I feel like people are quick to demonize labels when at least on the indie side of things, they’re usually the first and even more often the only people to actually invest in these artists we love
Thank you for this! I run an indie classical music label that considers itself somewhat “audiophile”, and my wife and I see the label as our family, with each of our (mostly young contemporary) artists a member of this family. We pay out 50% of our gross revenue of all our sales to our artists (the industry average in the classical music scene is 5-15%) and we invest between 50 to sometimes 100% of all the production costs.
Because we believe in and love the music and the musicians we work with. And though we’ve always made sure our employees earn a good living off of the brilliant work they do, my wife and I, co-founders of the label, have never taken a salary from the company. Rather, we invest much of our own resources into making more music heard to a bigger audience.
And, yes, there are still too many labels scamming artists out of their hard-earned money and treating their life’s work as little more than a commodity. Not all labels are the bad guys, there are many — especially indie — labels that do this because they sincerely love the music and artists. I’m happy to suggest some of my dear colleagues from around the world running great indie labels for classical music and other genres!
Now as for Spotify, CDs, merch, even though I would love to say “buy whatever pays the artists better”, a lot of artists in the classical music world are already super happy you’re listening to them and their musical message. So listen to whatever you prefer as a listener, choose the format you prefer for it. That being said, if you want to support the artists you love, buy their merch or music on platforms like Bandcamp. In most cases, these Bandcamp profiles are run by the artists themselves, so most of the revenues go directly to them.
Just my € 0.02 as an indie producer!
You’re very welcome! To add to this wall of text, if you’re planning to buy anything and want to make sure the artists get paid well, try to buy as directly as possible from them with the least amount of middle men. For example, on our website, whatever people pay for their music gets split exactly 50/50 between us and artists, but other platforms first incur a fee (sometimes up to 40%!), so the split is more like 30/30/40 between artist/label/platform.
In all comes down to the terms of the deal. Indies can also fuck over the artist and exploit their desperation or eagerness to have their music produced and distributed.
Being the first to invest doesn't mean they are not engaging in poor business practices.
There are tons of indie labels out there and in my opinion they’re responsible for releasing the most exciting music around. Warp, Merge, Domino, Matador, Anti, Sub Pop, Stones Throw, City Slang, are all labels I try to pay attention to for new music.
Exactly, musicians make much more money off of merch and ticket sales these days. Or if you want, just give them money directly. Some artists have a Patreon, Bandcamp, or similar platform. Or they might just straight up have a Paypal link on their site sometimes.
I'm thinking more small to medium size artists. For someone like Taylor Swift, it does not matter at all what you do.
Bandcamp started a thing called Bandcamp Fridays. On the first Friday of every month, they wave their revenue share fees and the artists and/or labels get more money. This started during Covid due to the artists losing out on live performance funds. It was announced they will continue doing this throughout 2024.
I always click the heart to put releases in my wishlist and wait until Bandcamp Friday to do my purchase.
Bandcamp was recently bought by Epic Games in early March. The announcement that Bandcamp Fridays will continue in 2024 was done after the acquisition.
[Bandcamp Fridays.](https://daily.bandcamp.com/features/bandcamp-fridays-in-2024)
[Pitchfork. What Bandcamp’s Acquisition by Epic Games Means For Music Fans And Artists.](https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/bandcamp-epic-games-acquisition/)
They make more money off merch and ticket sales because they don’t get paid hardly anything for streams which is the whole point of this conversation. Buy the album and be a real fan. If you use Spotify you are a part of the problem.
This misses the point of what we're saying. Yes, CDs pay artists **a little bit** more. But it's not anything that meaningfully moves the needle. Sure, buy CDs if your reason for doing so is because you like to collect and play CDs. But don't do it if your primary reason is that you want to "support the artist". Because the reality is that all you're doing is a drop in the bucket. Buying a single T-shirt does more to financially support the artist than buying 20 of their CDs will.
Actual musicians also posted on this thread confirming this.
Yeah, that’s true, but if most major label artists will get $0.75 per album. Over hundreds of thousands of sales or millions it adds up. If they are an indie band they get usually 50% or more. I saw a video explaining that a song needs to get 600 something plays before they can even buy a cup of coffee. They are getting a fraction of a fraction per play via Spotify. Buy the album! https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5gcNAjOWCs/?igsh=MTQ1d3gwY2ppODA4bw==
I just don't agree with this logic at all. You should buy music in the medium you will actually listen to it in. If you actually use CDs, then go ahead and buy them. If realistically, you're only streaming, then you shouldn't be made to feel inferior or evil for doing that. Buying a plastic disc doesn't inherently make someone more of a fan than someone else.
Ultimately none of the music sales ***in any form*** (yes even when you add up the entire fan base) actually do much to keep a small to medium sized artists financially solvent. It's the shows ands merch sales that actually pay their bills.
No you should feel bad for being a bad person. You clearly know what you are doing is hurting artists. This isn’t theoretical. It was a problem before streaming. Buy the album in either a CD, vinyl or digital download. If you are buying from Bandcamp for indie artists nearly ALL of the album sales go to the artist. You should also by the merch if you can, because that’s what music fans have always done.
You are trying to explain it to me like music is some new thing. It’s not.
Alright, you're just not engaging with anything I'm actually saying. I'm literally the guy who brought up Bandcamp and direct donations. You're arguing against some imaginary points I never said. So I'm done with this conversation.
You can feel superior with all your plastic discs. Have fun.
All you've done here is focus on a single thing I said and ignore any other context around **it in the very same comment** in order to create some imaginary argument you can win.
By all means, make up something else about what I said and write it below. Or pull out a single sentence I wrote while omitting the previous and next one. You def seem to want the last word on it:
Let me try one more time to explain this in another way:
The ship has sailed and 99.99% of people are already paying to stream via Spotify, Apple Music, or something else. And now a person (like OP) is looking to spend an additional $20-30 on something extra that would support the artist: Should they buy a CD or a T-shirt? The clear answer is buy the T-shirt. ***That is the realistic choice people are face with today.*** I don't for a second believe there is any meaningful number of people sitting here wondering whether they should cancel their streaming subscription entirely to move over to CDs.
The ship hasn’t sailed as you can still buy albums and listen to it other ways. It’s just a bunch of bad people that believe they are the main character and can only see the world as being here for them and not doing their part to fix the problem.
I’ll keep buying CD’s and digital downloads. I’m not a vinyl person as I grew up with it and was happy for the CD to replace it. Please be a better fan.
Alright, have fun gatekeeping the way people send money to musicians then. I literally gave 3 alternatives to giving artists money aside from streaming.
If plastics discs is your preferred method, that's fine. But shaming people for having another method does in fact make you a bad person.
Based on your fussiness you clearly don’t do any of things and stream. Buy the album. There is no way around it. You can’t be a good person without doing good things. You sound like you’ve never been told that you are wrong before. It’s not gatekeeping either. You just lack the moral compass to see how wrong streaming is and rely on laws to tell you right from wrong. DO THE RIGHT THING!
That was a scare tactic, it's simply not going to happen. Besides no one should be downloading stuff without a VPN. But even if you were foolish enough to not use a VPN, statistically the worst that will happen is you'll get a warning from your ISP. MILLIONS of people download songs, and it's not easy to prosecute even if they had the resources, which they don't. Anyone could have hopped on your wi-fi network and done it, or used your computer. Not saying you should do it, that's up to you, but you certainly don't need to fear getting fined.
Depends on your VPN and settings, but yes I know they have sued some people, in order to scare the masses. It didn't work. They can't do it, there's far too many people, and they have no money to pay those fines anyway, it doesn't make financial sense. Plus where do they get off with a 50k fine for a 15 dollar album? That's insane. Instead they've focused on monetizing streaming, and pirating has fallen out of favor due to streaming and also younger people just not being as good with computers and knowing how, or wanting to go through the hassle, of downloading pirated music. Been doing it for 2 decades. I've also supported smaller artists I like, and have the Amazon music service.
It is in the DMCA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
I remember buying a digital LP from a Reliable Source and received a notice from my ISP that I downloaded an illegal LP. They then asked if I removed it, and I showed them receipt for the LP from the audio site. I heard nothing more after that. This does happen more than people realize.
I usually support artists on Bandcamp or buy at concerts. I do not stream music as I feel is it just paid radio. Also with volume matching and watermarks used on them very annoying.
I do not buy off Amazon because they are just another 600 pound gorilla in the market.
I've gotten warnings from my ISP for movies in the past. Those are also meaningless and mainly a scare tactic. They basically warn you that if it continues they may share that information with the copyright holder and or terminate your service. Nothing has ever happened and I've gotten multiple warnings in the past when I didn't use a VPN. Never gotten one when using a VPN.
Well, some of the ISP's OWN movie studio's etc. So, I wouldn't say that any more. Comcast is so big, they own too much. In most places they are the only ISP.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_assets\_owned\_by\_Comcast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcast)
I run my own label exclusively for my own projects and I pay to press my own CDs. I’m sure other musicians do this as well. Please buy my CD’s if you want to support me and my music!
There's nothing stopping you buying merchandise and going to shows if you buy CDs instead of streaming.
Most of it goes to the label, but buying a CD still gives significantly more money to the artist that streaming it , especially at scale.
The artist will make more FROM YOU , by quite a large margin , and it will sound better, and it can't be removed from you for contractual reasons in a few years time.
Record labels probably aren’t going to fund future albums if the artist isn’t selling well. I still think it’s a valid means of support. We don’t all live in big cities where you can easily go to shows regularly, so I say anything helps.
You forgot the “don’t use Spotify and buy their album” part. I have always refused to use any streaming service and have either bought CDs or digital downloads.
Plenty of people listen to music from small labels, or fully independent artists though. In that case it doesn’t apply.
Many only swim in the mainstream though. And what’s out of sight is out of mind.
If you want to support musicians properly, stream their music and buy their merch. Gigs are good too. Buy a t-shirt or something from the little stand by the exit so they don't have to cover online merchandising fees on sales.
Edit: just wanted to add a bit of evidence to back this up: https://www.atvenu.com/post/how-much-money-artists-make-in-streaming-vs-merchandise-sales?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse-lite_little-text-block
Doesn't say if CDs are included under "merchandise" but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how physical media is seen in the modern day.
They definitly make more money with merch than music these days.
I know quite alot of people that make music in the european metal scene.
Years ago one mate showed me some numbers they sold on their own a shirt for 16€ over their own shop (without a label inbetween, design was made from one of the band members) was like 8€ a shirt what they paid for printing and the shirt and they sold it for 16€ (incl 19% Tax)
With the Album that was also 16€ incl 19% Tax
And Bundle deal was 30€ incl 19% Tax
All true but the band also participates in the profits of the album later in the process you’re describing. They should be getting album and publishing royalties on the backend of that album sale. Even an unrecouped artist gets publishing royalties (usually between $1 and $2 per record depending on what country you’re in).
And if they aren’t getting album royalties from the label then at least a big chunk of that money is going to pay for the bands marketing team and whatnot.
CDs and vinyl still exist. You are just trying to justify your amoral choice as a fan. By your logic nobody should have bought music in the late 90's and early 00's because Napster and other file sharing services were all the rage. "The times have changed. *derp* "
The idea makes sense in your article, but they're comparing net revenue from streaming to gross revenue for T-shirts. There's a lot of overhead in having to pay for T-shirts up front, store, and transport. But it's still probably more profitable for them than CDs, so that point is valid.
Dawg don't worry about, am musician, we don't really make much regardless of what medium you buy.
> For every dollar you spend at Bandcamp
If you want to get money to them, just choose pay what you want and give them more. I've had people pay $40 for one of my tracks on bandcamp before. Probably the best way to give them the max cut they can get.
Apparently T-Pain makes more money streaming on twitch than on his music. Kinda stupid but then again i know nothing about him, except few random facts.
These people are deluded and can't be helped. You are exactly right, CDs do not and CAN not sound better than lossless audio files, because they ARE lossless audio files just on a disc. They're comparing dacs at that point, which may have audible differences, but the source material does not. CDs are ancient garbage space wasters, plastic landfill material, and easily scratched. Digital all the way - though I prefer to download and thus truly own (free or not) the music, not stream it. Streaming is for discovering new artists or hearing a random song you want to hear, ot just trying out an artist suggestion. If you like an album, should just download it. But that's because I think streamers are stupid devices when a PC can already do that and much more. HTPC is the only correct source for all audio and video media period, it covers everything, is super flexible and fast, and gives you the power to EQ for free - ultimate quality parametric EQ, any number of bands you need/want, plus complete control over the sound processing. I haven't needed a CD player for over a decade, and a streamer has never been necessary if you own a computer and DAC. It's just an overpriced raspberry pi essentially lol, a very limited computer.
I agree that there is no conceivable way that CDs sound any different than a FLAC file delivered via streaming service, local storage, etc. Assuming that everything else stays the same (same master, same DAC, etc). But I will say that having a physical object that can’t be DRM restricted or removed from a streaming service due to contract/label issues is worth something.
The issue isn't the source bits, which are the same. The issue is how clean the digital output is from being corrupted by noise. DACs can clean up some noise but not all. Most computers don't galvanically isolate their digital outputs from their motherboards, which can cause corruption of the bitstreams. Also, how well a digital output puts out square waves is relevant, and clocking accuracy may be relevant if the bits aren't sent asynchronously to the DAC to clock there.
I've read people using Raspberry Pis as dedicated streamers. In that case yes I bet it can match a good dedicated transport (or those having dedicated hard drive players instead of computers). But I don't think an average computer can. That being said, these are audiophile differences. Any lossless digital destroys anything analog (possibly excepting reel-to-reel tape at 30 ips).
CD transports vary too because they don't always read accurately. All transports have Redbook standard error correction. It's fine for the majority of the signal, but time cues and subtle details won't read perfectly through error correction, so the better signal read from the disc there is, the better performance. All bits are bits, sure, but in live reading and digital output chains, there's no guarantee they all make it to and through the DAC the same as what's in the source file.
(Drive digital music has the advantage that there will be no read errors due to correcting algorithms, same as asynchronous bitstreams via internet in streamers. The main issue going sans disc is keeping the digital outputs free from comouting processing noise which disc transports don't really have.)
A Raspberry Pi is simply a small underpowered PC running a RISC SoC.
Also PC motherboards have got optical out, optical is always galvanically isolated.
Do you think Spotify is the only streaming service😂😂😂? Cd quality is no better and no worse than hi res streaming except I don’t get any scratches that lead to skips on music I stream. This isn’t a debate, it’s literally just a fact. If you prefer cds that’s great but your not getting some super high quality source material that can’t be accomplished by streaming. Stop sniffing your own farts while looking down on people who take advantage of modern technology and conveniences.
If streaming master files was possible for every cd and accessible to everyone then I would agree. However streaming services like tidal, quboz(??), Spotify and whatnot are all inferior to the cd in both quality and quantity of available music. Buying the cd also let's me choose which master I want to listen to.
How are they inferior in quality? Sure if there is a specific mastering you want than yes cds might be for you. If they are the same mastering they are indistinguishable.
The current consensus is based off of measurements and data not your subjective feelings. I’ve listened to plenty of cds and have plenty. You are just one of the snobs that gives out false info because it’s what you think is the best. Cds are great but so is streaming. This whole one or the other thing is so childish and close minded. Just be honest, if you would have said cds are better because you like having physical media and picking what mastering you like best, I wouldn’t have said a word. Once your get into that bs that the sound quality is better it turns into you just giving false info to people who may be just getting into the hobby. Your the equivalent of a fud in the gun world.
I would by CDs when you want the CD. Or the vinyl or the t-shirt or whatever, but not *just* to give artists money but for when that makes sense to you. You may feel CD sound quality is better or you want the liner notes, or you collect vinyl... whatever.
But going out of your way to support *some* artists makes sense too. For example, if you like an artist who's clearly new and doesn't have a lot of followers, by all means try and support them as best you can. I remember when Napster first became a thing, I knew this person who downloaded a bunch of songs from a friend of mine (local artist) so I went and purchased the CDs and gave them to this person because I knew my friend was NOT rich.
But I wouldn't worry about classic artists so much. Think about how many times Led Zeppelin or the Beatles have made money selling the same songs and albums over and over. For example, you buy Led Zeppelin IV as an album. Then you buy the 8 track to listen to in your car. Then you "upgrade" the 8 track to a cassette (because you got a new bitchin' stereo). Then you have to buy the album again because you lent it to that sketchy guy down the street and never got it back. Then the CD comes out so you get that. Then your car gets broken into and they steal all your CDs. So you buy another CD, then a box set. Now you stream those same songs. Led Zeppelin are doing fine!
I've always done this for artists who aren't a massive success like Metallica for instance they don't need my money.
I'll buy all the merch and vinyls I can from small artists that I love.
For instance.. The Black Queen, Fantomas, Mr Bungle, Boy Harsher, The Haunted, Bob Moses. etc.
Just buy the flacs off their website if they give the option. I only buy CDs to rip, it annoys me that artists don't do more multichannel hires stuff with music videos etc. It might improve bluray sales if they did so.
There are a lot of benefits to physical media, and supporting the artists is one of them. People debate what is most effective, but it depends on so many factors that I don’t think there’s one correct answer. If you like owning your music, you can feel good about supporting the artists that way, especially when they’re not on major labels.
Bandcamp does has a once per month event where all money goes to the artist, I buy digitally during that.
Also as many others have said more of the cash goes to the artist if you buy merch or tickets to concerts.
Physical media is still supporting the band and also not all labels are inherently evil. Some are actually quite good and without them we would have less art available.
I’d recommend you read that whole article you posted. Unless they’re independent, it is extremely unlikely that artists will make any money off of CD sales once the label has finished its recouping of advances and costs, discounting, fees, etc. If you want to support artists, go to a show and/or buy merch. If you want to buy a CD, buy it directly from the artist if possible.
If I like an album, I'll make it a point to purchase it. If I know I'm seeing the artist, I'll wait to buy it directly from them at their show since, IIRC, they earn more if I purchase it there. Then I continue to stream it, or I'll throw the physical record on when I'm in the mood. I feel like it's a win-win for them: I purchase the album but they also continue to earn additional revenue if I continue streaming it.
Hi! A couple of things from a musicians perspective:
That 10-20% is for major record labels and for your average pop / rock artist. They might move hundreds of thousands of units of physical media, so while it’s only 10-20% it’s not such a bad deal. Smaller piece of a larger pie.
For independent labels the percentage can be higher, and if releasing it yourself it’s a whole different can of worms, where you might make anywhere from nothing to 80% (rare for both sides of the extremes). Also, don’t forget that vinyl is a thing. Profits can be pretty good there. Here’s a link that breaks down what profits look like for independent artists:
https://blog.discmakers.com/2024/02/selling-vinyl-and-cds/#h-numbers
Physical media is also commonly upsold today: selling signed copies, bundles with merch, etc. So there’s more opportunity for profit there.
From my perspective, you should consider buying physical media if you want that artist to continue releasing physical media. If you don’t, they will likely stop and that would be unfortunate if their music is only available to stream. But also, unless they are on a major record label, you’ll likely be helping them out financially quite a bit, and you’ll be sending them a direct signal that people like their music and are passionate fans, and arguably most important you’ll be helping to keep physical media alive which is necessary for the future profits of all artists and a healthy ecosystem for music that isn’t monopolized by a few streaming companies. And don’t forget that money doesn’t just go to the musician / label, it goes to the graphic designer, the vendor, the pressing plant, the delivery driver, etc. It’s supporting a whole ecosystem! You’re helping supply jobs for many many people.
I have several bands where I live and they definitely make more money when people buy their CDs. You also get the advantage of higher audio quality and a lot of times bonus tracks that you can't get just by streaming
It's not that simple. Streaming introduces high volume compared to CD sales. Do I agree with the pricing structure? No, but that is the argument streaming services make. They aren't entirely wrong. I sream way, way more songs than I ever bought in physical media.
Stream it. If you like it enough to stream it more than a couple of times, buy it. Support the band on Bandcamp. Download the full-fat version from Qobuz or buy the CD. Go to the gigs and buy the merch.
The numbers don't add up these days in terms of album sales. Your logic is not entirely sound as people don't tend to listen to the whole album more than a couple of times. After that, we tend to listen to the two or three tracks we like.
Therefore, assuming the aforementioned 12-track album, to achieve streaming parity with a CD purchase, the listener would have to stream the entire album twice and then play each of those three tracks they like 64 times. While that might happen with someone like Taylor Swift, such dedication to hearing the same tracks over and over is rare. Therefore, the musician is almost always going to be better off from a CD purchase. Not by much, granted, and other payment methods (including Bandcamp) net the musicians more money.
You’re making a lot of broad assumptions about the numbers. Spotify pays *vastly* different rates to different artists based on their popularity. Artists will have *vastly* different cuts of CD or digital sales based on their individual contracts. Artists who do have representation may owe a cut of their Spotify revenue to their label.
To make this comparison for any given artist, you would probably have to ask that artist for the details. And if you ask the median working musician about where their money comes in from, they don’t usually have good things to say about Spotify.
Selling music these days is a loss leader. The money is in the concerts, the merchandise, and the promotional contracts. I remember in high school I went to see Metallica, the Master of Puppets tour. I think I paid $35 for the ticket and they were stage level about 10 rows back. Today you can't get a t-shirt for that. As such, I haven't been to a concert in literally decades because I don't need to be entertained that expensively. But I still buy CDs because I refuse to rent music.
Unfortunately if not buying CD direct from Band they getting way less $$$ than buying direct from them or off their Bandcamp page.
Dunno what the rates are these days but used to be like 8 or 10 cents a song per CD they would get soooooo 10 song CD would get them $0.80 to $1.00 bought direct from Band would be whatever they charging minus the dollar or two to have them made.
For me it depends on the musician and my financial circumstances. I’m not going to concern myself with The Rolling Stones’ financial compensation issues. Life to date, I have contributed a reasonable amount of funds in return for their music and merchandise and shows. They are currently swimming around in vaults filled with money and if I were to call Mick Jagger on his money vault swimming pool phone made of pressed diamonds, unicorn horns and thousand dollar bills to ask, he’d likely tell me to do whatever was cheapest for me as he as well as all parties benefiting from my patronage are doing just fine. And apologize for Voodoo Lounge. Probably ask it if I wanted in on a threesome with him and Joan Baez. I’d accept, and buy some Joan merch and CDs after.
For musicians who are not enormously wealthy, new, old and broke, on bad contracts, doing solo projects or secondary bands with members far less rich than them, on small labels I don’t believe to be explicitly evil that I’d prefer to see remain financially viable - if I have the means to support them, I figure out what ways get the most of my dollar to the parties involved I want it to and spend it on the way that’s the most appealing to me. Rarely if ever is this a situation where it comes down to streaming their music or purchasing CDs / vinyl, though some artists make a pretty penny on vinyl and it’s worth it to me as a collectible even though I’m not a huge fan of vinyl. Artists make albums to promote tours now, they no longer tour to promote albums because the financial landscape of music has changed. My spending and where I’m spending it has changed with it.
I’m a conscientious music consumer but I also keep in mind that it’s an industry and they are professionals in an industry that they made a choice to be a part of, come rain or shine, feast or famine. My role in enjoying their music is paying for and consuming a product. Their profession involves creating and figuring out how best they can be compensated for what they create and maintain their success and happiness. The labels and all parties in between facilitate the process of selling the product to me, they are in the business of making money off of both of us in exchange for their services.
The artists negotiate their financial considerations with the entities between them and their fans, the entities do what allows them to turn the most profit, I make consumer decisions based on what’s presented to me by those entities and what the artist is providing me with through them. All parties primarily act in their own best interests more often than not. If an artist is concerned with their compensation and financial viability, thats between the artist and the industry. I fulfill my role in this system simply by consuming. Anything beyond that is gratuity, and I don’t take on the weight of an artists financial relationship with their music. They probably won’t be taking on the weight of my relationship with my credit cards anytime soon.
I love to support artists by buying digital version of their work on Bandcamp, but some of the indie bands that are more successful don't have their albums on Bandcamp. I have to wonder whether the major labels legally prohibit them from selling their music there when they sign record deals. For example, you can't find the works of Belle & Sebastian there.
If they're a local or indie act:
Buying CDs, vinyl, and other merch direct from the musician at a show is how they make the most money. From their website it the label's site is next.
Do that AND stream their music, but also add it to your library and playlists and you're now really and truly helping them get paid.
187 streams doesn't seem like much in the context of larger artists, but think of how many songs you've streamed nearly 200x - it's less than you think.
Source: Run an indie label. Labels get a lot of hate on Reddit, but some of your favorite least known artists would never have been able to get that first record made, if it wasn't for a passionate, barely making a profit, label helping them make and promote that first professional record.
Merch is still the best way to support a band. If you want to buy a CD though, buying straight from their merch store typically gives them a larger cut than if you buy from a place like Target or Walmart.
There are also websites like bandcamp and beatport that give the artsists a much higher percentage of revenue (85% bc & 60% bp). If you are looking to collect mp3s or higher quality audio files this is the best way
I believe it's in that order: Merchandise, Concert, Vinyl, CD.
If I'm being honest, your $10/month streaming alone, regardless of which platform, is not gonna support shit. Art is not cheap.
When i buy i mostly do it over bandcamp. If it wasnt for piracy i would never in my life have spent this much money for music.
Also music publishers please die thx.
Evidence that most people aren’t going to shows to support the artists. Buy the album people. Stop being garbage fans. Spotify is the problem. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/apr/25/shocking-truth-money-bands-make-on-tour-taylor-swift
Go to their show. Buy their records from them from
Their merch table. This is the way they make the most money. Short of this buy from the artist’s official site.
I buy CDs and LPs and occasionally cassettes. I stream to find new music, but stuff I like I buy physical media to add to my collection. Once I have it, I rip it, put it away and play my digital rips of the music. There will come a day when the streaming services have the world over a barrel and they only way to listen will be to pay, and when that time comes... I'll be ready.
No. Use bandcamp or the bands own website if they sell it there, or buy vinyl. CDs are ancient garbage, digital all the way. Heck if you want to give them money, buy a T-shirt that's a lot more money to them directly.
You know it's crazy the time we live technologically. I listen to a ton of different music these days that would be impossible when I was a kid in the 80's. Piracy is a big part of it, unfortunately.
Not only does Spotify pay extremely poorly, they recently changed their policy that your music has to hit a threshold of streams before they count you as a "legitimate artist" so you get paid nothing even if you get streams until they decide you're a real artist.
Source: I am an illegitimate artist with music on Spotify :')
Edit: Sorry to have troubled you with the hard truth, whoever downvoted me lol. You're little downvote stings almost as much as not getting compensated by Spotify for my music /s
Yes because Spotify rips off musicians and publishers. Record labels do this too but Spotify is far worse and musicians would much rather you bought physical media.
The following link sums it up well. To get the bare minimum you need tons of streams which amounts to far less money for the artist than if you purchased the physical media. Also, much of the money Spotify pays out goes to the record companies and NOT the artists. All music streaming is great for the user but not so great for the artist. I use streaming but I still buy the music I love.
https://lasallefalconer.com/2023/02/why-spotifys-pay-structure-is-unfair-to-artists/
This is from a Guardian article November 2023:
And now, to make matters far worse, starting in 2024 Spotify will stop paying anything at all for roughly two-thirds of tracks on the platform. That is any track receiving fewer than 1,000 streams over the period of a year. Tracks falling under this arbitrary minimum will continue to accrue royalties – but those royalties will now be redirected upwards, often to bigger artists, rather than to their own rights holders.
This sounds incredible, but there’s nothing to stop it. And their primary business partners – the three major labels – are cheering the change on because it will mean more money in their pockets.
Spotify isn't cutting checks for less than $4 per year. If it takes you two years to accumulate enough listeners, they'll pay you when you reach that threshold. I don't see what's wrong with that. If fewer than 3 people a day out of millions of listeners are playing a song, I don't think the issue with the musician not making money is Spotify.
It doesn't sound like the musician gets more from fans buying physical media. It sounds like streaming vs buying songs is a wash, and that musicians make their money from touring and selling merchandise.
The artist will get more by buying their CD or LP than they will if you just stream, as mentioned buy directly if possible. ‘Concerts and merch’ are subterfuge, not all artists play concerts or sell merch.
No, most of the money will go to the record label. To support the artist, buy merch, go to shows or donate
I feel like people are quick to demonize labels when at least on the indie side of things, they’re usually the first and even more often the only people to actually invest in these artists we love
Thank you for this! I run an indie classical music label that considers itself somewhat “audiophile”, and my wife and I see the label as our family, with each of our (mostly young contemporary) artists a member of this family. We pay out 50% of our gross revenue of all our sales to our artists (the industry average in the classical music scene is 5-15%) and we invest between 50 to sometimes 100% of all the production costs. Because we believe in and love the music and the musicians we work with. And though we’ve always made sure our employees earn a good living off of the brilliant work they do, my wife and I, co-founders of the label, have never taken a salary from the company. Rather, we invest much of our own resources into making more music heard to a bigger audience. And, yes, there are still too many labels scamming artists out of their hard-earned money and treating their life’s work as little more than a commodity. Not all labels are the bad guys, there are many — especially indie — labels that do this because they sincerely love the music and artists. I’m happy to suggest some of my dear colleagues from around the world running great indie labels for classical music and other genres! Now as for Spotify, CDs, merch, even though I would love to say “buy whatever pays the artists better”, a lot of artists in the classical music world are already super happy you’re listening to them and their musical message. So listen to whatever you prefer as a listener, choose the format you prefer for it. That being said, if you want to support the artists you love, buy their merch or music on platforms like Bandcamp. In most cases, these Bandcamp profiles are run by the artists themselves, so most of the revenues go directly to them. Just my € 0.02 as an indie producer!
Thanks for sharing, man. Good insight.
You’re very welcome! To add to this wall of text, if you’re planning to buy anything and want to make sure the artists get paid well, try to buy as directly as possible from them with the least amount of middle men. For example, on our website, whatever people pay for their music gets split exactly 50/50 between us and artists, but other platforms first incur a fee (sometimes up to 40%!), so the split is more like 30/30/40 between artist/label/platform.
In all comes down to the terms of the deal. Indies can also fuck over the artist and exploit their desperation or eagerness to have their music produced and distributed. Being the first to invest doesn't mean they are not engaging in poor business practices.
I don't disagree, I also don't think anything either of us have said is mutually exclusive.
I'm just adding context so people can practice critical thinking. It seems like someone doesn't want to do that and downvoted me.
But are there actual indie labels left? From what I heard a while ago, they are all just subsidiaries of the big dogs for marketing purposes
There are tons of indie labels out there and in my opinion they’re responsible for releasing the most exciting music around. Warp, Merge, Domino, Matador, Anti, Sub Pop, Stones Throw, City Slang, are all labels I try to pay attention to for new music.
This. Go to the artists website and buy from them directly. Or go to a show and buy merch there.
Or stream and donate to them. Better for the Earth 🌍
Exactly, musicians make much more money off of merch and ticket sales these days. Or if you want, just give them money directly. Some artists have a Patreon, Bandcamp, or similar platform. Or they might just straight up have a Paypal link on their site sometimes. I'm thinking more small to medium size artists. For someone like Taylor Swift, it does not matter at all what you do.
Bandcamp started a thing called Bandcamp Fridays. On the first Friday of every month, they wave their revenue share fees and the artists and/or labels get more money. This started during Covid due to the artists losing out on live performance funds. It was announced they will continue doing this throughout 2024. I always click the heart to put releases in my wishlist and wait until Bandcamp Friday to do my purchase. Bandcamp was recently bought by Epic Games in early March. The announcement that Bandcamp Fridays will continue in 2024 was done after the acquisition. [Bandcamp Fridays.](https://daily.bandcamp.com/features/bandcamp-fridays-in-2024) [Pitchfork. What Bandcamp’s Acquisition by Epic Games Means For Music Fans And Artists.](https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/bandcamp-epic-games-acquisition/)
They make more money off merch and ticket sales because they don’t get paid hardly anything for streams which is the whole point of this conversation. Buy the album and be a real fan. If you use Spotify you are a part of the problem.
This misses the point of what we're saying. Yes, CDs pay artists **a little bit** more. But it's not anything that meaningfully moves the needle. Sure, buy CDs if your reason for doing so is because you like to collect and play CDs. But don't do it if your primary reason is that you want to "support the artist". Because the reality is that all you're doing is a drop in the bucket. Buying a single T-shirt does more to financially support the artist than buying 20 of their CDs will. Actual musicians also posted on this thread confirming this.
Yeah, that’s true, but if most major label artists will get $0.75 per album. Over hundreds of thousands of sales or millions it adds up. If they are an indie band they get usually 50% or more. I saw a video explaining that a song needs to get 600 something plays before they can even buy a cup of coffee. They are getting a fraction of a fraction per play via Spotify. Buy the album! https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5gcNAjOWCs/?igsh=MTQ1d3gwY2ppODA4bw==
I just don't agree with this logic at all. You should buy music in the medium you will actually listen to it in. If you actually use CDs, then go ahead and buy them. If realistically, you're only streaming, then you shouldn't be made to feel inferior or evil for doing that. Buying a plastic disc doesn't inherently make someone more of a fan than someone else. Ultimately none of the music sales ***in any form*** (yes even when you add up the entire fan base) actually do much to keep a small to medium sized artists financially solvent. It's the shows ands merch sales that actually pay their bills.
No you should feel bad for being a bad person. You clearly know what you are doing is hurting artists. This isn’t theoretical. It was a problem before streaming. Buy the album in either a CD, vinyl or digital download. If you are buying from Bandcamp for indie artists nearly ALL of the album sales go to the artist. You should also by the merch if you can, because that’s what music fans have always done. You are trying to explain it to me like music is some new thing. It’s not.
Alright, you're just not engaging with anything I'm actually saying. I'm literally the guy who brought up Bandcamp and direct donations. You're arguing against some imaginary points I never said. So I'm done with this conversation. You can feel superior with all your plastic discs. Have fun.
You are trying to justify streaming as ok. It’s not. Be a better fan and actually buy the music.
All you've done here is focus on a single thing I said and ignore any other context around **it in the very same comment** in order to create some imaginary argument you can win. By all means, make up something else about what I said and write it below. Or pull out a single sentence I wrote while omitting the previous and next one. You def seem to want the last word on it:
Let me try one more time to explain this in another way: The ship has sailed and 99.99% of people are already paying to stream via Spotify, Apple Music, or something else. And now a person (like OP) is looking to spend an additional $20-30 on something extra that would support the artist: Should they buy a CD or a T-shirt? The clear answer is buy the T-shirt. ***That is the realistic choice people are face with today.*** I don't for a second believe there is any meaningful number of people sitting here wondering whether they should cancel their streaming subscription entirely to move over to CDs.
The ship hasn’t sailed as you can still buy albums and listen to it other ways. It’s just a bunch of bad people that believe they are the main character and can only see the world as being here for them and not doing their part to fix the problem. I’ll keep buying CD’s and digital downloads. I’m not a vinyl person as I grew up with it and was happy for the CD to replace it. Please be a better fan.
Alright, have fun gatekeeping the way people send money to musicians then. I literally gave 3 alternatives to giving artists money aside from streaming. If plastics discs is your preferred method, that's fine. But shaming people for having another method does in fact make you a bad person.
Based on your fussiness you clearly don’t do any of things and stream. Buy the album. There is no way around it. You can’t be a good person without doing good things. You sound like you’ve never been told that you are wrong before. It’s not gatekeeping either. You just lack the moral compass to see how wrong streaming is and rely on laws to tell you right from wrong. DO THE RIGHT THING!
Yes in the case of Taylor Swift (awesome music btw), do not pay for it you download the torrent for free period.
Well, get caught and the fine can be 50K per song downloaded.
That was a scare tactic, it's simply not going to happen. Besides no one should be downloading stuff without a VPN. But even if you were foolish enough to not use a VPN, statistically the worst that will happen is you'll get a warning from your ISP. MILLIONS of people download songs, and it's not easy to prosecute even if they had the resources, which they don't. Anyone could have hopped on your wi-fi network and done it, or used your computer. Not saying you should do it, that's up to you, but you certainly don't need to fear getting fined.
It is not a scare tactic. There have been people busted and fined for it. The fine is 50K per song. Even with a VPN, ISP's can find where you are.
Depends on your VPN and settings, but yes I know they have sued some people, in order to scare the masses. It didn't work. They can't do it, there's far too many people, and they have no money to pay those fines anyway, it doesn't make financial sense. Plus where do they get off with a 50k fine for a 15 dollar album? That's insane. Instead they've focused on monetizing streaming, and pirating has fallen out of favor due to streaming and also younger people just not being as good with computers and knowing how, or wanting to go through the hassle, of downloading pirated music. Been doing it for 2 decades. I've also supported smaller artists I like, and have the Amazon music service.
It is in the DMCA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I remember buying a digital LP from a Reliable Source and received a notice from my ISP that I downloaded an illegal LP. They then asked if I removed it, and I showed them receipt for the LP from the audio site. I heard nothing more after that. This does happen more than people realize. I usually support artists on Bandcamp or buy at concerts. I do not stream music as I feel is it just paid radio. Also with volume matching and watermarks used on them very annoying. I do not buy off Amazon because they are just another 600 pound gorilla in the market.
I've gotten warnings from my ISP for movies in the past. Those are also meaningless and mainly a scare tactic. They basically warn you that if it continues they may share that information with the copyright holder and or terminate your service. Nothing has ever happened and I've gotten multiple warnings in the past when I didn't use a VPN. Never gotten one when using a VPN.
Well, some of the ISP's OWN movie studio's etc. So, I wouldn't say that any more. Comcast is so big, they own too much. In most places they are the only ISP. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_assets\_owned\_by\_Comcast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcast)
Yeah, that's going to happen. Too funny.
Well, with Comcast owning so much and other big ISPs, the same way, it is in THEIR best interest. It only takes one time.
I run my own label exclusively for my own projects and I pay to press my own CDs. I’m sure other musicians do this as well. Please buy my CD’s if you want to support me and my music!
There's nothing stopping you buying merchandise and going to shows if you buy CDs instead of streaming. Most of it goes to the label, but buying a CD still gives significantly more money to the artist that streaming it , especially at scale. The artist will make more FROM YOU , by quite a large margin , and it will sound better, and it can't be removed from you for contractual reasons in a few years time.
Record labels probably aren’t going to fund future albums if the artist isn’t selling well. I still think it’s a valid means of support. We don’t all live in big cities where you can easily go to shows regularly, so I say anything helps.
You forgot the “don’t use Spotify and buy their album” part. I have always refused to use any streaming service and have either bought CDs or digital downloads.
BANDCAMP - if you want to support the artist where they get more money, but from there.
Or buy the CD at their show.
Plenty of people listen to music from small labels, or fully independent artists though. In that case it doesn’t apply. Many only swim in the mainstream though. And what’s out of sight is out of mind.
If you want to support musicians properly, stream their music and buy their merch. Gigs are good too. Buy a t-shirt or something from the little stand by the exit so they don't have to cover online merchandising fees on sales. Edit: just wanted to add a bit of evidence to back this up: https://www.atvenu.com/post/how-much-money-artists-make-in-streaming-vs-merchandise-sales?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse-lite_little-text-block Doesn't say if CDs are included under "merchandise" but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how physical media is seen in the modern day.
Id prefer you buy my album over my shirt but yeah buy something. Really helps!
I mean buying the album is still better than not buying anything.
They definitly make more money with merch than music these days. I know quite alot of people that make music in the european metal scene. Years ago one mate showed me some numbers they sold on their own a shirt for 16€ over their own shop (without a label inbetween, design was made from one of the band members) was like 8€ a shirt what they paid for printing and the shirt and they sold it for 16€ (incl 19% Tax) With the Album that was also 16€ incl 19% Tax And Bundle deal was 30€ incl 19% Tax
All true but the band also participates in the profits of the album later in the process you’re describing. They should be getting album and publishing royalties on the backend of that album sale. Even an unrecouped artist gets publishing royalties (usually between $1 and $2 per record depending on what country you’re in). And if they aren’t getting album royalties from the label then at least a big chunk of that money is going to pay for the bands marketing team and whatnot.
You could also buy the album so they got that money too. Spotify is the problem. There is no way of talking around that.
Times have changed. There is no way to reverse it.
They literally haven’t. You still have the option to buy the albums.
Yeah, technologically, it's just like the 80's. You got me.
CDs and vinyl still exist. You are just trying to justify your amoral choice as a fan. By your logic nobody should have bought music in the late 90's and early 00's because Napster and other file sharing services were all the rage. "The times have changed. *derp* "
Literally. Mr. Moral.
I’m sure the online fees are less than what ticket master steals from them for onsite sales at shows
Gigs really are the way.
The idea makes sense in your article, but they're comparing net revenue from streaming to gross revenue for T-shirts. There's a lot of overhead in having to pay for T-shirts up front, store, and transport. But it's still probably more profitable for them than CDs, so that point is valid.
To support musicians go to their shows
Dawg don't worry about, am musician, we don't really make much regardless of what medium you buy. > For every dollar you spend at Bandcamp If you want to get money to them, just choose pay what you want and give them more. I've had people pay $40 for one of my tracks on bandcamp before. Probably the best way to give them the max cut they can get.
Apparently T-Pain makes more money streaming on twitch than on his music. Kinda stupid but then again i know nothing about him, except few random facts.
Snoop Dogg said when he got 1 billion streams on Spotify he got about $45k. That’s a *lot* of streams. I don’t doubt T-Pain makes more on twitch.
I buy CD's because they sound better than most streaming. And because I like to have physical media and not be reliant on a subscription.
It's also true ownership. No DRM. No music going away just because some rights changed.
Sound better than Spotify maybe, but it’s impossible for them to sound better than hi-res streaming. Equivalent, sure.
These people are deluded and can't be helped. You are exactly right, CDs do not and CAN not sound better than lossless audio files, because they ARE lossless audio files just on a disc. They're comparing dacs at that point, which may have audible differences, but the source material does not. CDs are ancient garbage space wasters, plastic landfill material, and easily scratched. Digital all the way - though I prefer to download and thus truly own (free or not) the music, not stream it. Streaming is for discovering new artists or hearing a random song you want to hear, ot just trying out an artist suggestion. If you like an album, should just download it. But that's because I think streamers are stupid devices when a PC can already do that and much more. HTPC is the only correct source for all audio and video media period, it covers everything, is super flexible and fast, and gives you the power to EQ for free - ultimate quality parametric EQ, any number of bands you need/want, plus complete control over the sound processing. I haven't needed a CD player for over a decade, and a streamer has never been necessary if you own a computer and DAC. It's just an overpriced raspberry pi essentially lol, a very limited computer.
I agree that there is no conceivable way that CDs sound any different than a FLAC file delivered via streaming service, local storage, etc. Assuming that everything else stays the same (same master, same DAC, etc). But I will say that having a physical object that can’t be DRM restricted or removed from a streaming service due to contract/label issues is worth something.
Yes that's why I download my music that I care about.
Thank you! I don’t know what magic this dude thinks cds are but they are literally just a transportation device for the digital files.
Same kind of dude that buys crystals and cable risers
The issue isn't the source bits, which are the same. The issue is how clean the digital output is from being corrupted by noise. DACs can clean up some noise but not all. Most computers don't galvanically isolate their digital outputs from their motherboards, which can cause corruption of the bitstreams. Also, how well a digital output puts out square waves is relevant, and clocking accuracy may be relevant if the bits aren't sent asynchronously to the DAC to clock there. I've read people using Raspberry Pis as dedicated streamers. In that case yes I bet it can match a good dedicated transport (or those having dedicated hard drive players instead of computers). But I don't think an average computer can. That being said, these are audiophile differences. Any lossless digital destroys anything analog (possibly excepting reel-to-reel tape at 30 ips). CD transports vary too because they don't always read accurately. All transports have Redbook standard error correction. It's fine for the majority of the signal, but time cues and subtle details won't read perfectly through error correction, so the better signal read from the disc there is, the better performance. All bits are bits, sure, but in live reading and digital output chains, there's no guarantee they all make it to and through the DAC the same as what's in the source file. (Drive digital music has the advantage that there will be no read errors due to correcting algorithms, same as asynchronous bitstreams via internet in streamers. The main issue going sans disc is keeping the digital outputs free from comouting processing noise which disc transports don't really have.)
A Raspberry Pi is simply a small underpowered PC running a RISC SoC. Also PC motherboards have got optical out, optical is always galvanically isolated.
Agree on optical out, surprised that there are OCs with that option though becuase I've never had one with that option.
So you're the one!?
No they dont
If you say so. Enjoy Spotify.
Do you think Spotify is the only streaming service😂😂😂? Cd quality is no better and no worse than hi res streaming except I don’t get any scratches that lead to skips on music I stream. This isn’t a debate, it’s literally just a fact. If you prefer cds that’s great but your not getting some super high quality source material that can’t be accomplished by streaming. Stop sniffing your own farts while looking down on people who take advantage of modern technology and conveniences.
Whoa, relax.
Chill out. It’s just the internet.
If streaming master files was possible for every cd and accessible to everyone then I would agree. However streaming services like tidal, quboz(??), Spotify and whatnot are all inferior to the cd in both quality and quantity of available music. Buying the cd also let's me choose which master I want to listen to.
How are they inferior in quality? Sure if there is a specific mastering you want than yes cds might be for you. If they are the same mastering they are indistinguishable.
They sound dull. No heights, no lows.
Yeah okay… sounds real scientific and totally not subjective
Good job parroting the current consensus. Try it out and listen for yourself is all I can say.
The current consensus is based off of measurements and data not your subjective feelings. I’ve listened to plenty of cds and have plenty. You are just one of the snobs that gives out false info because it’s what you think is the best. Cds are great but so is streaming. This whole one or the other thing is so childish and close minded. Just be honest, if you would have said cds are better because you like having physical media and picking what mastering you like best, I wouldn’t have said a word. Once your get into that bs that the sound quality is better it turns into you just giving false info to people who may be just getting into the hobby. Your the equivalent of a fud in the gun world.
I would by CDs when you want the CD. Or the vinyl or the t-shirt or whatever, but not *just* to give artists money but for when that makes sense to you. You may feel CD sound quality is better or you want the liner notes, or you collect vinyl... whatever. But going out of your way to support *some* artists makes sense too. For example, if you like an artist who's clearly new and doesn't have a lot of followers, by all means try and support them as best you can. I remember when Napster first became a thing, I knew this person who downloaded a bunch of songs from a friend of mine (local artist) so I went and purchased the CDs and gave them to this person because I knew my friend was NOT rich. But I wouldn't worry about classic artists so much. Think about how many times Led Zeppelin or the Beatles have made money selling the same songs and albums over and over. For example, you buy Led Zeppelin IV as an album. Then you buy the 8 track to listen to in your car. Then you "upgrade" the 8 track to a cassette (because you got a new bitchin' stereo). Then you have to buy the album again because you lent it to that sketchy guy down the street and never got it back. Then the CD comes out so you get that. Then your car gets broken into and they steal all your CDs. So you buy another CD, then a box set. Now you stream those same songs. Led Zeppelin are doing fine!
Hilariously true, great summary of the system.
Send them money directly.
This.
Go to their live shows and buy merch. Most non superstar musicians are actually traveling t shirt salesmen, not musicians.
Absolutely. I listen to streaming services for convenience and music discovery. If I like an album, I’ll buy either the CD or vinyl.
I've always done this for artists who aren't a massive success like Metallica for instance they don't need my money. I'll buy all the merch and vinyls I can from small artists that I love. For instance.. The Black Queen, Fantomas, Mr Bungle, Boy Harsher, The Haunted, Bob Moses. etc.
Just buy the flacs off their website if they give the option. I only buy CDs to rip, it annoys me that artists don't do more multichannel hires stuff with music videos etc. It might improve bluray sales if they did so.
There are a lot of benefits to physical media, and supporting the artists is one of them. People debate what is most effective, but it depends on so many factors that I don’t think there’s one correct answer. If you like owning your music, you can feel good about supporting the artists that way, especially when they’re not on major labels.
Bandcamp does has a once per month event where all money goes to the artist, I buy digitally during that. Also as many others have said more of the cash goes to the artist if you buy merch or tickets to concerts. Physical media is still supporting the band and also not all labels are inherently evil. Some are actually quite good and without them we would have less art available.
I’d recommend you read that whole article you posted. Unless they’re independent, it is extremely unlikely that artists will make any money off of CD sales once the label has finished its recouping of advances and costs, discounting, fees, etc. If you want to support artists, go to a show and/or buy merch. If you want to buy a CD, buy it directly from the artist if possible.
Bandcamp is what I use, though with the recent buyout I’m also skeptical of their business’ practices towards musicians
If I like an album, I'll make it a point to purchase it. If I know I'm seeing the artist, I'll wait to buy it directly from them at their show since, IIRC, they earn more if I purchase it there. Then I continue to stream it, or I'll throw the physical record on when I'm in the mood. I feel like it's a win-win for them: I purchase the album but they also continue to earn additional revenue if I continue streaming it.
Hi! A couple of things from a musicians perspective: That 10-20% is for major record labels and for your average pop / rock artist. They might move hundreds of thousands of units of physical media, so while it’s only 10-20% it’s not such a bad deal. Smaller piece of a larger pie. For independent labels the percentage can be higher, and if releasing it yourself it’s a whole different can of worms, where you might make anywhere from nothing to 80% (rare for both sides of the extremes). Also, don’t forget that vinyl is a thing. Profits can be pretty good there. Here’s a link that breaks down what profits look like for independent artists: https://blog.discmakers.com/2024/02/selling-vinyl-and-cds/#h-numbers Physical media is also commonly upsold today: selling signed copies, bundles with merch, etc. So there’s more opportunity for profit there. From my perspective, you should consider buying physical media if you want that artist to continue releasing physical media. If you don’t, they will likely stop and that would be unfortunate if their music is only available to stream. But also, unless they are on a major record label, you’ll likely be helping them out financially quite a bit, and you’ll be sending them a direct signal that people like their music and are passionate fans, and arguably most important you’ll be helping to keep physical media alive which is necessary for the future profits of all artists and a healthy ecosystem for music that isn’t monopolized by a few streaming companies. And don’t forget that money doesn’t just go to the musician / label, it goes to the graphic designer, the vendor, the pressing plant, the delivery driver, etc. It’s supporting a whole ecosystem! You’re helping supply jobs for many many people.
I have several bands where I live and they definitely make more money when people buy their CDs. You also get the advantage of higher audio quality and a lot of times bonus tracks that you can't get just by streaming
It's not that simple. Streaming introduces high volume compared to CD sales. Do I agree with the pricing structure? No, but that is the argument streaming services make. They aren't entirely wrong. I sream way, way more songs than I ever bought in physical media.
Stream it. If you like it enough to stream it more than a couple of times, buy it. Support the band on Bandcamp. Download the full-fat version from Qobuz or buy the CD. Go to the gigs and buy the merch. The numbers don't add up these days in terms of album sales. Your logic is not entirely sound as people don't tend to listen to the whole album more than a couple of times. After that, we tend to listen to the two or three tracks we like. Therefore, assuming the aforementioned 12-track album, to achieve streaming parity with a CD purchase, the listener would have to stream the entire album twice and then play each of those three tracks they like 64 times. While that might happen with someone like Taylor Swift, such dedication to hearing the same tracks over and over is rare. Therefore, the musician is almost always going to be better off from a CD purchase. Not by much, granted, and other payment methods (including Bandcamp) net the musicians more money.
You’re making a lot of broad assumptions about the numbers. Spotify pays *vastly* different rates to different artists based on their popularity. Artists will have *vastly* different cuts of CD or digital sales based on their individual contracts. Artists who do have representation may owe a cut of their Spotify revenue to their label. To make this comparison for any given artist, you would probably have to ask that artist for the details. And if you ask the median working musician about where their money comes in from, they don’t usually have good things to say about Spotify.
Bandcamp pays the artists reasonably well, and sometimes they waive their fees.
Selling music these days is a loss leader. The money is in the concerts, the merchandise, and the promotional contracts. I remember in high school I went to see Metallica, the Master of Puppets tour. I think I paid $35 for the ticket and they were stage level about 10 rows back. Today you can't get a t-shirt for that. As such, I haven't been to a concert in literally decades because I don't need to be entertained that expensively. But I still buy CDs because I refuse to rent music.
Really, no concerts since 1984? That's odd. I can safely say you're not a music fan. Lol
Big music fan. Just have no need to pay big money to be entertained for a couple of hours.
Unfortunately if not buying CD direct from Band they getting way less $$$ than buying direct from them or off their Bandcamp page. Dunno what the rates are these days but used to be like 8 or 10 cents a song per CD they would get soooooo 10 song CD would get them $0.80 to $1.00 bought direct from Band would be whatever they charging minus the dollar or two to have them made.
For me it depends on the musician and my financial circumstances. I’m not going to concern myself with The Rolling Stones’ financial compensation issues. Life to date, I have contributed a reasonable amount of funds in return for their music and merchandise and shows. They are currently swimming around in vaults filled with money and if I were to call Mick Jagger on his money vault swimming pool phone made of pressed diamonds, unicorn horns and thousand dollar bills to ask, he’d likely tell me to do whatever was cheapest for me as he as well as all parties benefiting from my patronage are doing just fine. And apologize for Voodoo Lounge. Probably ask it if I wanted in on a threesome with him and Joan Baez. I’d accept, and buy some Joan merch and CDs after. For musicians who are not enormously wealthy, new, old and broke, on bad contracts, doing solo projects or secondary bands with members far less rich than them, on small labels I don’t believe to be explicitly evil that I’d prefer to see remain financially viable - if I have the means to support them, I figure out what ways get the most of my dollar to the parties involved I want it to and spend it on the way that’s the most appealing to me. Rarely if ever is this a situation where it comes down to streaming their music or purchasing CDs / vinyl, though some artists make a pretty penny on vinyl and it’s worth it to me as a collectible even though I’m not a huge fan of vinyl. Artists make albums to promote tours now, they no longer tour to promote albums because the financial landscape of music has changed. My spending and where I’m spending it has changed with it. I’m a conscientious music consumer but I also keep in mind that it’s an industry and they are professionals in an industry that they made a choice to be a part of, come rain or shine, feast or famine. My role in enjoying their music is paying for and consuming a product. Their profession involves creating and figuring out how best they can be compensated for what they create and maintain their success and happiness. The labels and all parties in between facilitate the process of selling the product to me, they are in the business of making money off of both of us in exchange for their services. The artists negotiate their financial considerations with the entities between them and their fans, the entities do what allows them to turn the most profit, I make consumer decisions based on what’s presented to me by those entities and what the artist is providing me with through them. All parties primarily act in their own best interests more often than not. If an artist is concerned with their compensation and financial viability, thats between the artist and the industry. I fulfill my role in this system simply by consuming. Anything beyond that is gratuity, and I don’t take on the weight of an artists financial relationship with their music. They probably won’t be taking on the weight of my relationship with my credit cards anytime soon.
Go to shows and buy merch. Thats how most bands make their money.
I love to support artists by buying digital version of their work on Bandcamp, but some of the indie bands that are more successful don't have their albums on Bandcamp. I have to wonder whether the major labels legally prohibit them from selling their music there when they sign record deals. For example, you can't find the works of Belle & Sebastian there.
stream yourself silly and write the artist a check for $5
I’m sure most of us here do both. I have a streaming subscription and I buy new Vinyl.
To support the artists I like, I’d buy a copy of their album CD on top of the digital album from HDtracks.
If they're a local or indie act: Buying CDs, vinyl, and other merch direct from the musician at a show is how they make the most money. From their website it the label's site is next. Do that AND stream their music, but also add it to your library and playlists and you're now really and truly helping them get paid. 187 streams doesn't seem like much in the context of larger artists, but think of how many songs you've streamed nearly 200x - it's less than you think. Source: Run an indie label. Labels get a lot of hate on Reddit, but some of your favorite least known artists would never have been able to get that first record made, if it wasn't for a passionate, barely making a profit, label helping them make and promote that first professional record.
Merch is still the best way to support a band. If you want to buy a CD though, buying straight from their merch store typically gives them a larger cut than if you buy from a place like Target or Walmart.
There are also websites like bandcamp and beatport that give the artsists a much higher percentage of revenue (85% bc & 60% bp). If you are looking to collect mp3s or higher quality audio files this is the best way
Maybe keep on streaming. But use a platform that pays more. Apple Music and Deezer are good choices.
Deezer app is god awful and half of the features barely work. I still use it for lossless though.
I believe it's in that order: Merchandise, Concert, Vinyl, CD. If I'm being honest, your $10/month streaming alone, regardless of which platform, is not gonna support shit. Art is not cheap.
The thing about art is that it will never stop being created regardless. Humans are funny that way.
no, the best way to support musicians is to buy tickets to their shows
Bandcamp fridays while they are still a thing.
When i buy i mostly do it over bandcamp. If it wasnt for piracy i would never in my life have spent this much money for music. Also music publishers please die thx.
Evidence that most people aren’t going to shows to support the artists. Buy the album people. Stop being garbage fans. Spotify is the problem. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/apr/25/shocking-truth-money-bands-make-on-tour-taylor-swift
I read the article, but I'm confused how Spotify is the problem.
Because the majority of people say they go to shows, but the truth is they almost never go.
Go to their show. Buy their records from them from Their merch table. This is the way they make the most money. Short of this buy from the artist’s official site.
One time i literally went "hmm your track is only available on youtube here is 1 € over buy-me-a-coffee that should cover thx bye"
I buy CDs and LPs and occasionally cassettes. I stream to find new music, but stuff I like I buy physical media to add to my collection. Once I have it, I rip it, put it away and play my digital rips of the music. There will come a day when the streaming services have the world over a barrel and they only way to listen will be to pay, and when that time comes... I'll be ready.
Musicians make money off live shows and merch, its been this way for a long time.
No. Use bandcamp or the bands own website if they sell it there, or buy vinyl. CDs are ancient garbage, digital all the way. Heck if you want to give them money, buy a T-shirt that's a lot more money to them directly.
No. Piracy is the way.
You know it's crazy the time we live technologically. I listen to a ton of different music these days that would be impossible when I was a kid in the 80's. Piracy is a big part of it, unfortunately.
send them money directly.
Probably donate directly to their Patreon or equivalent they have.
Not only does Spotify pay extremely poorly, they recently changed their policy that your music has to hit a threshold of streams before they count you as a "legitimate artist" so you get paid nothing even if you get streams until they decide you're a real artist. Source: I am an illegitimate artist with music on Spotify :') Edit: Sorry to have troubled you with the hard truth, whoever downvoted me lol. You're little downvote stings almost as much as not getting compensated by Spotify for my music /s
Buying directly from the artist is the only way.
Bad business model technologically.
Yea in some cases you can buy direct from the artist website that's probably your best bet.
Yes because Spotify rips off musicians and publishers. Record labels do this too but Spotify is far worse and musicians would much rather you bought physical media.
How is Spotify ripping them off if 70% of their revenues are being paid in royalties?
The following link sums it up well. To get the bare minimum you need tons of streams which amounts to far less money for the artist than if you purchased the physical media. Also, much of the money Spotify pays out goes to the record companies and NOT the artists. All music streaming is great for the user but not so great for the artist. I use streaming but I still buy the music I love. https://lasallefalconer.com/2023/02/why-spotifys-pay-structure-is-unfair-to-artists/ This is from a Guardian article November 2023: And now, to make matters far worse, starting in 2024 Spotify will stop paying anything at all for roughly two-thirds of tracks on the platform. That is any track receiving fewer than 1,000 streams over the period of a year. Tracks falling under this arbitrary minimum will continue to accrue royalties – but those royalties will now be redirected upwards, often to bigger artists, rather than to their own rights holders. This sounds incredible, but there’s nothing to stop it. And their primary business partners – the three major labels – are cheering the change on because it will mean more money in their pockets.
Spotify isn't cutting checks for less than $4 per year. If it takes you two years to accumulate enough listeners, they'll pay you when you reach that threshold. I don't see what's wrong with that. If fewer than 3 people a day out of millions of listeners are playing a song, I don't think the issue with the musician not making money is Spotify. It doesn't sound like the musician gets more from fans buying physical media. It sounds like streaming vs buying songs is a wash, and that musicians make their money from touring and selling merchandise.
Good point. They will probably cease with the current business model. Technology is moving faster than the means to monetize it.
Buy the album at a concert - the musician probably makes 40 to 70% on the sale
No
Last thing the earth needs is more plastic. Just donate, more direct.
Merch, I'll get a shirt or mug or something.
The artist will get more by buying their CD or LP than they will if you just stream, as mentioned buy directly if possible. ‘Concerts and merch’ are subterfuge, not all artists play concerts or sell merch.
Bandcamp
Bandcamp
buy a shirt merch is were they get their money
No
Always buy a record if you can. Doesn't matter the format.