Does the U.S. "play it safe" with music more than other countries.

[kfbkfb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_(instrumental)

^^^
The end result was spliced together from many sections of recording.

The Edgar Winter Group - They Only Come Out At Night

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1972 Vinyl release of "They Only Come Out At Night" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

(good quadraphonic demo)


Kirk Bayne

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

Part of the reason for the rise of punk rock and new wave was that the bands could actually perform their music in concert and it sounded like the recording on your LP. That wasn't so for many progressive rock bands that were a studio production and couldn't play their own music.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

American radio station have played it safe for over 50 years. But this doesn't matter now. You can find anything you want on the internet.

Radio is at a disadvantage to the internet as you can get anything instantly. But only if you have good internet.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio is at a disadvantage to the internet as you can get anything instantly.

On the other hand all of the streaming services are losing money because of expensive music royalties

 

[CTListener]

I've heard that some singers have Auto-Tune or something similar in the audio chain during their live performances. If this is true, would certain venues insist on pure vocals? I'm thinking specifically of the Grand Ole Opry, which I watch most weeks to check out artists I've only heard on recordings. I can't recall any that have disappointed, which makes me wonder about whether any processing is being done. I'm pretty sure Carly Pearce is unprocessed because I've listened to several of her Opry performance and they sounded fine but not absolutely perfect. In contrast, I've seen several concert videos of Luke Bryan (not at the Opry) and he sounded absolutely awful on some, OK on others, but nothing approaching the purity of his recorded vocals on any of them. So what's the story? Does "live" not always mean "unprocessed"?

 

[CTListener]

On the other hand all of the streaming services are losing money because of expensive music royalties

So far, YouTube appears to be a safe haven. A few acts won't allow their work to be uploaded there, but for most of the hitmakers and just about every niche/indie/obscure artist or band you can name, you can find a video posted -- most of which visually are just a photo of the artist or of the album/single itself, others amateurish attempts to reproduce the lyrics on screen. No one seems to mind this, not even Vevo, which puts official videos on YouTube, which makes me doubt your ongoing warnings that the end of the free ride is near. Maybe the sky starts falling with the 2023 increase and I'll eat humble pie. If it doesn't, well, I'll listen to Humble Pie, on YouTube.

 

[TheBigA]

So what's the story? Does "live" not always mean "unprocessed"?

If you can do use in the studio, you can also use it on the concert stage if you choose to.

 

[kevtronics]

Auto-tune can be used live, but sometimes it goes awry and its effect becomes really noticeable. That's what happened to Michael Bublé, until someone pulled the plug on it and switched to his real vocals:

 

[vchimpanzee]

The problem is that humans also like to hear some of that 'offness' (for lack of a better word), or the infrequent mistake that makes the music sound more real, more emotive, and more human. If the singer's voice is just a hair high or low at times it can give the phrase more expression, and more emotion. Sure, I suppose a computerized voice could do that. But not yet.

Same with playing an instrument. While the ultra-pure notes that one can get from a synthesizer and autotune can sound cool (it was used a lot in the early 2010's pop music, and I really liked a lot of that), a lot of people still like roots music, where the changes in rhythm or pitch are appealing.

There's a Bert Kaempfert song where the trumpet solo has a bad note. That's real.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

On the other hand all of the streaming services are losing money because of expensive music royalties

Streaming makes it possible for listeners to hear our FM station far beyond our transmitter's range. And, our streaming fees are all paid.

 

[TheBigA]

Streaming makes it possible for listeners to hear our FM station far beyond our transmitter's range. And, our streaming fees are all paid.

By whom? If they're paid by the streaming company, they're likely losing money.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

By whom? If they're paid by the streaming company, they're likely losing money.

A former engineer for WGN loves what we're doing. He donated enough to pay all fees this year and next year. That was very nice.

 

[CTListener]

By whom? If they're paid by the streaming company, they're likely losing money.

You really are committed to this doomsday narrative, aren't you?

 

[TheBigA]

You really are committed to this doomsday narrative, aren't you?

It's not my "narrative." Here's a story from just a few days ago about Slacker:

LiveOne Says SoundExchange Royalty Judgment Would Be ‘Unsustainable’ For The Company.

After being ordered to pony up nearly $10 million in unpaid royalties to SoundExchange, Slacker’s parent company LiveOne says that paying the amount would financially ruin the company. “This economic

www.insideradio.com

I know everyone is deserting FM for streaming. Where is the money?

 

[boombox4]

It's a problem. Because the dominant music consumption model is streaming, not sales. And streaming doesn't make the artists / producers / music companies the same revenue that CD/LP/Cassette/MP3 sales did. The revenues per 'album' have been decimated, for example, from around $15 to somewhere around 9 cents.

So the instinct is to increase the royalty. But that means that people eventually will need to pay more for the streaming service to keep it viable. And that could be problematic, especially when there are several competing streaming services and people sometimes cut non-necessities during downturns in the economy.

Which all may keep radio alive and well for another couple decades. People like the cost of free.

 

[TheBigA]

It's a problem. Because the dominant music consumption model is streaming, not sales. And streaming doesn't make the artists / producers / music companies the same revenue that CD/LP/Cassette/MP3 sales did. The revenues per 'album' have been decimated, for example, from around $15 to somewhere around 9 cents.

The difference is that when people bought albums, everyone got paid only once for the sale. In streaming, everyone gets paid every time a song gets played. So the potential exists to get paid more for streaming if users stream a song billions of times.

Using this model, record labels are seeing revenues rising almost to the point of where they were with sales, plus they don't have all the costs associated with physical product. For artists, they could continue to get paid long after they stop performing.

Which all may keep radio alive and well for another couple decades. People like the cost of free.

Radio is cheaper and easier, plus no subscription, username, or password. Plus for most popular formats, they play the same songs.

 

[vchimpanzee]

There's a Bert Kaempfert song where the trumpet solo has a bad note. That's real.

I think it's "Bye Bye Blues" but I almost said "Wonderland by Night".

 

[boombox4]

The difference is that when people bought albums, everyone got paid only once for the sale. In streaming, everyone gets paid every time a song gets played. So the potential exists to get paid more for streaming if users stream a song billions of times.

Using this model, record labels are seeing revenues rising almost to the point of where they were with sales, plus they don't have all the costs associated with physical product. For artists, they could continue to get paid long after they stop performing.

Understood on your first point, but there is quite a difference between $15 and 9 cents (the nine cents I mentioned is a high average -- if it were one of the bigger streaming players, like the most popular ones, an album would be more like 4-5 cents).

And how many people stream an entire album? Of course, you could say the thing about CDs / Cassettes / etc., but I can guarantee that in the CD / LP era there were plenty of those units that were purchased, and maybe played once or twice and then left on the shelf. But -- played or not -- the artists/producers/companies still got that $15.

In the modern content era the ones who make the big money off of streaming are, naturally, the big names. The middle range artists do not achieve the same results. And although record co's still make some money, their revenues are still -- according to the RIAA -- 37% less than they were in 1999.

The fact is, although there still is money coming in, a lot of artists aren't seeing the results expected. They aren't screaming for higher royalties because they're making tons of money.

There is also the option for artists to bypass record co's altogether, as many artists are doing. This just adds to the amount of musical content out there, increasing competition for playtime on the streaming sites. We are just entering the era of streaming being the music consumption model, and the era where music is merely another form of content. The massive amount of internet content, and massive competition that goes with it, has a tendency to drive prices down, and it doesn't bode well for higher subscription rates being the norm.

Although I could be wrong. In a few years, we'll see how it goes.

Totally agree on what you say about radio. And, being that it was the industry I was employed in for almost 20 years, I feel good that radio will still be around, because of what it still has to offer.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

Radio has a lot to offer us old dogs, cause old dogs don't like to learn new tricks.

And when the hurricane hit Cape Coral, the streaming was down for a week. The only media was radio and TV through the air.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

I can go exploring on the internet and discover NEW MUSIC without having to buy the album first before I try it. That's what I love about finding music online.

There's no such thing as playing it safe on the internet. The reason radio plays it safe is because radio broadcasting is expensive and many have lost their shirt in the business. You don't want to join them.