify then – and now…

Music Business Worldwide
@kylotan @hilljam whoops. Thanks. My point remains valid though i think.

@FlippoFlip @hilljam The reasons majors take a bigger share from digital than physical is two-fold:
1) digital distribution costs are far lower, so less goes to retailers and distributors;
2) many records, especially older ones, are on old deals that pre-dated streaming and assign a smaller percentage to uses like this because nobody knew they'd become the main revenue source.

Many artists are fighting to fix point 2.

But for me, the bigger problem is the devaluation of music to $10/month.

@kylotan
The overall market value is much bigger than it was around napster time. Still, musicians make less. Someone is getting rich off the artist back.
@hilljam
@FlippoFlip @hilljam The market value is smaller now in real terms - that is shown in the graph at the start of this thread.
@kylotan
As i read it, it us smaller than the peak around 2000. It's about as big as 2006.
@hilljam
@FlippoFlip @hilljam Napster was 2000. That’s what ended the peak. It’s never fully recovered from that, and can’t as long as the tech industry holds all the cards.
@kylotan Napster peaked in 2001 and then shut down. So I'm not sure how it would cause the remaining decline after that.
@iaoth Napster itself didn't, but it opened the floodgates to a series of similar technologies - Limewire, Soulseek, Bittorrent, etc. Piracy was absolutely rife between 2000 and 2010.
How much does Spotify pay per stream? What you'll earn per song, and how to get paid more for your music

Spotify generally pays between $.003 and $.005 per stream, but how much you'll be paid differs based on your distribution contract.

Business Insider
@Hawkmoon @FlippoFlip @hilljam Never said it did :) Just saying that putting the problem down to major label ownership is untrue. The main problem is the way the tech industry was able to undervalue music; the way major labels treat their musicians is a big problem but not the root cause here.

@kylotan @FlippoFlip @hilljam

The tech industry behavior in no way absolves labels of their responsibility in milking musicians.

@Hawkmoon @kylotan @hilljam can we agree upon the fact that someone is earning a lot of money with music and it's not the artists?
If spotify or warner takes the rake is pretty irrelevant to me.
@FlippoFlip @Hawkmoon @hilljam I think the bigger problem is that it’s undervalued. Even if we take the majors entirely out of the equation an artist still only gets a max of $0.003 per stream while Spotify take a little over $0.001. It’s too cheap.
@kylotan @Hawkmoon @hilljam the market will consolidate a little and some competition will leave. Then prices will rise and artists remain poor. Not sure thats a good deal.
@FlippoFlip @Hawkmoon @hilljam I've not proposed anything, so I have no idea what you're referring to, sorry!
@kylotan i was talking about rising prices fot streaming.
@FlippoFlip The only way the average artist will get significantly more from streaming is through price rises. A relatively small number are on major labels, and while they may well deserve a better deal, improving their terms doesn’t help anyone else.

@FlippoFlip @kylotan @hilljam

Yup. Musicians make money from touring and merch.

The Dead are a perfect example. They tried to make every performance unique, paid their roadies well, and let people record their concerts. They considered their albums promo materials.

@Hawkmoon @hilljam yeah, and that is a problem. I recently went to a concert and the artist (tim vantol, good singer) talked a bit about economics: he said he would love to take his band on tour one day, but as for now he is not able to afford it. And he said covid "destroyed a lot" for him. He is probably a good example of a musician who is "almost there"- and he is struggling. We need sustainable income for musicians.