Playlistomania? I wonder what it is on Spotify–that’s what 50 million tracks will do for you. If this replicates to “listener paralysis” (which seems plausible), it may help explain why the streaming revenue share model leads to declining royalty rates and greater concentration of wealth in a hyper efficient market share distribution. (Deezer reportedly conducted a similar study in 2018 using a casual poll with findings based more on age than choice.) Less is more, kids, less is more.
Nielsen’s new Total Audience Report found that the average TV viewer takes seven minutes just to pick what to watch….[A]mong adult subscription-video-on-demand (SVOD) users, only a third of them bother to browse the menu to find content, with 21 percent saying they simply give up watching if they’re unable to make a choice when bombarded with options.
Read the post on the NY Post
The majority of people who champion streaming are not your average artist, they are not even the top 10 per cent of artists. The advocators of the commentary we hear day to day are music industry press, mainstream press, the streaming networks themselves, aggregators and Digital Service Providers (DSPs) and of course users, who get an amazing experience of all the music in the world for 9.99.
Read the post on MusicIndustTweet
For years, Facebook gave some of the world’s largest technology companies more intrusive access to users’ personal data than it has disclosed, effectively exempting those business partners from its usual privacy rules, according to internal records and interviews.
The special arrangements are detailed in hundreds of pages of Facebook documents obtained by The New York Times. The records, generated in 2017 by the company’s internal system for tracking partnerships, provide the most complete picture yet of the social network’s data-sharing practices. They also underscore how personal data has become the most prized commodity of the digital age, traded on a vast scale by some of the most powerful companies in Silicon Valley and beyond.
The exchange was intended to benefit everyone. Pushing for explosive growth, Facebook got more users, lifting its advertising revenue. Partner companies acquired features to make their products more attractive. Facebook users connected with friends across different devices and websites. But Facebook also assumed extraordinary power over the personal information of its 2.2 billion users — control it has wielded with little transparency or outside oversight.
The social network allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages.
Read the post on the New York Times.
[Editor Charlie sez: The Music Modernization Act really is the Spotify IPO Preservation Act, as we suspected!]
David Israelite of the NMPA and Mitch Glazier of the RIAA have penned an op-ed for Variety Magazine, in which they extoll the virtues of various copyright reform proposals before congress. While I agree with them about the Classics Act (fixes pre-1972 loophole) AMP act (helps producers/engineers receive royalties from digital royalty streams) every day […]
via Barf. Just Barf. — The Trichordist
[Editor Charlie sez: No, that’s not a headline from the National Enquirer. Straight outta George Orwell’s 1984! Laura Koby puts it in perspective at MTP in her post Making Fake Art: “1984”, The New Rembrandt, and The “Fake Artist”]
Pop music made by actual robots is here… and it sounds considerably better than you might think.
Hello World, released earlier this month via Flow Records, is being touted as ‘the first multi-artist commercial album created using Artificial Intelligence’.
The LP has been recorded by French collective SKYGGE, in collaboration with the likes of Canadian chart-topper Kiesza and Belgian pop star Stromae… and, of course, those all important computers.
SKYGGE is led by composer, author and producer Benoit Carré, alongside a gentlemen who is becoming increasingly well-known (and slightly fretted about?) in music business circles: François Pachet.
Pachet (pictured) is the world’s foremost scientist in the field of AI-assisted music creation. Aka: Music composed by machine minds.
Last summer (in news that got a few tongues wagging amid the service’s ‘fake artist’ controversy) Pachet joined Spotify as Director of the platform’s‘Creator Technology Research Lab’.
His recruitment by Daniel Ek’s company followed 20 years of service at Sony, where Pachet – a semi-professional musician in his own right – pioneered projects which resulted in the first known pop songs composed with AI.
Read the post on Music Business Worldwide
[Editor Charlie sez: After this post started to take off on Huffington Post, Blake Morgan was told that HuffPo was killing the link on a flimsy excuse. The Trichordist has reposted the piece along with correspondence from the HuffPo editor.]
I love making playlists, I love being able to download streamed music so I can listen when I’m offline, and I love being able to bring that music with me. In short, I think it’s a great distribution method.
What I don’t love is how little musicians get paid for all that streaming. It’s not fair––not even close. What’s more, middle-class music makers are the ones who are hit hardest, whose businesses are threatened, and whose families are put at risk. So how can I be against the way streaming companies treat musicians but not be against streaming itself?
The same way I’m against the electric chair, but not against electricity.
[Editor Charlie sez: Just in time for the Spotify IPO…or debt rollover…Billboard is poised to visit agita on streaming boosters when it corrects the absurd equal weighting of free streams and subscription streams in its sales/airplay/streaming chart, which should also change the way some people…ahem…average the revenue value of the ad/paid streams.]
One of the biggest stories of 2017 is playing out right now, as Billboard works on a revamp of its Top 200 album chart that will give greater weight to paid streams, while ad-supported streams will be devalued. Most majors have been lobbying for just such a revenue-based revamp.
Presently, all streams are weighted equally, with 1,500 streams counted as one album. Those in the know believe the formula for paid streams will be adjusted to 1,250:1, while ad-supported streams will be devalued to 5,000:1. In other words, premium streams would have four times the weight of ad-supported. Under the existing metric, 100m streams of any kind would count as 66,667 albums, while under the new proposal, 100m ad-supported streams would count as just 20k albums, and 100m paid streams would count as 80k albums. On the other hand, albums that rely heavily on ad-supported streams for long periods of time could lose thousands of chart units.
YouTube streams will supposedly continue to be excluded from the Top 200, following vehement protests by rights holders over their possible inclusion.
Read the must read on HITS Daily Double