true..MTV made that trend in the 80s when now band image and dress was more important..but the music still mattered..

I didn’t have access to MTV in those days but often, when there was a popular song I didn’t like, I’d get a glimpse of the artist and think “That explains it!”

Same here man. Sometimes it feels like someone “threw a switch” and shut it off. It’s crazy.

@@carlreijer4478 what makes his comment suspicious?

Thank you

And that makes you better than us?

Thank you. Appreciate your kind wishes

most all of them not worthy to remember ...

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. it is less of a case that musicians/bands are dreamers and happy to get anything, but rather it is that if THEY don't agree to those terms, there are many thousands of other musicians and bands who WILL accept the terms offered, and objectively their music product isn't "worse" or "better."

Yes you are precisely right. I wanted to also talk about relative market sizes for new businesses vs new pure music ventures. I was going to do it in this video but decided to it in a seperate upcoming video

You're very right man! I work in finance too. I also play guitar in my free time. Rocking out is sure better than golfing with the "finance bros". Haha

While he gets rich. With technology, they know exactly how many plays each artist has and could simply pay out based on that. But they use the excuse that the costs and "risk" takes a certain amount etc.

@@Scott__C Absolutely!

Is it though? Imagine living with no music whatsoever. No music in movies, TV shows, commercials, retail stores, restaurants, in your car, no music anywhere. I'm sure you would find out pretty quick just how important music is. People need to create that music, and learning how to make music and actually making the music itself takes a ton of time and work, and people want to be paid for their work. $10 for an album you love isn't going to kill you, it's actually pretty cheap.

@@MichaelSheaAudio $10? In 1994, 30 years ago, they were $30 Australian. And then you had to buy it to see what it was like to find it was mostly rubbish. The amount of money I wasted was astonishing, and I was poor, and they were loaded. That is no service to humanity. Today’s system is far superior.

@@princephilip-v5t I don't think I've ever paid more than $15 for an album in the past 20+ years. Canadian dollars. Spotify is great for finding new music. Once I find that music, I put it in my list of music to buy, or if I really like it, it goes right to the front. If you just want the singles, then pay the 99 cents for it and give the artist many times more than they make from streaming.

@@MichaelSheaAudio The moral argument you’re pushing is a false morality. Do you pay the artist when you listen to a song on the radio?

@@princephilip-v5t Bro I ain't listened to the radio in years. But to get radio play, the stations pay the artist or label a royalty or licensing fee. Radio was more relevant before streaming became popular, which meant people would hear the radio singles and then go buy the album. Streaming platforms generate fractions of cents per play. To make the artist $1 on Spotify, the equivalent of just buying a song, you'd have to listen to that song over 200 times.

Oh sir. It will make it worse

@@ministryofguitar Wait... Really? I thought it would because then the Music Business wouldn't have to exploit musicians that much anymore when they can use AI(which can even withstand exploitation as it does not feel any pain).

Thank you for sharing and taking the time to write. This is very comprehensive. Let me take the time to digest some of your points and perhaps address them in future videos

I don't think the relative cost of making a recording is zero. No, it is the marginal cost for each additional copy of a recording that is now zero. The costs involved with making the master recording - the studio time, mastering, etc., have not disappeared, and if you think the musicians should be compensated for their effort that cost hasn't disappeared either. Now, you may think that cost has come down from 250k in the 90's (and it is true that some costs have indeed come down) those costs aren't exactly zero, if nothing else there's the opportunity cost: the artist could have maybe made $50 bucks that day on a paper route or as an extra on a porno set. And there were plenty of artists in the 90's making records econo. I think Nirvana's first record was something like $400 or so? The whole indie and lo-fi scene was always on the budget. Daniel Johnston recorded on a cheap Radio Shack recorder and gave his early tapes away. But that's not the point. Recording costs have not come down to zero. And once the record was made- be it $400 or $250k, each additional copy had to be pressed at the record plant, and the jacket had to be printed, and someone had to put the records in a box and the box on the truck. Unlike a traditional record label, the cost to Spotify is roughly the same if a song is streamed once or a million times. They are not pressing, warehousing, and distributing product. They aren't even marketing it. Yes they probably have overhead like web hosting fees or server farms, but their business model - which is cheap or even free music for subscribers - relies on treating the underlying commodity - the song - as something which costs nothing to them and so is therefore essentially valueless. It's like they've found a way to sell air, but without having to go to the expense of putting it in cylinders first. This was never the case before: until Napster, if you wanted a record you had to plunk down cold hard cash to buy a physical object. Yes, the good old days were exploitative to anyone not named David Bowie or Paul McCartney, but at least it followed the standard Capitalist model whereby everyone who had a share in creating that physical object had a share in the eventual returns on that cash. That model is now broken- since there is no longer any cash changing hands at point of sale, it's difficult to assess what everyone's share of that zero cash is. Ek, of course, is of the opinion that the artist should get as little of that zero cash as possible. Why wouldn't he? After all there isn't any cash! And so that's exactly what he doesn't pay them (or more accurately what he doesn't pay the label or the owner of the copyright).

@@brokenrecord3095 If people are arguing for a bigger cut from Spotify, why the long route? When I was sitting in front of the Neve console surrounded by millions of dollars in tube compressors and equalizers, I had no idea you could replace all of it in a few years with free software, but you literally can. A cheap computer, audio I/O device, and software like "Reaper' gives nearly anyone (yes, homeless peeing themselves in a pool of their own vomit are excluded) the opportunity to prove how much better they are than the artists and engineers of the 70s. Some people seem to shit gold no matter what they do, and others can pay all the dues in the world and nobody cares. Ek isn't selling air, he's providing a platform where artists can determine whether anyone wants to listen to their output, and is splitting revenue with those who are generating streams. What that cut should be is worth debating, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the guy's tweet.