# Streaming and classical music



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's looking more and more like the micro-payments from streaming services may hurt musicians. From the NYT article linked to below: "The question dogging the music industry is whether these micropayments can add up to anything substantial. 'No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that's very few,' said Hartwig Masuch, chief executive of BMG Rights Management."

This may be particularly true in classical music, where a single "song" (say, an orchestral piece or movement) probably gets the same half-penny payment per stream as a song by Justin Bieber (who issues about one album per year, each with ten or so songs). This notwithstanding the longer time required for the composition and the larger forces needed to perform it.

Lots of real facts and figures (and artists' payments) in the article. Comments?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/b...all&adxnnlx=1359461206-wa7Z4pFZbJog/IWgAjSHkw&


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Just thinking out loud, but I remember that Spotify used to cut me off to display an ad during a very long piece or so. Could they have some sort of system in which a certain length cuts off the track as well, counting each time you hear an ad or so a listen?


----------



## knarf (Jan 20, 2013)

If the payment to the rights holders and performers wasn't enough, why did they agree to it in the first place? Rights holders held all the cards in these negotiations. Seems like the same old same old - the RIAA and labels complaining that they're not getting more money from consumers than their product is worth in the marketplace. Boo Hoo.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

and even then, I doubt the performers are getting a good enough fraction (if at all) of that money in the first place.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

That would suck if Internet Radio got discontinued or more rigid. I remember when Pandora was about it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Not quite the same topic, but I think the mp3 purchasing services, iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, etc., need to get a clue that $0.99 for a 20 minute symphonic movement or marathon progressive rock track does not equate with a 3 minute pop song. It's often $0.99 per track regardless of length. So a Mahler symphony really gets shafted with this plan. I'd pay more for a longer track just to be fair.

Some sites bypass the middle man completely and supposedly pay the artist's directly. I presume the site gets a cut, but I try to support these when I can. Not much good classical on those though.


----------



## knarf (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't think $0.99 per track is common for Classical on Amazon. It's not the impression I've gotten from nosing around on there. Anything I've wanted that's of any length has been more. Mainstream label stuff, anyway.

Not sure about iTunes or Rhapsody.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Ken, interesting article. At this rate, it seems like either streaming goes by the wayside, or performing as a musician ceases to be a remunerative profession.

Possible outcome: Classical music (and not necessarily only classical) becomes deprofessionalized. The future of CM, if any, then reverts to the old model: a culture of amateurs performing for and among themselves, outside of the realm of commercial profitability, rather than our current classical musical industrial model of a vanishingly small number of conservatory-trained professionals producing commodities for passive listeners.

Would that necessarily be an entirely bad thing? A CM world defined by domestic amateur music-making rather than by discounted box sets, eye-candy virtuosi, 99-cent downloads, and perpetual reissues in new recording formats. 

I think I can see an up side.

Playing devil's advocate here (maybe).


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Streaming is the biggest financial disaster for struggling musicians (of any kind) since Beethoven realized he couldn't quite do it alone and without kissing the buttocular regions of his aristocratic cronies.


----------



## knarf (Jan 20, 2013)

When you consider that most ensembles are active live performers and that virtually no composition royalties have to be paid on the recordings, it may not be the disaster for Classical Music that you think it is.

Also, this:
http://www.spotifyclassical.com/2012/11/to-damon-krukowski-everyone-who-is.html


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

If we care this much, shouldn't we make a rule that talkclassical.com cannot post links to youtube videos, and seek out some alternate way of posting content that compensates the rights holders?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

No, because we only care when someone else is supposed to pick up the check.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hreichgott said:


> If we care this much, shouldn't we make a rule that talkclassical.com cannot post links to youtube videos, and seek out some alternate way of posting content that compensates the rights holders?


Hear, hear!

Unfortunately, talkclassical can't make such a decision bc it would just drive users to less ethical sites. Market forces.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I think that streaming is a new (and good) business model and the market is still adjusting itself. I believe that if there is interest on classical music at this services they will find a way to give a proper compensation for the musicians, since it is their best interest that new music is produced.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

1. Classical music can either choose to adapt and become easily accessible in this era of instantaneously available information, or it will die/become increasingly irrelevant. That's the harsh truth, I'm afraid, and ignoring the problem and harping on an obsolete model simply won't change anything. I discovered classical music through Youtube when I was 12/13, and without the music being easily available to me like that, I would certainly not be typing this.

2. Many of the record labels actually receive what are known as "sync royalties" from those youtube videos hreichgott mentioned, where all of the advertising revenue generated from a video is given to the record label. This is how popular music labels are able to justify uploading their music to youtube (through services such as Vevo) and making it freely accessible.

Perhaps a quick sidenote to explain my own experience with the "new model", if you're not convinced that it can be made to work.

As a composer, I subscribe to the ideology of releasing all of my music for free under a Creative Commons license, which allows people like videomakers to use my music in their projects freely, with the only condition being that they provide credit and a link to my SoundCloud page. My music gets a lot of exposure this way when it's used as background music in a video which becomes exceptionally popular. This in turn drives people to buy albums, sheet music and donate. (I've received far more revenue from donations than the former two, interestingly.)

The best part of all is that the exposure attracts the attention of filmmakers and game developers who commission musical scores for their projects. I can then release this music under a Creative Commons license, and the cycle continues.

I can guarantee you that I've earned far more in the past two years than I would have had I gone through traditional routes, and things are only getting better and better every day. I really can't complain.

The internet is a godsend for classical music, it need not be feared.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Financial statements indicate that admin costs, legal costs, investigative costs, lobbying costs, etc. are the main reasons why collecting/dispersing organizations need bigger pieces of pies.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/17400810200.shtml


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Getting stuff off YouTube isn't necessarily bad for musicians. If it encourages people to try & like classical composers, it may stimulate demand for them to buy cds & go to concerts. 
It has certainly worked like that for us. Since we turned to music & to FB, YouTube etc, we have bought 5 cds of clips I put on my FB page, and we also found out about Norwich Baroque, our local ensemble, and now go to their concerts regularly.
And 3 months after joining TC, we've learned a lot more, which will doubtless result in more purchases. 
Ambience is all...


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm not sure if the financial aspect is fair or sustainable or not but I know that I LOVE Spotify. As a young person/musician who doesn't have a lot of money, Spotify has allowed me to have access to thousands of albums that I never could have purchased. Youtube doesn't cut it for me. Poor quality and no easy way to organize the music. If these streaming services were ever to disappear, i'd be devastated.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

Just when I was giving up streaming in favor of collecting, I decided to give a try to Google new All Access service (one month is free). It has an outstanding amount of classical music. I think I will keep my subscription for $8/month. I am outside US but managed to subscribe and found it excellent!

For reference, I am trying to get more familiar with Claudio Arrau performances and found 70 albums from him on All Access. How to argue with that? :tiphat:


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

So much streaming options these days. I'm so lucky to be in this era for Internet access.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

julianoq said:


> Just when I was giving up streaming in favor of collecting, I decided to give a try to Google new All Access service (one month is free). It has an outstanding amount of classical music. I think I will keep my subscription for $8/month. I am outside US but managed to subscribe and found it excellent!
> 
> For reference, I am trying to get more familiar with Claudio Arrau performances and found 70 albums from him on All Access. How to argue with that? :tiphat:


How usable do you find the indexing and search features?


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

KenOC said:


> How usable do you find the indexing and search features?


It has some strange behavior, but is surprisingly good once you learn how to use it.

For example, I searched for Leonard Bernstein and it found only 10 albums. But if I click on the Artist name if gives me a full biography of him and list 100 albums under him! It works the same way with composers.

Classical music tagging is always a pain since the publishers usually provide incomplete/missing information, but it seems to be well organized, specially if you search for specific composers/conductors.

Edit: another important detail that I was missing:

"@urbanstrata: Attn classical music fans: Google Play Music All Access features Deutsche Gramophone releases, something neither Spotify nor Rdio have. Yes!"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Claudio Arrau is dead, those recordings now in an area of very little cost to redistribute in such a medium. Fine for the consumer. Be prepared to pay more for anything more current, though.

For living composers and performers, this is really NOT the place -- unless they want to sell themselves at Wall-Mart bargain bin prices, and essentially reveal how #$)^)*$ing desperate they are for exposure -- not good to tip your hand that much, nor on that great a public scale.

That is the only real argument from the camp of living musicians and composers, and a convincing one. Don't give it away for a fraction of a fraction of a penny per play. Find other venues, keep your day job, and keep plugging away at the ones not already set up to appeal to the total bargain hunter.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Claudio Arrau is dead, those recordings now in an area of very little cost to redistribute in such a medium. Fine for the consumer. Be prepared to pay more for anything more current, though.
> 
> For living composers and performers, this is really NOT the place -- unless they want to sell themselves at Wall-Mart bargain bin prices, and essentially reveal how #$)^)*$ing desperate they are for exposure -- not good to tip your hand that much, nor on that great a public scale.


I am not sure it is such a bad deal for living artists. I just found 20 albums from Hilary Hahn, 11 from Janine Jansen, 31 from Joshua Bell. Marta Argerich, that is from an older generation but still alive, has nothing less than 99 albums available.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

One big very commercial model based on the mean average as supported by the general population.

I don't find much of any possible room or viability for a next Beethoven, i.e. a contemporary classical one, in this kind of venue. Ergo, it is no solution to say classical music must adapt or it will die. There is no room here on any real practical basis for anything much more than the most readily accessible and middle of the road work.

As if there were not already a goodly number of composers able to fill the needs of film and video game scores, too. LOL.

Nope, it needs drastic revision as to what the public pays, and what is paid to the musicians. I suppose there are always the over-eager who sell their work far too soon and too short, and are happy if the revenue gets to be enough to pay one of their utility bills, but that is very different from a full-time living as a pro performer or composer.

I'm guessing a lot of the same ole same ole as to which living musicians these services get on board -- those really thinking 'exposure' is some form of valuable pay with which they can put food on the table.

P.s. in a real "Art" market, you had better control where your scores end up being used in conjunction with video media, or your image and cred could be wrecked overnight.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

___________________________________________


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

PetrB said:


> One big very commercial model based on the mean average as supported by the general population.
> 
> I don't find much of any possible room or viability for a next Beethoven, i.e. a contemporary classical one, in this kind of venue. Ergo, it is no solution to say classical music must adapt or it will die. There is no room here on any real practical basis for anything much more than the most readily accessible and middle of the road work.
> 
> ...


Historically, many of our favorite composers struggled with money. Also, many had to compose works for formats that they doesn't really liked to get money and be able to compose works that they liked (video-game music?). I don't think that money is the reason that we don't have a "new Beethoven" today.

For performers, in my opinion it is clear that the way to make money nowadays is performing. In this age of quick an easy information flowing on computers/smartphones very few people will get rich only selling albums. The albums are made to make the performer popular, not rich, so he can make money performing. I think that's a reasonable business model and I don't see a lack of people wanting to be the next virtuoso. The streaming services are great for many musicians not famous enough to sell many albums to be known. You are more likely to check a performance for a new musician when his performance is included on a subscription service than to buy an album with few references.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

julianoq said:


> I am not sure it is such a bad deal for living artists. I just found 20 albums from Hilary Hahn, 11 from Janine Jansen, 31 from Joshua Bell. Marta Argerich, that is from an older generation but still alive, has nothing less than 99 albums available.


None of those you named started their already wildly successful careers by streaming -- you miss the point.

Younger, start of career performers and composers have little to gain here, including credibility re: they are earnest young performers and composers.

Those recordings of Arrau, or the living performers you named, the bulk of revenue from those releases has already been made; the streaming revenue but a tiny bump / boost to a past market peak sales of the product. I'm sure Claudio Arrau's heirs, his grandchildren by now, thank you every time those quarterly royalty checks for $12.57 arrive in the mail 

(Argerich gets a five-figure sum every time she solos with an orchestra, and also thanks you for the additional pocket change.)


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

PetrB said:


> None of those you named started their already wildly successful careers by streaming -- you miss the point.
> 
> Younger, start of career performers and composers have little to gain here, including credibility re: they are earnest young performers and composers.
> 
> ...


That's my point: performers get money performing. The records are a way to get popularity and to be hired for more performances. I think start of career performers have much more to win on streaming than on regular cd sales. Since they are not well known, how many of them would sell many records on a regular 90's decade market?

I subscribed for a streming service yesterday and today I listened to a Sibelius violin concerto that I would not buy because the performer is not well known to me. I liked and I would attend a performance of him. I think that is better for him than me not buying his record.


----------

