selling music

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Dane Johnson

Did I miss anyone address Streaming services? Apple, etc?
I’ve looked at the process. Has anyone had success with it?

I have streams on Apple, Spotify, etc.. That's via joining CDBaby. You can also put stuff on youtube. Keep in mind
that you would make about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream (about eighty streams will buy you a postage stamp).

[Ncbandit]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

I have streams on Apple, Spotify, etc.. That's via joining CDBaby. You can also put stuff on youtube. Keep in mind
that you would make about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream (about eighty streams will buy you a postage stamp).

Yep!! crazy isn't it. The only reason to stream is to hopefully get a viral following so you can tour major venues to finally make some money.

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by Dane Johnson

Did I miss anyone address Streaming services? Apple, etc?
I’ve looked at the process. Has anyone had success with it?

I have 4 albums online for streaming - I used CD Baby for 3 of them, and get payments every quarter ~ $50. At least it covers the cost of putting the albums out there.

[TJE"]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

Public places that play music this way have to pay PRO licensing fees (yes, even if you give them a CD, or they buy CDs to play). Other than some Starbucks (and what they play are commercial releases, as far as I have seen, I expect its part of the franchise deal) I doubt any of them are playing actual CDs any longer. They subscribe to a digital feed, which covers their PRO license. The smaller places are relying on an old radio/CD player, I'm sure, but you won't get any real 'exposure' that way.

Many thanks for the factual reality - but if he slogged around enough small independent retail outlets such as restaurants/petrol/gas stations giving them his CD/MP3 file, would this not be worth doing?

Also if the CD is recorded using entirely his own instrumentation/vocals or using musicians who have signed a 'buy out' contract -would the public places still have to pay licensing fees to the collection agencies?

[JohnDWilliams]

Originally Posted by TJE"

Also if the CD is recorded using entirely his own instrumentation/vocals or using musicians who have signed a 'buy out' contract -would the public places still have to pay licensing fees to the collection agencies?

If the artist/songwriter never registered with a PRO (BMI/ASCAP/etc.), and the venue could convince the PRO that the venue never played any other music, then the venue might be able to dodge paying any fees.

I don't see this as any sort of advantage for the artist. You're most likely to get more money by registering with a PRO and pursuing wider distribution than you are to get having your music only played at a local venue and then playing gigs there.

[JohnDWilliams]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

I have streams on Apple, Spotify, etc.. That's via joining CDBaby. You can also put stuff on youtube. Keep in mind
that you would make about $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream (about eighty streams will buy you a postage stamp).

I can't find any good reference for this but let's suppose an artist/songwriter, back in the good old days, got a dollar for each time a radio station played their hit. I've heard the actual number was five or seven cents but let's make them the really good old days.

Then let's say a radio station reached 20,000 listeners with that song. That number would likely be a lot bigger in a large-city market.

One dollar divided out between 20,000 listeners amounts to $0.00005 per listener. One listener, one song.

A modern-day "stream" is one listener listening to one song. Based on the numbers above streaming pays a lot more and, even more important, access to streaming is readily available to many more artists today than radio airplay was back in the good old days.

Originally Posted by Ncbandit

Yep!! crazy isn't it. The only reason to stream is to hopefully get a viral following so you can tour major venues to finally make some money.

Very much not the only reason to stream. It seems to make folks mad when I say this but artists can actually make money in the modern music industry if they are willing to work at it. They don't need a viral following and tour major venues.

With so many companies such as Amazon, YouTube, and Netflix now making movies the demand for music has never been higher. These opportunities did not exist back in the good old days.

[Gordon Currie]

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...ams-royalties/

TL;DR: a little over a million Spotify streams results in a payout for a specific band of just under $5,000 USD. (A little lower than many reports, possibly due to currency differences between countries.)

How much does one need to spend to get 1 million streams? That reduces your $5K payout right there, meaning you actually need more than 1 million streams to net the $5K.

2019 US poverty level is ~ $12,000/yearly for one person. Over 2 million streams needed to barely exceed that (as long as you don't spend much to get the streams).

If you are a performer and can get gigs, there is probably still more potential for live performances to earn you a (meager) living than streaming. If you are a songwriter/composer who doesn't perform, then streaming (and even more so licensing) are going to be your best avenues.

I attend conferences for acoustic musicians, and many touring artists are finding that CD sales are minimal, streaming income from such niche music is negligible, and even though live performances are bread and butter, some are seeing merchandise sales are the fastest growing sources of revenue. We live in interesting times for sure.

[rick-slo]

Radio play pay is variable but the songwriter gets at most a few cents. Of course if you make it to mainstream radio the multiples almost always much greater.

The issue for the niche category of the do it yourselfer acoustic guitarist with online streaming is getting is getting recognition and a high number of streams.

According to what I have read nearly 40,000 songs are uploaded to Spotify each day. With typical play rates it was much more profitable when CDs were selling.

There are other avenues of monetization but more along the line Jeffree Star is where streamers are at.

[TJE"]

Originally Posted by JohnDWilliams

If the artist/songwriter never registered with a PRO (BMI/ASCAP/etc.), and the venue could convince the PRO that the venue never played any other music, then the venue might be able to dodge paying any fees.

I don't see this as any sort of advantage for the artist. You're most likely to get more money by registering with a PRO and pursuing wider distribution than you are to get having your music only played at a local venue and then playing gigs there.

I guess maybe the only advantage for the artist is that he might be more likely to get his music played in the sort of venues that don't want or are not able to pay licensing fees, but I think he would have to persuade a lot of such places to play his music, to get significant exposure - so maybe not

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by TJE"

Many thanks for the factual reality - but if he slogged around enough small independent retail outlets such as restaurants/petrol/gas stations giving them his CD/MP3 file, would this not be worth doing?

Also if the CD is recorded using entirely his own instrumentation/vocals or using musicians who have signed a 'buy out' contract -would the public places still have to pay licensing fees to the collection agencies?

What would all this work get YOU, the independent artist? People don't buy (or even pay attention to) recorded music in these places. And do you think the 'retail outlet' (whatever type) has someone switching CDs every 40 minutes, making sure all of them are non-PRO registered songs?
I think back to when my parents had a Cape Cod gift shop and had an 8 track tape player to play low repeated music all day - yes that same tape over and over and over again, clicking through its 4 'tracks' every 7-8 minutes each (until it stopped working and you would hear the same 7-8 minutes of songs over and over….) And, no, my parents never payed any PRO money back then (70s).

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by JohnDWilliams

I can't find any good reference for this but let's suppose an artist/songwriter, back in the good old days, got a dollar for each time a radio station played their hit. I've heard the actual number was five or seven cents but let's make them the really good old days.

Then let's say a radio station reached 20,000 listeners with that song. That number would likely be a lot bigger in a large-city market.

One dollar divided out between 20,000 listeners amounts to $0.00005 per listener. One listener, one song.

A modern-day "stream" is one listener listening to one song. Based on the numbers above streaming pays a lot more and, even more important, access to streaming is readily available to many more artists today than radio airplay was back in the good old days.

I believe there's a problem with your analysis...

The number of radio stations from which a listener can choose is a much lower number than the number of individual pieces of music available online. A single action by a radio station can expose a song to 20,000 listeners. To get exposure to 20,000 listeners from an online streaming source would take close to 20,000 actions from individual listeners.

It's true that the listener would have to choose that radio station, but as I said, there are far fewer choices of radio stations than songs to stream online, so each radio station has a far greater chance of landing a listener than does each individual piece of music on any given streaming service.

[JohnDWilliams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I believe there's a problem with your analysis...

The number of radio stations from which a listener can choose is a much lower number than the number of individual pieces of music available online. A single action by a radio station can expose a song to 20,000 listeners. To get exposure to 20,000 listeners from an online streaming source would take close to 20,000 actions from individual listeners.

It's true that the listener would have to choose that radio station, but as I said, there are far fewer choices of radio stations than songs to stream online, so each radio station has a far greater chance of landing a listener than does each individual piece of music on any given streaming service.

Classify your music correctly and get it onto relevant playlists. The market is so big that even the most obscure niche music has an audience.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by JohnDWilliams

Classify your music correctly and get it onto relevant playlists. The market is so big that even the most obscure niche music has an audience.

On youtube your play numbers and subscriber count is pretty similar to mine and not untypical of a do it yourselfer niche result. Where is this classifying your music correctly come into play and where is profit coming from online stuff?

[JohnDWilliams]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

On youtube your play numbers and subscriber count is pretty similar to mine and not untypical of a do it yourselfer niche result. Where is this classifying your music correctly come into play and where is profit coming from online stuff?

Through CD Baby my music is available for YouTube users to use on their videos. YouTube collects the sync fees. This isn't from my YouTube channel or the one CDBaby creates for each album.

Q2 2019 had 8 million plays of YouTube videos containing my music. That's not the same as getting paid for a video play. It's sync money which is less but it still adds up because the market/platform is so big.

Having the music classified correctly let YouTube users choose the music they wanted.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by JohnDWilliams

Through CD Baby my music is available for YouTube users to use on their videos. YouTube collects the sync fees. This isn't from my YouTube channel or the one CDBaby creates for each album.

Q2 2019 had 8 million plays of YouTube videos containing my music. That's not the same as getting paid for a video play. It's sync money which is less but it still adds up because the market/platform is so big.

Having the music classified correctly let YouTube users choose the music they wanted.

What is the classification that lets those visiting youtube know they can sync your music?

Your original postings on youtube have a fairly low view count so that is a tremendous and fortuitous follow though for those who viewed and then wanted to sync - or is there another avenue besides youtube that is more effective getting synch customers?

What's an example on youtube of someone who has synched your music that has such a high hit rate (in the hundreds of thousands or more)?