Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Streaming Services Help Global Music Industry To Fastest Growth in Nearly 20 Years (billboard.com)

Posted by msmash on from the changing-fortunes dept.

The global music industry grew by 5.9 percent in 2016, its fastest rate of growth since 1997, as revenue generated by streaming services surged 60 percent. From a report: The IFPI's Global Music Report (previously known as the Digital Music Report) states that trade revenue generated by the global recorded music industry climbed by 5.9 percent to $15.7 billion, with digital sales up 17.7 percent across the board. After digital revenue surpassed physical for the first time in 2015, digital hits another milestone in 2016, accounting for 50 percent ($7.8 billion) of all music sales for the first time. More importantly, 2016 marked the second successive year that the recorded music market grew after nearly two decades of continually falling sales during which revenues dropped by almost 40 percent at their lowest point. [...] Breaking down the Global Music Report findings, the mass adoption of streaming services such as Spotify, Amazon and Apple Music in both established and emerging markets is -- as expected -- the main driver behind the industry's sustained upturn.

47 comments

  1. Still complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Record growth, yet they'll still be complaining that evil pirates are destroying their business...

    1. Re:Still complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Record growth, yet they'll still be complaining that evil pirates are destroying their business...

      Meanwhile, behind the scenes are laughing all the way to the bank, as the cost to produce and distribute digital versus physical media is a fraction of what it once was... Meanwhile, the artists themselves are getting very little of this revenue (as has always been the case).

    2. Re:Still complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1981, when any half-assed musician could sell millions of albums, the record companies were complaining about "piracy". No amount of money will ever be enough.

    3. Re: Still complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, ghetto blasters with twin tape decks were a tool of piracy Satan.

    4. Re: Still complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that rich bitch Taylor Swift still doesn't think she's getting paid enough.

  2. I blame piracy by baker_tony · · Score: 1

    Piracy is to blame.

    1. Re:I blame piracy by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      To hear the RIAA tell it, ALL streaming is piracy! And they are not making enough money off streaming. Just as they haven't made enough off any other past technology for delivering music.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:I blame piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good thing they have their devices to purchase and stream (and pirate) all those digital bits.. because kids these days don't even know what a damn radio is.

    3. Re:I blame piracy by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Sure they do it's that thing in the car that their parent use to listen to the oldies and news.

    4. Re:I blame piracy by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      Those poor bastards, I really feel for them.

    5. Re:I blame piracy by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Wrong-o.

      The radio is that device they continuously tune to avoid commercials.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:I blame piracy by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      It's the device that you crank to power that Dad has in the basement for when there are tornadoes...

  3. What little that's left by kamapuaa · · Score: 0

    Music industry was gutted by piracy. Subtracting 40% and adding 5.9% still leaves you with a huge negative.

    Result - Music has gotten STALE over the last ten years. Not even bad, just more of the same.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:What little that's left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Music industry was gutted by piracy. Subtracting 40% and adding 5.9% still leaves you with a huge negative.

      Result - Music has gotten STALE over the last ten years. Not even bad, just more of the same.

      That's true of "Commercialized" music, but there is a ton of really great music out there... You just have to know where to look, and you won't here it on any radio, or many Spotify, etc... playlists.

    2. Re:What little that's left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "recorded music market grew after nearly two decades of continually falling sales during which revenues dropped by almost 40 percent at their lowest point"

      Your reading comprehension skills are horrible. That 40% figure was at their "lowest point" there has been steady increases ever since and now its up to record levels.

      Man do me a favor and read at least the fuckin summary twice before clicking on post.

    3. Re:What little that's left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People decry that "labels" are over (music labels), but I disagree. Because the barrier to entry is so low, now I have to slog though thousands of indie bands to find the one or two I like; this is what labels are good for. Labels curate music so you don't have to. Yes, some slip through the cracks and some shit still gets put out, but that's fine. It may be that the days of labels taking 90% of the revenue are over, and that more go towards the Dischord label model (Here's your invoice for how much we spent to release your record. Once you recoup these costs, we split 50/50 right down the middle. You get to sell your own merch and mark it up however you want.. Fairest deal in music), which I fully welcome.

    4. Re:What little that's left by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Technology has also opened up recording to the masses there are a lot of indie labels out there not associated with the RIAA now.

    5. Re:What little that's left by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      "Music has gotten STALE over the last ten years. Not even bad, just more of the same."

      Nope. You've gotten ten years older and can detect patterns faster and are bored by them.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    6. Re:What little that's left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were plenty of indie labels before - pressing a CD wasn't expensive. The expensive part was access to the market, but artists could sell at shows or have nerd newsletters/mailing lists. Plenty of dedicated niche markets existed.

      Now, the money has gone out and indie musicians are unable to support themselves through music. Consequently, there's been less influx of new musical styles.

    7. Re:What little that's left by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      If you have Spotify, it's actually really good at creating automatic playlists for you, with music that you'll probably like.

      I have 4 daily mixes being generated every day, with about 50/50 music I already like, and new music that is usually really damn good.

      YMMV, I mostly listen to metal and prog rock. It may be different for other genres.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    8. Re:What little that's left by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know what music you're finding, but I'm continually getting awesome recommendations from Spotify's daily mixes and weekly discover playlists. Sure an uninteresting tracks slips through once in a while, but I don't mind. It's easy to skip to the next awesome new track.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  4. Independent music by TheDarkener · · Score: 2

    I'm glad streaming services are really taking off, it is lowering the bar of entry into the "industry" (ugh, I hate calling music an industry). Many more artists are able to get themselves heard without having to have a record contract. However, most streaming services rape artists just like record companies by giving them such a low percentage of profits. Sure this has something to do with streaming services having to pay royalties to the Big 4, but it still doesn't make it right. Artists deserve to be compensated more fairly for their work. Something that might encourage people to pay artists, not because they *have* to via music streaming revenue, but because they know that the majority of their payment will actually (gasp!) go to the artist, would definitely be something I'd take part in. Otherwise, I look at streaming services with the same goggles as I do if I were purchasing a CD in a brick and mortar store - by knowing full well that the artist who created the music in the first place will probably see 1-5% of my money. Fuck that.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Independent music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      (ugh, I hate calling music an industry)

      I hate calling these people 'artists' when most of them sound like a cat stuck in a rat trap.

    2. Re:Independent music by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      Artists deserve to be compensated more fairly for their work. Something that might encourage people to pay artists, not because they *have* to via music streaming revenue, but because they know that the majority of their payment will actually (gasp!) go to the artist, would definitely be something I'd take part in.

      So head on over to https://bandcamp.com/. They got free streaming through their website and app, and if you want to buy the release (digital or physical) they take a 35% cut, the rest goes entirely to the artists.

      Artists set the minimum price on releases, but you can pay more if you want to.

      Lots of interesting artists, and they got a weekly podcast showcasing lots of different music, which can be a great way to explore new territory.

      Not affiliated, just a happy customer.

    3. Re:Independent music by TwoLeggedMammal · · Score: 1

      Let's replace the phrase that streaming services are "raping" artists, and put some figures in place so people can have a more informed opinion. My friend's band released an album on both iTunes and Spotify, and I did a little research to see if I was providing them with less income by listening on my paid Spotify account than had I purchased through iTunes.

      iTunes model is that the artist get 70% of anything paid to purchase an album. From their 5 song EP for $5, they would have received $3.50. If some of that goes to your record company, well hopefully they've done enough to make up for it, but that's not germane to this math.

      Spotify has a similar model; any revenues they receive through paid accounts and ads gets divided among the artists whose music is on the site. The distribution is of course weighted by the amount of plays of the artists songs and is presumably weighted by some other things like song length, etc.. Their documentation says that at the end of the day, this works out to about 0.6 cents for every play for the artist. At 0.6 cents per stream, it would take the play of 583 songs for them to get the same money as they would have gotten via iTunes (for a 5 song album), or about 116 listens through the album. The same would hold true for your average 10 song for $10 full length album.

      116 listens is a lot for sure. I don't have any figures on how much the average person listens to an album, but for my part, I listen to my favorites maybe 30 times in the first year of ownership, and then maybe 5-10 times per year after that, when it catches my fancy. Given 10 years or more, the artist may get the full value of their album or more, but it takes some patience, and an album that really catches me.

      For disappointing albums, perhaps you listen to them just a few times before giving up. In that scenario, yes the artist would have taken your money and ran via iTunes, and not have earned it on Spotify. It ties the income from the music with the quality more strongly. I'm ok with that.

      And to its credit, Spotify introduces me to music I would have never otherwise discovered. One particular artist, TPR, does piano covers of old video games for which I would have never paid upfront, but find myself listening to about 30 songs of his most days. That means he gets something like $4 a month just from my patronship.

      And you can do the math yourself. Go to any artist's page, look at their most popular songs and how many plays they have received. Ok, this local band has made $8k from their music, this indie band has made $200k from their music, this one pop song has made $1MM for that annoying artist. Then think about how this is just one channel of revenue, also allowing for other music distribution services and concerts. It seems pretty ok to me, and not so rapey.

      And as for my friend's band, by my count they've made about double what they would have had I directly purchased the album. I must confess though that I tend to turn it on when I am headed out for lunch or headed home for the day to inflate the play count.

  5. still easy to pirate. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's also just easy to copy music with a computer.. (even easier than via napster i'd argue, albeit possibly slower)
    step 1. spotify free/youtube, whatever
    step 2. audacity
    step 3. record whatever you like.

    done.

    as long as the analog hole exists, there will be pirates. the goal should be make purchasing the music as cheap and effortless as possible. because at the end of the day, they are competing against free. more carrot, less stick -- is the only way forward.

    1. Re:still easy to pirate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goal should be a new business model. I would gladly contribute to a kickstarter for a new album from some of my favorite bands, (as long as they made it free to download for everyone). I'm sure a lot of bands have fans that are falling all over themselves desperate for new albums enough to make kickstarter style fund raising profitable.

      But I will /never/ again pay for one copy of something that can be copied infinitely with the click of a button.

      captcha: disarm. Hope you're reading this Billy Corgan.

    2. Re:still easy to pirate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By analogy, the goal should be to make software and web development and IT administration as cheap and effortless for Western corporations as possible, because at the end of they, they are competing against folks with college degrees in developing countries who are happy to work for 5 to 15 cents on the dollar compared to us. That's the only way forward.

      The only difference is that people on /. actually give a shit about the careers of Western software developers and IT administrators, whereas for musicians it's "fuck them. They lived high on the hog long enough, they should find a new career."

    3. Re:still easy to pirate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goal should be a new business model. I would gladly contribute to a kickstarter for a new album from some of my favorite bands, (as long as they made it free to download for everyone). I'm sure a lot of bands have fans that are falling all over themselves desperate for new albums enough to make kickstarter style fund raising profitable.

      Not exactly a new business model. Sites such as PledgeMusic or to a lesser extent Patreon already do.

    4. Re:still easy to pirate. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Some bands have successfully kickstarted albums, but it requires you to already have a fanbase.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    5. Re:still easy to pirate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's also just easy to copy music with a computer.. (even easier than via napster i'd argue, albeit possibly slower)
      step 1. spotify free/youtube, whatever
      step 2. audacity
      step 3. record whatever you like.

      done.

      as long as the analog hole exists, there will be pirates. the goal should be make purchasing the music as cheap and effortless as possible. because at the end of the day, they are competing against free. more carrot, less stick -- is the only way forward.

      Who need an analog hole? There are countless YouTube rippers out there; and there are remuxers too, so you can convert them to various other formats including non-video formats like MP3.

  6. Re: You must be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Man do me a favor and read
      twice before clicking on post.

    HAHAHAHA
    HAHA .... really new here

  7. Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty good for the banking shills since i will never pay for music or content if i choose not to.

  8. but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Piracy is killing our bottom line

  9. two-edged sword by Orp · · Score: 2

    I'm a long-time audiophile (it's kind of a disease; a fun one, if you can afford it). Never in a million years did I think I'd pay for a streaming service. My main objections are lossy encoding (MP3 or similar) and not having any product whatsoever, digital or otherwise (CD, vinyl). But now that services are coming along that offer CD quality (PCM, 44.1 kHz/16 bit - or perhaps higher) I finally broke down and subscribed to one of them (Tidal). What I like the most is being able to browse the catalog and play new stuff, remotely piloting a Squeezebox Touch that feeds a DAC that feeds "the good stereo". Twenty bucks a month for an unlimited CD quality catalog is a pretty good bargain if you are a voracious music consumer.

    At the same time, I continue to buy a little new and used vinyl here and there, but mostly for the fun of it, as I'm just old enough to remember when records were the main media for music. So if you are a format fetishist, you can buy records and CDs will be out there for a long time (and used CDs are cheaper than dirt).

    I do wonder how the artists will fare with streaming. I suspect poorly, as always, and that the people who will make the money will be the labels and the streaming services. I hope I'm wrong.

    --
    A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
    1. Re: two-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hoarding is a mental health condition you should get help for. Personally I consider those that glorify the music industry fools.

    2. Re: two-edged sword by Orp · · Score: 1

      Hoarding is a mental health condition you should get help for. Personally I consider those that glorify the music industry fools.

      Hoarding? Hardly. I ditched all my physical media (hundreds of CDs) except records, and I only have a couple hundred of those.

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
    3. Re:two-edged sword by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1, Interesting

      $20/month is definitely a sweet price for unlimited streaming!

      As an audiophile I still refuse to use a streaming service. There are number of reasons for that:

      * Compared to the 90's when I used to buy a ton of CD's my music purchases for the past 5 years has slowly dwindling. iTunes seems to fit the bit of convenience for the odd purchase I make these days.

      * Part of the reason is that I'm still debating whether to upgrade to Martin Logan ElectroMotion ESL (ELectroStatics) when my current audio setup is "good enough."

      * I've actually been going through all my monthly expenses and finding that in the end most of them just aren't used enough to justify it. I'd rather put the month towards other things.

      Sadly, there is no cure for an audiophile -- except to make peace with yourself. LOL.

      --
      "When I die I hope my wife sells my speakers for what they are worth, not what I told her I paid for them!"

    4. Re:two-edged sword by havana9 · · Score: 1

      I have the audio gear from the '90 so I can listen to Audio CD, cassette tapes and vinyl records. I still prefer to but the physical media, especially used CD, because you actually own it, there's not digital restriction management, so I can listen to material made in 1960s from little and now dead record companies. Convert CD to mp3 is a no-brainer and Amazon does this for you. From analogue media it's a bit more time consuming, but it's doable.

    5. Re:two-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the reason is that I'm still debating whether to upgrade to Martin Logan ElectroMotion ESL (ELectroStatics) when my current audio setup is "good enough."

      Your hearing will only get worse. If your current setup is good enough now, it'll be more than good enough in the future.

    6. Re:two-edged sword by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      My main objections are lossy encoding (MP3 or similar)

      You will not be able to hear any difference between CD-quality and a 320kbps MP3 or Ogg Vorbis stream of the same master of the same track. It's a complete non-issue.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    7. Re:two-edged sword by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      * Compared to the 90's when I used to buy a ton of CD's my music purchases for the past 5 years has slowly dwindling. iTunes seems to fit the bit of convenience for the odd purchase I make these days.

      Since subscribing to Spotify Premium, my music listening time has increased greatly. I have millions of albums available instantly, I get automatically generated personal playlists based on my listening habits and which tracks I mark for "my music" (ie. my favorite tracks ever). Currently, there are four daily mixes for me, based on different genres, it's like having personalized radio stations with no ads.

      I haven't listened to this much music in years, and it's great :-)

      --
      Eat the rich.
    8. Re:two-edged sword by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      No one is saying you have to ditch all your favorite obscure CDs, just because you subscribe to a streaming service.

      I use Spotify, but I still have around 1800 MP3's of various content that isn't available on any streaming service, but I still listen to. I've uploaded those tracks to Google Play Music, so I can even stream those wherever I am.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  10. But...but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Streaming and illegal downloads are killing the industry. Wahhhhhhhn!!11!!!11

  11. Cry Wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, an industry cries that the sky is falling and their very way of life is threatened by this new technology and that art as we know it will cease to exist if the new technology is allowed to exist. And once again, on the back of that very same technology the same industry roars ahead to record profits. Records, Radio, Movies, TV, VCRs, Tapes, digital media...I believe all of these were supposed to kill the art forms they helped expand.

  12. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, I really like your Article :) If you Are looking for (name of the product) Then you should Check ...
    http://top10bestlist.com/best-mic-stands-review/