Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pandora Shares Artist Payment Figures

Posted by Soulskill on from the money-for-nothin' dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Today in a blog post, Pandora has shared some details of the fees they pay to musical artists for playing songs over their music streaming service. Over 2,000 different artists will pull in $10,000 or more in the next year, and 800 will get paid over $50,000. They provided a few specific examples as well. Grupo Bryndis, who has a sales rank on Amazon of 183,187 (in other words, who is not at all a household name), is on track to receive $114,192. A few earners are getting over $1 million annually, such as Coldplay and Adele. 'Drake and Lil Wayne are fast approaching a $3 million annual rate each.' The post segues into a broader point about the age of internet radio: 'It's hard to look at these numbers and not see that internet radio presents an incredible opportunity to build a better future for artists. Not only is it bringing tens of millions of listeners back to music, across hundreds of genres, but it is also enabling musicians to earn a living. It's also hard to look at these numbers, knowing Pandora accounts for just 6.5% of radio listening in the U.S., and not come away thinking something is wrong. ... Congress must stop the discrimination against internet radio and allow it to operate on a level playing field, under the same rules as other forms of digital radio.'"

9 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Pandora's Problem is repetition by NinjaTekNeeks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every day I listen to Pandora on the way to/from work. Inevitably I will hear the same track, often more than once and skip it. I use Pandora to discover new artists related to the well known artist I entered. Obviously if Pandora keeps playing the same tracks from this artist they will have to pay them top dollar, if they play obscure and less known (cheaper per track I assume) they will make me happy and lower expenses. I blame Pandora for this problem, not the artists.

  2. Seriously? by robbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it is also enabling musicians to earn a living

    If you call 800 people earning more than $50k a viable industry then I have some Florida swampland to sell you. Sounds like less than 1% of all the musicians in the world are not living in their mother's basement...

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
    1. Re:Seriously? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Musicians make money by playing venues.
      Unless, of course, they are Studio Musicians, or Songwriters, or Lyricists, or Backup Vocalists, etc., etc.
      I would have to say that the best musicians I know very rarely play venues.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Seriously? by VocationalZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ^This. The business of music has mostly been about trying to meet a demand at optimal net profit. The industry has little incentive to look toward modern alternatives that offer them less money than they were making before; the top execs at these places actually think they can return to the old ways if they can just clamp down on the piracy issue. Their lawyers know better, but they also know better than to tell them.

  3. How much is too much? by mccrew · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Drake and Lil Wayne are fast approaching a $3 million annual rate each.'

    This part of the original submission got my attention. The submitter added the italics for emphasis, implying that they don't deserve it.

    Drake and Wayne, good on you.

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
  4. Pandora's problem by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pandora's problem is that they're cutting out the middlemen. Middlemen tend not to like that very much, especially given that most of the people in our economy are one kind of middleman or another. Money directly to people working? That's unamerican. That's communism. That's... well, you get the idea.

    Copyright law exists principally for one reason anymore these days: Middlemen. Oh sure, they talk about the artists, but there's no such thing as an artist under copyright law anymore. They're all contractors -- and their art actually isn't art anymore, they're "works for hire". I shouldn't have to explain how RIAA fucks artists, but for those who've been living under a rock until just now, let me give you a hint: It starts with a 'c', ends with a 't', and has a lot of legal language in between that says you (the artist) brings the lube, and they bring the butt hurt. Oh, and don't bother trying to look elsewhere: It's exclusive. Just you and me baby. And it will not be over quickly. And you will not enjoy it.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Pandora's problem by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do understand that without copyright, Pandora wouldn't give a single dime to the artists, right? Pandora is a business. They're not in the habit of giving away millions of dollars when they're not legally obligated to.

  5. Re:Wrong occupation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, Pandora the corporation is making the money (presumably). The software creators are paid their wages.

  6. Re:Pandora's problem is their love of Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An atheist, eh?

    Sometime about two or three years ago I noticed the song selection take a distinctive turn for the worse, as any time I enter a song from any of half of my favorite artists, I end up with a station that simply will not play anything other than Christian music. Thus I hear nothing but "God," "Jesus," "Lord," and "Hallelujah"

    And they say God doesn't have a sense of humor...