Amazon Music Query

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh, I see what you mean. I don't think that's how Playlists are intended to work. A Playlist is effectively your own curated album, like a mix tape, so is based on singles rather than albums.

The other albums in your list will be those that Amazon 'suggests' or those linked to any other music you may have played.

@figbat I see what you mean as well.
I think I may have been going around this the wrong way.
As you say playlists is based on singles rather than albums so even though you download an album they are shown as separate tracks.
I am now downloading under albums and not playlists.
Thanks for the info 👍

 

[wiggydiggy]

Not worth starting a new thread but as an FYI on 2 different Amazon accounts that started using an Echo device recently they both were signed up to Amazon Music @ £4.99/m without our knowledge. The fees are getting refunded and the subscription cancelled but to avoid this on the Alexa App disable voice purchasing as this will stop you from being able to buy/subscribe via the device.

 

[markemark]

Just a shame that none of the artists get paid for these music services by spotify, tidal .amazon etc. At least when songs are played on the radio etc the band/artist gets a royalty payment but online/downloads zilch. The argument is that at least they get 'exposure' so they might garner an audience when they play live
BTW one of the first (if not the very first) bands to make their entire catalogue 'free to download' was the Grateful Dead (fine if you like that kind of thing) with their statement "We don't need any more money"

Yes they do. They may argue they don't get enough, but they don't have to be on Spotify - some have famously stayed off. But artists do get paid with each play.

 

[raleighnut]

Yes they do. They may argue they don't get enough, but they don't have to be on Spotify - some have famously stayed off. But artists do get paid with each play.

According to the article posted the money is paid to the publishing company (for copyright usage) whether any of that trickles into the band/artists pockets is up to them. Now if you're a major with maybe your own publishing then you might see something but there have been some funny instances like when 'wacko' bought the Beatles publishing. Sony probably make a fortune (they bought CBS amongst others) and Simon Cowell probably earns enough to pay for tankers full of fake tan

 

[ianrauk]

Yes they do. They may argue they don't get enough, but they don't have to be on Spotify - some have famously stayed off. But artists do get paid with each play.

This is correct.
Artists do get paid on all legitimate streaming services. However, if they signed away their publishing knowingly or unknowingly they they won't get paid. The money will go to the person/company that owns the rights to the songs and it's up to the song owner to do a payment deal (or not) with the artist.

 

[markemark]

This is correct.
Artists do get paid on all legitimate streaming services. However, if they signed away their publishing knowingly or unknowingly they they won't get paid. The money will go to the person/company that owns the rights to the songs and it's up to the song owner to do a payment deal (or not) with the artist.

But surely that’s the same with radio royalties etc. If they’ve signed away ownership then they don’t get irrespective of the platform?

 

[ianrauk]

But surely that’s the same with radio royalties etc. If they’ve signed away ownership then they don’t get irrespective of the platform?

It's the same with any income from recorded music. If they signed their publishing away then unless they have a deal with the owner, then the artists may not get anything. Its a very common thing.

Most recently, massive acts have been signing away their rights to their own songs and catalogues for millions of pounds in one off payments. Neil Young, Davis Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, Justin Beiber, Bruce Springsteen &Dr Dre off the top of my head. They will no no longer get any royalties from any sales physical, digital, streaming or radio play.

Its publishing companies & rights owners that make most money in the music business. Not the labels or artists. It's who owns the songs.

 

[markemark]

It's the same with any income from recorded music. If they signed their publishing away then unless they have a deal with the owner, then the artists may not get anything. Its a very common thing.

Most recently, massive acts have been signing away their rights to their own songs and catalogues for millions of pounds in one off payments. Neil Young, Davis Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, Justin Beiber, Bruce Springsteen &Dr Dre off the top of my head. They will no no longer get any royalties from any sales physical, digital, streaming or radio play.

Its publishing companies & rights owners that make most money in the music business. Not the labels or artists. It's who owns the songs.

So then Spotify et all aren’t doing anything wrong. The issue is between the artist and their publisher. Spotify may not be paying enough but people have a choice.
However could it be argued that Spotify offers a cheaper and easier route to market than the old days of physical media? Presumably, for little to no money, artists can offer their music whereas before it would require being signed up and their bar to doing so would have been much higher?

 

[ianrauk]

So then Spotify et all aren’t doing anything wrong. The issue is between the artist and their publisher. Spotify may not be paying enough but people have a choice.

Correct.

However could it be argued that Spotify offers a cheaper and easier route to market than the old days of physical media? Presumably, for little to no money, artists can offer their music whereas before it would require being signed up and their bar to doing so would have been much higher?

Correct again. You just take your music to an official aggregator who will place it on all download and streaming platforms. It doesn't mean it will get heard though. Something like 90% of all streaming is by 10% of artist/acts.

 

[ianrauk]

However could it be argued that Spotify offers a cheaper and easier route to market than the old days of physical media? Presumably, for little to no money, artists can offer their music whereas before it would require being signed up and their bar to doing so would have been much higher?

On another note. When my company is approached by an artist/act/label for a music distribution deal. Our first question is always, does it include digital? If it's not included or they just want physical (bricks and motar stores) then more often then not we will turn them down, unless of course it's something very special.
These days, digital is king.

 

[raleighnut]

On another note. When my company is approached by an artist/act/label for a music distribution deal. Our first question is always, does it include digital? If it's not included or they just want physical (bricks and motar stores) then more often then not we will turn them down, unless of course it's something very special.
These days, digital is king.

Aye apart from these 'hipsters' who love playing their 'vinyls' as LP's are now referred to. Grand daughter no 3 ,Georgia, who is 27 now is a massive fan so at least Maz and I know where our 5-600 LP's are going after we pop our clogs

 

[the snail]

Yes they do. They may argue they don't get enough, but they don't have to be on Spotify - some have famously stayed off. But artists do get paid with each play.

The payments from streaming are tiny, the only people who make any money are the really big names. A lot of musicians used to to make decent money from royalties on their back catalog - not any more. For smaller acts the only way to make money selling music is to flog CDs at their gigs.

 

[markemark]

The payments from streaming are tiny, the only people who make any money are the really big names. A lot of musicians used to to make decent money from royalties on their back catalog - not any more. For smaller acts the only way to make money selling music is to flog CDs at their gigs.

The music industry had a choice when illegal downloads were taking off 10 years ago. Maintain the status quo and not get paid, or make it cheap and easy for the end user and get paid less. Napster and piratebay etc used to be very easy to download illegally. If the music industry stuck to their format, more and more would simply have no longer paid £15 for an album and got it for free. Sportify etc came along and made it very cheap as well as very easy. This took over from illegal downloads as Spotify made it very very easy for the end user to pay and listen to music wherever they wanted but the net result is much less money. Sadly the music industry had no real choice. Accept it or be destroyed.

 

[raleighnut]

The music 'industry' has always been populated by charlatans and rogues often drug addled, the first guy to get the musicians a decent deal was Peter Grant.