Jump to content

ThatOtherFan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,994

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ThatOtherFan

    TMZ finally reports as to what sparked Drake's reaction to the Kiss. (pg 2)

    in Free Xone

    Posted

    I don't know if you're playing dumb or not :unsure:. But I saw that you used a Beyonce song for a video :shifty:. Glad you're a fan now :filenails:

     

    In all seriousness, can I make a request for a video? I love your Vogue ones and want to see one using Mariah's Meteorite :unsure:.

    Who?  :unsure:

     

    Thank you. I'm glad you like my vogue videos!  :excited: Someone has to make a vogue mix to Mimi's Metorite. If they do, I'll definitely do it. Just for you.  :blush:

    The TIME IS HERE!! The biggest stars in the world have come to meet up..

    in Free Xone

    Posted

    https://medium.com/@revrev/it-s-a-trap-tidal-and-the-common-fallacy-of-music-royalties-db479441ad58

     

    It’s a Trap! TIDAL and the common fallacy of music royalties

     

    It was a brilliant publicity stunt. Credit Jay with that, at least. If artists are good at one thing, it’s that.
     
    But today’s relaunch of the lossless streaming service TIDAL was nothing more than a 15 minute parade of fame masquerading as a protest march for justice in the war on artist compensation. Jack White, Jason Aldean, Madonna, Rihanna, Daft Punk, Deadmau5, and a zillion other household names took the stage to declare their allegiance to a fledgling music service with no traction, no cashflow, and (in my opinion) sub-par software, all in the name of getting paid.
     

     

    Guess what: they’re still not getting paid.
     
    Taylor Swift’s Spotify fiasco has brought plenty of attention to the issue. It’s scary for artists to learn how many people have listened to their music, and compare to the fractional royalty statements they’re being sent. Thing is, it’s not Spotify’s fault.
     
    It’s the labels.
     
    See, all those artists on the stage are signed to labels. Their contracts dictate that the music they record is owned by those labels, sometimes in perpetuity. And most of those artists have publishing deals that take a chunk out of their performance and mechanical royalties.
     
    The reason artists don’t get paid from streaming services is that they don’t own the music they record.
     
    Spotify isn’t holding on to that money! They don’t have some Scrooge McDuck money-swimming-pool in the basement of their Manhattan digs. They are legally required to pay money to the rights holders, and they do!
     
    And the best part is that the labels are part-owners of the streaming services. When Spotify is acquired, the labels are gonna make a boatload of money (they all have shares in the company), and not a dime is getting passed on to the artists (nor should it). But when TIDAL gets acquired, you know who’s getting paid? Jay-Z. Not some indie rock band from Cleveland.

     

    I know that’s a lot to swallow. It’s hard to understand. How could the work of a creative individual suddenly be owned by some corporation? But that’s the game. Labels own the content, and they sell it to TIDAL and other services wholesale. And that’s who gets paid. If an artist gets anything (sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t), it’s because the deal they have with their label allows for a fraction of sales to be paid out as royalties (after they recoup their advances, of course).
     
    If we want a war, let’s have a war. But let’s make it about unfair label contracts, and not about whether streaming services are paying out enough money.
     
    You don’t see any labels complaining about streaming services, do you?
    • Upvote 2

    Madonna misses #1 for first time since 2000, "Empire" #1

    in Free Xone

    Posted

    why does the discussion have to be so complicated? Why can't the reasoning be just simple as it appears to be, Madonna has had a great run, I cannot think of any artist, esp. female, that after decades in the game is still slaying the charts up and down, talent or not..Barbara may be an exception but she's talented :)

     

    "you can't stay up up up forever" Janet

    That is true. I just was sharing a comment that resonated with me about this particular project. 

     

    Game just had to make it complicated, though.  :sigh:

    Madonna misses #1 for first time since 2000, "Empire" #1

    in Free Xone

    Posted

    It doesn't matter which generation the music comes from or how they correlate with the artist. The point is, teens aren't swiping their cards or spending their own money on music and adults 36+ are.. 

    Teens aren't spending their money, because the 36+ year olds are buying it for them.  :yep:  :w00t:  :coffee:

     

     

     

    No.. bc music buyers are anyone from the age of 13-60+.. I cannot judge Madonna's music bc I don't listen to it but based on the Living for Love song, it just isn't really what her base wants (compared to Hung Up from 1903 or whenever).

     

    The point is she made music that her everyone hated

    Isn't that basically what I said?  :sigh:  :umm:

     

     

    Madonna misses #1 for first time since 2000, "Empire" #1

    in Free Xone

    Posted

    Even if that was a factor, which is isn't since anyone can purchase music nowadays, It doesn't always have to be gifted. Don't you dare ruin my argument by putting it under a microscope. If you read #3 you would know more teens are turning to free streaming services instead of pay-to-own formats 

    It needs to put under the microscope, because those older buyers might not be necessarily spending money on artists from their generation. :coffee:

     

    Either way, she made music that isn't connecting with buyers. Are you happy now? :umm:  :sigh:  

    Madonna misses #1 for first time since 2000, "Empire" #1

    in Free Xone

    Posted

     

    In September of last year, Buzzfeed ran an article about the demographic of music consumers. Instead of copying pasting the link, I will paraphrase. I am including independent research.

     

    1. Who Buys CDs/Digital Music? 
      • ​61% of music consumers are 36 years old and older.
      • 63% of the digital download consumers are 26 and older. 
    2. What about those darn kids?
    • ​​​13-17 year olds only cover 7% of CD purchasers
    • 13% with Digital downloads (down 12 percentage points from previous year)
    •  

    3. So what about those darn kids?

    • ​​49% of teens and college students (ages 16-20) spent $0 on music per month on music
      • Basically teens are illegally download or streaming their music

     

     

    I doubt the bolded, even if you were to post receipts. Unless, it's basically older buying for younger. lol 

    Madonna misses #1 for first time since 2000, "Empire" #1

    in Free Xone

    Posted

    Someone said this on another forum and I think it's 100% on point...

     

    "She's 57 (right?), and most music buyers are teens. When I was a teen, in late 90s and early 00s, I wasn't interested in Tina Turner , Diana Ross or Elton John. I preferred Janet and Michael. The problem with Madonna is she's not appealing to young music buyers because of her age, and not appealing to her old fans because of her up-to-date music. Barbara Streisand, for instance, is making music for her fans. She's not trying to be "modern" and appealing to the youth, and it works. So in short, Madonna's music is too modern for older buyers, and she is too old for young buyers. It's as simple as that."

×
×
  • Create New...