Much ado about Spotify’s 87 Million Subscribers

Spotify began November 2018 with an announcement that they reached 87 million subscribers. News outlets from the Wall Street Journal to The Verge, and Variety to The Hollywood Reporter covered this news as a competition with Apple Music, and the overall shifting of the music industry. However, little was said about the real impact on music consumption as social activity or the excess profits this generates for everyone in the recording industry.

In my essay “Digital Subscriptions: The Unending Consumption of Music in the Digital Era,” I explore the way the recording industry changed our consumption habits and increased profits exponentially. What we can’t lose is that the average consumer used to buy about $40 worth of recorded music per year, but with subscriptions, they are paying $120 per year. Think about $870,000,000/month in music consumption on Spotify alone (another $530,000,000 on Apple Music). In the essay, I analyze this further.

Here is the abstract:

When Apple purchased Beats Music in 2014, it signified a major moment in the transformation of the recorded music commodity. This is the second time in the digital era that Apple has catalyzed a transformation of the recorded commodity after first disrupting the recording industry by creating the iTunes store. Now, the recording industry is changing from a business model dependent on the sale of commodities to a model based on subscriptions and streaming. I call this model unending consumption because it traps music listeners in a cycle where they must continually subscribe to have access to music. By giving subscribers unlimited access to music in exchange for $10 per month, the recording industry aims to increase the amount that the average consumer spends per year on music by 200%.

Please contact me if you need access to the full article behind the paywall.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Spotify_logo_with_text.svg/2000px-Spotify_logo_with_text.svg.png

Advertisements

MusicDetour Launch

MDLogoI am happy to announce the launch of my newest project MusicDetour: The DFW Local Music Archive! This website is both a local music archive and a music community. UTA faculty members Dan Cavanagh, Micah Hayes, and Chyng-Yang Jang work with me on the project, along with the UTA Library and UTA Radio. Continue reading

All musicians deserve a wage

fist-micMusicians must be compensated for their labor. While musicians create music in a number of ways, very few are paid for the time they spend making music, especially those musicians signed to record contracts. Prince, David Byrne and Courtney Love have described how recording contracts trap artists in highly exploitative relationships with their labels. The fact that an artist must recoup their advance before they make any money exploits the vast majority of recording artists because few ever recoup their advance. Alternatively, not signing a record contract and playing small bars/clubs is no way to pay for a mortgage. This means that many musicians are forced to work multiple precarious jobs to make ends meet while most would like to find a way to earn a living from performing, recording, and writing. For instance, a study in Austin, TX found that three-fourths of musicians who earn all of their income from music make less than $25,000 (pre-tax). Enough is enough: musicians deserve a living wage. Continue reading

How record companies induce panic about music piracy to increase their profits and exploit artists

vp-bogeymanFrom UTA Inquiry, Fall 2015:

On May 2, 2000, Lars Ulrich, drummer for the band Metallica, announced that his group was suing Napster, a free file-sharing service that let fans download music online. During the press conference outside Napster’s headquarters, Ulrich presented the company with a giant stack of papers listing the names of 300,000 Napster users. His assertion: Napster was enabling these people to steal music. Continue reading

The New Distribution Oligopoly: Beats, iTunes, and Digital Music Distribution

i_like_a_little_competitionRead “The New Distribution Oligopoly: Beat, iTunes and Digital Music Distribution” in Media Fields Journal‘s special issue on Digital Distribution.

Digital music distribution changed everything, and yet it changed nothing. Stoking the techno-utopian vision of the Internet in the late 1990s, Napster signaled the promise of a decentralized music distribution system that eclipsed the authoritarian stronghold of the major record labels’ distributors. People thought that by exchanging music as bits and bytes, the recording industry oligopoly would be overthrown as musicians gained the capacity to distribute music to fans directly, part of what Tom McCourt and Patrick Burkart term the “internet nirvana theory.”[1] The Internet brought the possibility of a robust music commons where everyone has access to all music; a commons which could be used to create new culture.[2] But the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law in 1998 restricting the free flow of digital information using Digital Rights Management (DRM) before Napster was even developed. Where major record labels always controlled distribution under physical media regimes, the DMCA, along with repressive surveillance of peer-2-peer (P2P) file sharing networks,[3] has allowed the major labels to reestablish their dominance in the digital era.

Continue reading

Grammy Alliance: Another Round of Piracy Panic Narrative

video blockedAfter 3 hours of music and a much needed public service announcement on domestic violence, the Recording Academy decided to end the show with a selfish lobbying effort to create tougher copyright laws. By starting the Creators’ Alliance (dubbed #GrammyAlliance for Twitter), the Recording Academy placed itself strongly on the side of major record labels against the recording artists who constitute the bulk of the Recording Academy members. Continue reading

Grammys: Not about the Music

While the term Grammy is derived from “gramophone,” the first device to record and playback music, this year’s Grammy Award Show will be largely about profit, not music. Heralded in the past as a moment when recording artists come together and vote for the best music of the year, the choices they are given is highly structured by the Grammy Nominating Committee and major record labels. And while voting members still have ultimate say in nomination and voting, the system propels the biggest pop names to the top the same way that our political process favors big name politicos (read “serious candidates”). Because there are so many voters, with over 20,000 members, the Recording Academy‘s Voting Members, eligible only to musicians who have “commercially” released music, favors widely popular major label music over obscure indie music. Continue reading

Copyright Rewrite: In the name of Musicians, in the pocket of Big Business

As the US Copyright Office pushes forward with plans for the largest overhaul of copyright in decades, it is important not to fall back to the same patterns that have eviscerated musicians and other creative producers. These copyright rewrites always end-up making powerful copyright interests more powerful. Continue reading

Major Record Labels See Growth . . . But still say sales are in decline

As more data is released from 2014, we can see that major record labels celebrated a year of indisputable growth. Yet, they continue to include language that makes it sound as if the industry shrank.

“While the U.S. music industry suffered through its worst sales year since the advent of SoundScan (now Nielsen Music) in 1991, streaming was so strong last year that the industry nevertheless saw growth — yes, growth — in 2014, when new metrics to measure music revenue are taken into consideration.” Continue reading