But, how much are they getting paid, exactly? We already tried asking Rhapsody that question, and quickly got the PR hand. But Rhapsody president Jon Irwin now says the company has paid out "hundreds of millions" to rightsholders since 2001, and "trusts" that artists are getting their piece. "Royalties have been the company's greatest cost since launch," Irwin responded in an op-ed for Billboard. "We trust that this royalty revenue is flowing to artists, writers and the other
creative folks responsible for the music we proudly distribute via Rhapsody."
It's a loaded comment, one that raises another thorny issue. For example, major labels typically demand tens of millions of dollars for the rights to stream their recordings, though serious questions surround the 'trickle down' to artists. In fact, we've heard from attorneys and managers that creative accounting is alive-and-well at the big four, with even major artists seeing paltry portions.
And what does that leave others, like indies? Meanwhile, the industry is wrestling with the broader issue of compensation. But Irwin "disagrees with the tone" of Digital Music News' coverage on the issue - though in fairness, he may be referring to some very vocal industry debates happening on our site. "We welcome the recent discussion over artist payouts from streaming services, but we disagree with the tone of the recent coverage of the issue," Irwin wrote (which would explain the retort in Billboard).
Perhaps we can all agree that on-demand means pennies for most participating artists, but Irwin says comparisons are misleading. "We have seen some of the artist income numbers being reported, and we agree, they seem awfully small - particularly those cited as generated by some of the free services," Irwin admitted. "However, to look at these numbers through the lens of a single transaction is myopic. If an artist sells a download, they may get a bigger cut, but they only are paid once."
The complete op-ed is here.
Comments Closed
The Insider Tuesday, October 25, 2011
This is the same company, that is attempting to circumvent statutory performance rates for non-interactive streaming by directly going to labels/content owners for licenses rather than deal directly with Soundexchange.
@BenjiKRogers Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Benji Rogers
"Royalties have been the company's greatest cost"
And songs your greatest asset.
Deal!
Craig DiPaolo Tuesday, October 25, 2011
WOw Rhapsody just proved they have no balls. First off, they responded in Billboard instead of facing the mob, plus they refuse to answer the real questions. Nice one guys, please fire your p.r. strategist.
morris Tuesday, October 25, 2011
label advances go to labels + top execs like Lyor Cohen. that's it, end of story. rhapsody isn't that naive.
Joda Tuesday, October 25, 2011
That part isn't their job. The label is the represntative of the artist. Once Rhapsody pays the label it's up to the label to pay the artist. Hopefully the label does that, but he has no control over that part.
This is what he meant by his statement.
morris Tuesday, October 25, 2011
sorry, you can't play both sides. either you're paying rights holders or you're part of the extortion scheme. don't sit there and pretend any of this is going to the real creators.
grutty Wednesday, October 26, 2011
joda is right though...
Maxwellian Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Not sure I can agree with Joda on that one. Really what Rhapsody is saying to any indie or promising artist is this:
"Sorry guys, but your payouts are going to suck, and part of the reason why is that we blew our wad on major labels who extorted us."
It doesn't matter who's to blame.
So, this guy actually asked people not to bail on Rhapsody, yet the only people really winning from Rhapsody are:
(1) major labels because of extorted sums
(2) guys like Irwin getting some salary (call that a win I guess)
(3) anyone with shares in this company or anyone who gets money if there's growth, sale, etc.
So, if you're an indie with artists making money, you're not in on the club (er.. scam). Which means you shouldn't participate.
Artists are what powers this service, not the other way around.
My $0.02.
::MW
David_M Wednesday, October 26, 2011
"Artists are what powers this service, not the other way around."
Unfortunately its predominately major label artists, not indies, that power streaming services. With the exception of Adele, 90% of streamed content comes from major label artists, which the streaming services do pay a handsome licensing fee for.
Have you ever wondered why there isn't a streaming service that only streams independent content and not major label content, and that pays a higher per stream rate to indie artists? The reason is, the subscriber base would be too low to sustain the costs in operating the service.
That said, perhaps all indies should just pull out of the exisiting streaming services and find another avenue. Then the debate would be over and indie artists can flourish elsewhere. Right?
Maxwellian Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Are you guys sure you mean 2001?
kthomson Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Yes, Rhapsody launched in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsody_(online_music_service)
David_M Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Considering that the streaming services do pay the majority of their revenues to the rights holders (upwards of 60% or greater plus advances), doesn't their responsiblity end there? It's hard to say it doesn't considering these services have overhead to pay and assume all the risk.
So why are the major labels/rights holders not on the 'hot seat' for the extortion and creative accounting that is clearly going on here? If artists aren't gettign paid their fare share, then shouldn't they be complaining to their label or distributor who are collecting the money on their behalf to 'share the wealth'?
Perhaps Digital Music News should be asking the Labels and Rights holders what they pay the artists per stream from the monies collected, not the services themselves. I think only then, would the true disparity be exposed!
mdti Wednesday, October 26, 2011
grammy has a small survey about popular streamers
mdti Wednesday, October 26, 2011
oops, link: http://www.grammy.com/polls/which-is-your-streaming-music-service-of-choice
Visitor Tuesday, November 08, 2011
I do not think it is that easy to get the whole details regarding how much they have been paid so far since they had been on this trade for a decade and they have a good hris methods. I think hundreds of millions as asserted by Rhapsody President is a bit of an exaggeration from his part but I am sure that the amount would come at least more than half of it. By the way, I really do not understand as to why Rhapsody is putting much of a buzz here since it is up to the label to pay the artist and not them.
Visitor Monday, December 19, 2011
It is not Rhapsody's job to make shure the labels do theirs.
And if the musicians are willing to work with the labels that pay them nothing, then it's their thing.
Good thing, there is a growing number of independent musicians who don't want to be bound by the unfair contracts the Labels have to offer.
Amanda123 Tuesday, December 20, 2011
I guess I can see it from the artist's point of view, but shouldn't they just want to share their music for the sake of gaining Google Sniper fans, not millions and millions of dollars?
Paddy Friday, December 23, 2011
I just got a blackberry storm and recently my ipod broke. I am really trying to transfer my entire iTunes library to rhapsody so I can put it on my phone. When I import my iTunes library through rhapsody it only transfers about half of the library. Is there any way to transfer the entire library to rhapsody or to some other program so I can have all my music on my phone? Thank you.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us