As a musician myself, as well as a historian on the subject, I can safely say that the musicians are always the ones who make the money and they are also always the ones who get the least of the money somehow, magically! This goes back all the way to ancient times where all of the most popular folk artists and classical artists died in poverty but we know them by name today! Artist didn't really start making money until the 20th century and were becoming impoverished again by the end of the same century! I hate that I am so poor that I have to listen to you on RUclips only and can't buy all of your bigger recordings because you're very talented, but I'm always hopeful that will change someday. I also hope that we, as people who love music, will find a way to keep our beloved performers in comfortable finances so we can continue to hear them for a very long time! This balance must be struck if we wish to continue to hear excellent music and songs.
Thank you Nancy for watching it here and for this very thoughtful and informative response. You are very correct! One possible solution I have seen and use myself is Patreon.com/schrelloclassic . But one should only join if one has the means to
@@SchrelloClassic how kind of you to reply! I hope to get one of your recordings as a Christmas present from my Goddaughter! I hope you get many more sales and patreons this holiday season! Take care!
Sounds like there is an awful amount of fine print that needs to be read to understand these changes. So if Spotify has more streaming then Apple music, they are making less money?? Therefore Spotify must pay less royalties than Apple?? Spotify charges $10.99 per month and has 220 million paid subscribers (per Google). Operating costs must be very high at Spotify.
ther absolutely is. That is basically the reasoning they are showing "Spotify charges $10.99 per month and has 220 million paid subscribers (per Google). Operating costs must be very high at Spotify." Exactly, they do give a percent of the income to royalties, I have seen/heard/read i believe around 20-30% (don't quote me on it) but why increase that percent when one can cap the royalty payout instead haha
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
As a musician myself, as well as a historian on the subject, I can safely say that the musicians are always the ones who make the money and they are also always the ones who get the least of the money somehow, magically! This goes back all the way to ancient times where all of the most popular folk artists and classical artists died in poverty but we know them by name today! Artist didn't really start making money until the 20th century and were becoming impoverished again by the end of the same century! I hate that I am so poor that I have to listen to you on RUclips only and can't buy all of your bigger recordings because you're very talented, but I'm always hopeful that will change someday. I also hope that we, as people who love music, will find a way to keep our beloved performers in comfortable finances so we can continue to hear them for a very long time! This balance must be struck if we wish to continue to hear excellent music and songs.
Thank you Nancy for watching it here and for this very thoughtful and informative response. You are very correct! One possible solution I have seen and use myself is Patreon.com/schrelloclassic . But one should only join if one has the means to
@@SchrelloClassic how kind of you to reply! I hope to get one of your recordings as a Christmas present from my Goddaughter! I hope you get many more sales and patreons this holiday season! Take care!
Sounds like there is an awful amount of fine print that needs to be read to understand these changes.
So if Spotify has more streaming then Apple music, they are making less money?? Therefore Spotify must pay less royalties than Apple??
Spotify charges $10.99 per month and has 220 million paid subscribers (per Google). Operating costs must be very high at Spotify.
ther absolutely is.
That is basically the reasoning they are showing
"Spotify charges $10.99 per month and has 220 million paid subscribers (per Google). Operating costs must be very high at Spotify."
Exactly, they do give a percent of the income to royalties, I have seen/heard/read i believe around 20-30% (don't quote me on it) but why increase that percent when one can cap the royalty payout instead haha
Thats poop.
If the money doesn't dissappear, that is
agreed