By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Easy money, eh? Write a hit Christmas song, and 50 years later, you're still living off the royalties when it's played to death during December.
It's always seemed an odd system to me, the fact that these payments are made at all - just write the song, sell the records and earn the money from that, or other promotions/advertising when it's used. Don't see why a royalties system is needed.
As a small business, I am forced to pay for a PRS license every year for the songs/ads/jingles that guests 'might' hear when watching TV at my place, so yes, that's probably what irks me.
Because most of the money from record sales (what the industry calls mechanical rights) lines the pocket of the labels, publishing house, agents and performing artists (if said artist is well established and gets the right deal).
The actual writers of the art would see very little return for their work unless royalties existed for 'performing rights', such as those that PRS collect.
I've spent £1000s recording songs in studios as an indie artist and writer, and Spotify pays artists like me 0.003p per stream. I have a song with over 15,000 listens on Spotify and it hasn't even earned me £5
My co-writer had to set up a limited company so we could claim any money at all for downloads and streams.
The industry is broken, and exploitative, really. It's why so many singer-songwriters are re-recording their back catalogue outside of their record label contract.. Most will never actually own their own master recording if they don't.
Even touring isn't that cost effective unless you are as big as Taylor Swift or Oasis.
The best most songwriters can hope for is to try to get a sync deal for adverts/TV/film, as they pay a lump sum for use of the master, then royalties after a certain period of time if they are still using it.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 22:43]
4
Christmas songs royalties on 16:40 - Dec 3 with 1351 views
Because most of the money from record sales (what the industry calls mechanical rights) lines the pocket of the labels, publishing house, agents and performing artists (if said artist is well established and gets the right deal).
The actual writers of the art would see very little return for their work unless royalties existed for 'performing rights', such as those that PRS collect.
I've spent £1000s recording songs in studios as an indie artist and writer, and Spotify pays artists like me 0.003p per stream. I have a song with over 15,000 listens on Spotify and it hasn't even earned me £5
My co-writer had to set up a limited company so we could claim any money at all for downloads and streams.
The industry is broken, and exploitative, really. It's why so many singer-songwriters are re-recording their back catalogue outside of their record label contract.. Most will never actually own their own master recording if they don't.
Even touring isn't that cost effective unless you are as big as Taylor Swift or Oasis.
The best most songwriters can hope for is to try to get a sync deal for adverts/TV/film, as they pay a lump sum for use of the master, then royalties after a certain period of time if they are still using it.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 22:43]
Kate Nash was in the press last week saying that selling photos of her bum will make her more money than anything musical.
My mrs is a composer and saw a rare paid gig advertised earlier - write 4 tracks for a feature length movie, but the sting is it's a competition: £1500 to the winner, £250 to the runner up - everyone else who enters and spends days on it can go swing.
Musicians are screwed - I think its now at the point where you have to have external finance to do it professionally, all while AI creeps up (off the back of previously written content).
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Christmas songs royalties on 16:40 - Dec 3 by giant_stow
Kate Nash was in the press last week saying that selling photos of her bum will make her more money than anything musical.
My mrs is a composer and saw a rare paid gig advertised earlier - write 4 tracks for a feature length movie, but the sting is it's a competition: £1500 to the winner, £250 to the runner up - everyone else who enters and spends days on it can go swing.
Musicians are screwed - I think its now at the point where you have to have external finance to do it professionally, all while AI creeps up (off the back of previously written content).
Yeah, I saw that Kate Nash article too.
We are considering a Kickstarter fund so that we can finish our EP. Were about 80% complete, but have absolutely no money left to finish it in the near future.
AI is frightening for composers. There's nothing that you do as a writer where there isn't someone either creating tech to replace you, or trying to steal the market from out underneath you. .
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 16:51]
1
Christmas songs royalties on 17:11 - Dec 3 with 1248 views
I've been watching Boy bands forever on Iplayer, which is well worth a watch.
It features East 17 and I suspect the members of the band are seeing very little of that 97K quoted in the article for Stay another day. The song's original meaning is definitely not festive either.
0
Christmas songs royalties on 17:36 - Dec 3 with 1197 views
I know this is going off the theme a bit, but was in New York a few weeks ago and did a tour of New York at night. The guy who was our guide was saying that many of the artists in New York were moving to Detroit because living was so much cheaper there. As for musicians apparently it's a big turnaround from record sales to touring. Years ago they made their money from record sales and gigs were just a sort of sideline. Now it's totally reversed and it's the gigs that pay.
0
Christmas songs royalties on 17:37 - Dec 3 with 1194 views
Because most of the money from record sales (what the industry calls mechanical rights) lines the pocket of the labels, publishing house, agents and performing artists (if said artist is well established and gets the right deal).
The actual writers of the art would see very little return for their work unless royalties existed for 'performing rights', such as those that PRS collect.
I've spent £1000s recording songs in studios as an indie artist and writer, and Spotify pays artists like me 0.003p per stream. I have a song with over 15,000 listens on Spotify and it hasn't even earned me £5
My co-writer had to set up a limited company so we could claim any money at all for downloads and streams.
The industry is broken, and exploitative, really. It's why so many singer-songwriters are re-recording their back catalogue outside of their record label contract.. Most will never actually own their own master recording if they don't.
Even touring isn't that cost effective unless you are as big as Taylor Swift or Oasis.
The best most songwriters can hope for is to try to get a sync deal for adverts/TV/film, as they pay a lump sum for use of the master, then royalties after a certain period of time if they are still using it.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 22:43]
Fair points, and as you say the system is broken. If the talent gets paid properly in the first place, instead of labels/agents/etc lining their pockets, maybe there wouldn't be a need for royalties to keep on paying out decades after a song is written.
To be perfectly honest, it's the performing rights part of it that bugs me: sure, pubs, clubs, shops, concerts should pay for the music they use to entice people in/entertain people, but I don't believe I should have to, as a small B&B that only has TVs capable of playing the same things (for free) that people can access at home - for free.
Christmas songs royalties on 17:37 - Dec 3 by Bent_double
Fair points, and as you say the system is broken. If the talent gets paid properly in the first place, instead of labels/agents/etc lining their pockets, maybe there wouldn't be a need for royalties to keep on paying out decades after a song is written.
To be perfectly honest, it's the performing rights part of it that bugs me: sure, pubs, clubs, shops, concerts should pay for the music they use to entice people in/entertain people, but I don't believe I should have to, as a small B&B that only has TVs capable of playing the same things (for free) that people can access at home - for free.
I appreciate how places like B&Bs, GP surgeries (if they have a radio on, for example) and other small businesses might feel aggrieved to pay the licence fee. It's really not a perfect system.
When the songwriters are exploited by the big industry, it's hardly surprising that when ways are created to get them paid fairly, the big money companies find a way to hurt the little people at the other end. Greed is a horrible thing.
I've felt like giving up writing many times over the years, as it certainly isn't a viable business for a steady income. I am a self employed cleaner to pay the bills, a writer for my pipe dream. 😊
1
Christmas songs royalties on 18:05 - Dec 3 with 1121 views
Give your work away for free. What a terrific idea that's bound to catch on. Especially these days when hardly anyone buys records. Come on artists - stop earning anything ! It's annoying for people.
0
Christmas songs royalties on 18:15 - Dec 3 with 1090 views
Christmas songs royalties on 18:05 - Dec 3 by factual_blue
The chap I feel sorry for is Alfred Newman.
He wrote the 20th Century Fox fanfare in 1933. Imagine the royalties on every play of that!
However, he wrote it as Head of Music at 20th Century Fox, and the copyright belongs to them.
He was, incidentally, uncle of the sublime Randy Newman.
Indeed. Big corporation wins again
For a happier story, the chap who wrote the Countdown (and Grange Hill, amongst others) theme tune, Alan Harkshaw, did so well out of his writing that he donated all of the royalties from Countdown to underprivileged music students' fees.
1
Christmas songs royalties (n/t) on 20:49 - Dec 3 with 1007 views
Because most of the money from record sales (what the industry calls mechanical rights) lines the pocket of the labels, publishing house, agents and performing artists (if said artist is well established and gets the right deal).
The actual writers of the art would see very little return for their work unless royalties existed for 'performing rights', such as those that PRS collect.
I've spent £1000s recording songs in studios as an indie artist and writer, and Spotify pays artists like me 0.003p per stream. I have a song with over 15,000 listens on Spotify and it hasn't even earned me £5
My co-writer had to set up a limited company so we could claim any money at all for downloads and streams.
The industry is broken, and exploitative, really. It's why so many singer-songwriters are re-recording their back catalogue outside of their record label contract.. Most will never actually own their own master recording if they don't.
Even touring isn't that cost effective unless you are as big as Taylor Swift or Oasis.
The best most songwriters can hope for is to try to get a sync deal for adverts/TV/film, as they pay a lump sum for use of the master, then royalties after a certain period of time if they are still using it.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 22:43]
Yep.
In September, my band earned £6.48 from 2754 streams on Spotify.
We have two songs over 25K on Spotify alone and in total somewhere over 100,000 plus slightly smaller numbers across Amazon, Apple Music etc worldwide. Grand total just north of £300.
In September, my band earned £6.48 from 2754 streams on Spotify.
We have two songs over 25K on Spotify alone and in total somewhere over 100,000 plus slightly smaller numbers across Amazon, Apple Music etc worldwide. Grand total just north of £300.
Upvoted for solidarity, but a massive downvote to the music industry.
And Spotify's decision to refuse to pay any artist who gets under 1000 streams per year on their platform, yet set up their algorithms to make it virtually impossible to get on the Spotify playlists unless you get 1000s of streams. Vicious cycle.
Yes, it's true that some artists catch a break, and get successful on their own, but the majority have to sell their soul to the music industry and get poorly treated, financially, as a result.
We take for granted the music we listen to every day. This is art that consolidates memories, punctuates key life events, makes us laugh and cry, yet the stark truth is that there are countless *brilliant* talented artist out there that we will never hear, because they aren't what the industry wants to promote. So they stay unknown, unable to reach the audience they deserve. It's hard not to feel disillusioned and give up, sometimes.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 21:49]
1
Christmas songs royalties on 22:46 - Dec 3 with 889 views
Upvoted for solidarity, but a massive downvote to the music industry.
And Spotify's decision to refuse to pay any artist who gets under 1000 streams per year on their platform, yet set up their algorithms to make it virtually impossible to get on the Spotify playlists unless you get 1000s of streams. Vicious cycle.
Yes, it's true that some artists catch a break, and get successful on their own, but the majority have to sell their soul to the music industry and get poorly treated, financially, as a result.
We take for granted the music we listen to every day. This is art that consolidates memories, punctuates key life events, makes us laugh and cry, yet the stark truth is that there are countless *brilliant* talented artist out there that we will never hear, because they aren't what the industry wants to promote. So they stay unknown, unable to reach the audience they deserve. It's hard not to feel disillusioned and give up, sometimes.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 21:49]
What if you had a track on continuous loop play? Would the algorithm notice?
Christmas songs royalties on 22:46 - Dec 3 by factual_blue
What if you had a track on continuous loop play? Would the algorithm notice?
It would help a little. The algorithm needs multiple plays, by multiple people, in multiple countries at multiple times of day.
With our first single, we had a sociology professor in Ohio get his students to help us try to play the system, and we enlisted friends from 4 continents to help. It took roughly 10k streams to get our songs onto the Daily mix, automatically served up generated playlists, but once we did, we had around 74% of streams coming from the playlists that Spotify served up to listeners. And saw lots more streams in a short space of time. We stuck it to The Man, man!
Our other two songs have around 3k streams between them, so they just won't get on the auto-generated stuff.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2024 22:53]
1
Christmas songs royalties on 12:19 - Dec 4 with 692 views
Christmas songs royalties on 22:46 - Dec 3 by factual_blue
What if you had a track on continuous loop play? Would the algorithm notice?
Yeah, there's an algorithm that catches those. They'll kick you off the platform.
I'm lucky that I had a small degree of success in the 90s and have a (very) tiny bit of pulling power and a few much better-known mates from those days so can call on the occasional favour on social media for shoutouts and shares; without that, it simply wouldn't be economically viable at all.
Not going to namedrop (humblebrag alert) but a mate had a huge Christmas hit in 1980 and despises it, but reconciles himself to the massive royalties that come along in Jan/Feb, which trumps artistic integrity!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
