Tune in Saturday August 16th to Faction Talk, channel 103, at 4 PM East, 1 PM West.
If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app. Search: Lefsetz
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Friday, 15 August 2025
More Spotify Myths
Bob,
These are good points…let's also remind everyone that Spotify created a previously non-existent middle class. In the last 60 years, around 2,900 major label artists (give or take 1,000) have amassed an audience and brand large enough, that to this day, they drive enough traffic to generate at least $50,000/year in Spotify streaming revenue. In 2021, Spotify paid 13,400 artists at least $50,000 in streaming revenue. If you back out these major label artists over the last 60 years, 1,000 artists currently signed to a major label or significant indie label (that's a generous number don't you think?), and pad that number with an additional 1,000 artists for error and/or pre-1965 brand names still driving this kind of traffic (like Elvis), that leaves a super conservative number of 8,500 unknown artists that generated at least $50,000, just in streaming revenue, just from Spotify. This number doesn't include streaming revenue from all the other platforms, ticket, merch, or social media revenue. These are 8,500 indie artists who NEVER would've signed a label deal and who NEVER would have been on the radio prior to Spotify. These are 8,500 artists who can't exist or at least prosper prior to 2009.
In 2022, one short year later, 16,500 artists were paid a minimum of $50,000 in streaming revenue from Spotify. That's a YOY gain of 3,100 artists or a whopping 23% increase!
The label system DID NOT sign, develop, and/or bring-on-line 3,100 new artists in one year.
These are indie artists.
DMN published a whiny piece about the 2021 Spotify payout report spinning it to say that these 13,400 artists represent a paltry 0.0017% of the 8 million artists on the streaming service. I can only think the implication was that somehow in the art and music world, every "artist" deserves to be paid, and Spotify is the bad guy because less than 1% of the "artists" are getting any kind of real revenue. Of course, in the art and music world, 99.9% of the content is objectively SHITE! I have a Hollywood network executive buddy, he told me they teach that if you say "NO" 80% of the time, you'll almost always be right.
Spotify clapped back at DMN when they released their 2022 report by including a very simple criteria to identify the "professional" and "professionally aspiring" artists from everyone else on the app that wants to put their little finger painting on Spotify's worldwide refrigerator...
Artist must have released at least 10 songs (enough to make one album)
Artist must have at least 10,000 monthly listeners (this number won't pay anyone's bills; this is a low bar)
Artist must have generated at least $1 in online ticket sales (to be fair, Spotify used pre-pandemic 2019 sales for this data)
The results?
2.6 million had released a minimum of 10 songs (2/3 of Spotify "artists" haven't even released a full album!)
140,000 had a minimum of 10,000 monthly listeners
200,000 had generated at least $1 dollar of pre-pandemic digital ticket sales.
Out of 200,000 professional or professionally aspiring Spotify artists in 2022, 16,500 or 8.2% were paid at least $50,000 in streaming revenues.
Johnny Dwinell
Daredevil Production, LLC
_________________________________________
How is Spotify affecting anyone who owns their music from making money off their music?
The problem isn't Spotify's egalitarian payment system (everyone is paid if someone consumes your music and if you get as many streams as Elton, you get Elton sized payments) or its non-curated addition of 100,000 songs a day. It's that payments follow consumer choices. Eg, The choice to stream your music.
Creating that demand is not Spotify's job.
Whereas, filling the demand that exists? Making it easy to for fans to stream your music? Spotify is class best.
Dennis Pelowski
_________________________________________
Stating perhaps the obvious - but isn't this discussion a microcosm of the moment? An inability to acknowledge/agree on a set of facts, much less being able to have a legitimate discussion on that information?
FWIW - keep up the great work, Bob.
Bob Flint
Springfield, VT
_________________________________________
I suspect we may share something in common that I'm very proud of: I can accept an inconvenient truth.
It makes life much easier to live and makes me more patient with people that can't—hopefully they have other qualities that make interactions tolerable.
Michael Aiken
_________________________________________
R: Mike Froedge
I am a 'creator' - not a 'corp.'
And yet - I don't see a company like Spotify as the enemy - or as 'exploitative,' even though it commits the cardinal sin of making money.
There seems to exist some misunderstanding on a fundamental level with the role of a service provide. But I've seen it before - strong dislike for a firm like Spotify that doesn't produce widgets, but rather provides a key service to creators.
Spotify is a key provider of exposure for the fruits of creators' labors. Theirs is a valid and important service, and I as a creator, thank them for providing it.
And no - I don't hate them for making money in providing their service. Isn't that 'the American Way?!'
Manny Freiser
_________________________________________
There are three certainties in life: Death, taxes, and people convinced that Spotify is the enemy.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." - Louis Armstrong
David Dietrich
_________________________________________
I'm constantly baffled by people (like this first poster Mike Froedge) who seem to be very confused about the source of "wealth". Ek is a billionaire because people are willing to purchase Spotify stock at a certain share price. That may or may not have anything to do with the business itself.
Sheesh...
Roy Liu
_________________________________________
The only cogent point he made was the discussion as to whether Spotify's subscription price could/should be raised. I'm sure they have data through on lost subscriptions vs revenue from retained subscribers at the higher rate. Hell, I was president of a bar association and we had those same discussions related to raising our dues: will the increased annual dues exceed the lost revenue from non-renewals who don't want to pay the higher price?
But side by side to yours, his argument fails misapply because it's based on emotion and bogey men and not logic and math. A 4.77% net profit margin and he wants higher payments? Absurd!
Craig Davis
_________________________________________
I've done some math on this over the years. If Spotify paid what "older" folks think artists should be paid, the consumer would be spending between 4-600 dollars a month on Spotify. Young artists love Spotify because more people show up at their shows, play and simple!
Kevin King
_________________________________________
I believe I see where Mike Froedge is coming from with his insistence that Daniel Ek is the enemy and that you, Bob, are pretending Mr. Ek is not the enemy. My best guess is that Mike wants Spotify's subscribers to pay a lot more for access to music so that Spotify can turn around and pay the artists and other rights holders more. This argument ignores the free, if limited, tier of Spotify and also neglects the basic principle of charging what the market will bear. If Spotify charged people $50 or $100 per month for access to the music, millions would cancel their subscriptions and go elsewhere.
I believe Mike is saying music's inherent value greatly exceeds its potential revenue from Spotify payments. And then, as Spotify gets more and more music, each stream or thousand streams or 10 million streams, is worth less and less in payments to rights holders (including artists). Fair point. But we live in a market economy, for better and worse. Spotify can charge more if it can still make money.
Capitalism has its pitfalls, but communism, for example, works well only in ivory tower minds and maybe some kibbutzim.
If Mike wants more in payments, he can set up his own distribution system and somehow get loads and loads of subscribers.
As Mike himself says, "It is what it is." But Ek is not the enemy. He's just the guy with the market-leading solution. Build a better mousetrap, and Ek gets knocked off the top of the hill.
All the best,
David Arnold
_________________________________________
Well, you're certainly a master of publicly cherry-picking responses which agree with your position.
LOL. Bravo!
Hell, at least Steve Jobs devised a comparatively fair business model.
With iTunes, if you consumed more music from more artists, then you paid more… As one should… And so all of those artists at least got paid accordingly.
With Spotify, etc… it doesn't matter if you consume music from 10 artists or 10,000 artists, you still just pay the same lousy ten dollar subscription. And those 10 or 10,000 artists make essentially nothing.
If 1,000 people bought your single on iTunes (even if they never actually listened to it)… you would have grossed approx $700, after Apple took their piece of pie.
This is not a fortune, of course… But to pretty much any independent artist, 700 bucks is a pretty decent chunk of change, and will pay some bills.
If 999 people listen to your single on Spotify… you get precisely nothing. ZERO dollars, and zero cents… because since 2023, Spotify quietly changed their policy to eliminate paying ANY royalties whatsoever for a song with less than 1000 streams!
I won't argue that streaming isn't the future of music consumption. It absolutely is. But if the business model continues as-is, that future is going to sound increasingly bleak. Sure…
technology has democratized and cheapened (literally and metaphorically) the process of recording, mixing, and releasing music. Any half-assed hack can take a $200 laptop into their bedroom and churn out some "songs" and throw them up on Spotify. Tens of thousands do so literally every day. And the overwhelming majority of it sounds like that's precisely what happened. It's disposable, amateurish tripe. Hell, now you can even get AI to do it for you, and it will probably sound better!
And you're right… Music is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. And increasingly… they're going to be getting their fraction of a fraction of a penny's worth. More and more truly creative and talented people will continue to abandon music for other pursuits… tech, etc… because they can't feed and house themselves on f*cking thin air.
I'm not a stuck-in-the-past dinosaur who longs for the days of horrible record deals, the expensive and tedious logistics of physical distribution, or any of the other BS from that era.
But something about the current status quo has to change.
We are letting "cheap and convenient" suffocate creativity and creators.
And that's sad.
Mike Froedge
Step Up to the Mike Productions, LLC
_________________________________________
Mike Froedge really doesn't get it, does he? Bravo to him for trying to score points with "creatives" and his clients, but thank god more people are becoming clued-in. It's been said before: Keep up or get out of the way.
-Hugo Burnham
_________________________________________
Bob:
Let's do the math and follow the money
- The following approximations are for purposes of this illustration:
- The minimum basic artist royalty is calculated on retail not wholesale sales;
- From 1958-1968, the average artist royalty fluctuated from a low of 3% to a high of 8%;
- Most if not all major label recordings were produced by in-house producers (until 1969 when independent producers producing recordings for majors started to emerge);
- Most, if not all of these in-house producers did not receive a royalty from the artist's gross royalty;
- In 1972 the average independent producer royalty was approx 3%;
- Discounted retail sales prices are not taken into consideration;
- In 1985, with the advent of the CD, the average artist royalty rates starting increasing deom 12% to 15% net 12% after deduction of the 3% producer royalty;
- The most significant standard deductions are used for this illustration;
-In 1968, the growing audience for stereo FM rock radio stations combined with the additional $1.00 price for Stereo helped accelerate the phase out of selling mono record pressings;
The retail list price for an album and the artist's net:
1958-1968: The average List Price of a record (vinyl) went from $2.98 to $3.98 (mono) and $3.98 to $4.98 (stereo) for 10-12 tracks;
From 1958-1968, the average artist royalty fluctuated from a low of 3% to a high of 8%.
$4.98 x 90% (10% breakage deduction) = $4.48 x 75% (25% packaging deduction) = $3.735 x 7% (average artist royalty of 10% minus additional deductions) = $.26145 per album = $.0217875 per track
In 1972, the retail list price of LPs increased to $5.98
$5.98 x 90% = $5.382 x 75% = $4.065 x 9% (average artist minus 3% producer royalty) = $.363285 per album = $.03027375 per track
In 1973, the retail list price of LPs increased to $6.98
$6.98 x 90% = $6.282 x 75% = $4.7115 x 9% = $.424035 per album = $.03533625 per track
In 1976, the retail list price of LPs increased to $7.98
$7.98 x .90% = $7.182 x 75% = $5.3865 x 9% = $.484785 = $.04039875 per track
In 1978, the retail list price of LPs increased to $8.98
$8.98 x 90% = $8.08 x 75% = $6.06 x 9% = $.5454 = $.04545 per track
In 1984, the retail list price of LPs increased to $9.98
$9.98 x .90% = $8.982 x 75% = $5.7365 x 9% = $606285 = .05052375 per track
Compact Discs:
In 1985 the CD was introduced and the initial CD prices were as high as $20+, before settling into a range of:
1985-2000: $13.98 (average list price)
$13.98 x 75% - $10.485 x 12% = $1.2582 = .10485 per track
CD's 2000 - 2010: $11.98
$11.98 x 75% = $8.985 x 12% = $1.0782 = $.08985 per track
CD's 2006-2020: $10.98
$10.98 x 75% = $8.235 x 12% = $.9882 = $.08235 per track
ITunes:
$9.99 x 75% (net of iTunes Distribution Fee) = $7.4925 x 12% = $.8991 = $.074925 per track
.99 cents per track x 75% = $.7425 x 12% = $.0891 per track
Royalty success in the record business has always been a function of small numbers (the royalty rate reduced to cents) times a large number (millions of sales)
Mechanical Royalties:
Starting in 2010, the statutory mechanical royalty rate payable to songwriters for for each composition embodied on each physical product sales and digital downloads was $0.091 per song or $1.092 for each album sold in the US
1/1/23: 12 cents per song for physical product and downloads.
1/1/24: 12.4 cents
1/1/25: 12.7 cents
Streaming:
Songwriters:
Songwriters typically earn fractions of a cent per stream, with the exact amount varying based on the streaming platform, listener location, and subscription type.
Generally, this falls within the range of $0.003 to $0.008 per stream while the current statutory mechanical royalty rate in the U.S. for each composition embodied on each physical product sald and each digital download is 12.4 cents per each download or physical copy sold per composition.
The MMA (Music Modernization Act) was supposed to help correct the songwriter streaming rate imbalance but it was all smoke and mirrors and the NMPA and the administrators of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) have enriched themselves at the expense of the songwriters who don't have a union or guild to represent them and lobby on their behalf to adjust the inequitable streaming rate they are being paid.
Successful writers who fell out of vogue were able to live off their catalog based on statutory rate payments but the low streaming rate payments forced many of those writers to sell their catalogs
Artists:
Over the past 20 years from physical and downloads sales artists earned approx 10 cents per track vs the average artist payment per track from streaming is now between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream on Spotify or $.036 to $.06 per 12 tracks
Over the past 20 years from physical and downloads sales artists earned approx 10 cents This begs the question of whether people were willing to pay more to hold the artist's work in their hands or have it on their hard drive or is that Spotify leveraged the success of their EU and Scandanavian beta test and in exchange for equity, the US major label sold the artists out, (the artists who didn't have the leverage of worldwide success or a union or guild lobby and negotiate on their behalf) when the steaming rate concrete was being poured.
If AFM took up the mantle negotiated for artists as a block against the DSP's for better artist streaming rates got the artist organized like the SAG-AFTRA members did then perhaps they would have had a chance of improving the per stream rate. Unfortunately artists are independent by nature and while they will come together for a cause - to raise money for famine relief in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa, Live Aid, 9-11, Hurricane relief, and the LA Wildfires, they will not combine their leverage and lobby for themselves as a block. The 1% - the highest streaming artists get better rates for themselves but will not use their capital to help get better streaming rates for other artists. THIS rising tide is only limited to a few boats!
The current rates make streaming a loss leader which at best might hopefully help drive people to see the artist live where only little money can be made, until the artist either develops into a great live performer and/or has a breakthrough streaming track.
The low royalty per stream issue may also be more emphasized by the massive number of artists on the low/no royalty end of the spectrum while the percentage of artists on the royalty earning side may be not that different from what it's always been,
Inevitably, the classic artist complaint of not getting any royalties from their record company had a ring of truth to it since many albums never recouped and for those that did, the smart artists pulled advances against royalties that wouldn't be paid for months putting their royalty account back into an unrecouped state.
The few artists that had multiple albums with sustaining sales over many years overcame the cross collateralization hump and were likely the ones that had continual positive royalty statements.
Once again the lesson may be the more things change the more they stay the same
George Gilbert
These are good points…let's also remind everyone that Spotify created a previously non-existent middle class. In the last 60 years, around 2,900 major label artists (give or take 1,000) have amassed an audience and brand large enough, that to this day, they drive enough traffic to generate at least $50,000/year in Spotify streaming revenue. In 2021, Spotify paid 13,400 artists at least $50,000 in streaming revenue. If you back out these major label artists over the last 60 years, 1,000 artists currently signed to a major label or significant indie label (that's a generous number don't you think?), and pad that number with an additional 1,000 artists for error and/or pre-1965 brand names still driving this kind of traffic (like Elvis), that leaves a super conservative number of 8,500 unknown artists that generated at least $50,000, just in streaming revenue, just from Spotify. This number doesn't include streaming revenue from all the other platforms, ticket, merch, or social media revenue. These are 8,500 indie artists who NEVER would've signed a label deal and who NEVER would have been on the radio prior to Spotify. These are 8,500 artists who can't exist or at least prosper prior to 2009.
In 2022, one short year later, 16,500 artists were paid a minimum of $50,000 in streaming revenue from Spotify. That's a YOY gain of 3,100 artists or a whopping 23% increase!
The label system DID NOT sign, develop, and/or bring-on-line 3,100 new artists in one year.
These are indie artists.
DMN published a whiny piece about the 2021 Spotify payout report spinning it to say that these 13,400 artists represent a paltry 0.0017% of the 8 million artists on the streaming service. I can only think the implication was that somehow in the art and music world, every "artist" deserves to be paid, and Spotify is the bad guy because less than 1% of the "artists" are getting any kind of real revenue. Of course, in the art and music world, 99.9% of the content is objectively SHITE! I have a Hollywood network executive buddy, he told me they teach that if you say "NO" 80% of the time, you'll almost always be right.
Spotify clapped back at DMN when they released their 2022 report by including a very simple criteria to identify the "professional" and "professionally aspiring" artists from everyone else on the app that wants to put their little finger painting on Spotify's worldwide refrigerator...
Artist must have released at least 10 songs (enough to make one album)
Artist must have at least 10,000 monthly listeners (this number won't pay anyone's bills; this is a low bar)
Artist must have generated at least $1 in online ticket sales (to be fair, Spotify used pre-pandemic 2019 sales for this data)
The results?
2.6 million had released a minimum of 10 songs (2/3 of Spotify "artists" haven't even released a full album!)
140,000 had a minimum of 10,000 monthly listeners
200,000 had generated at least $1 dollar of pre-pandemic digital ticket sales.
Out of 200,000 professional or professionally aspiring Spotify artists in 2022, 16,500 or 8.2% were paid at least $50,000 in streaming revenues.
Johnny Dwinell
Daredevil Production, LLC
_________________________________________
How is Spotify affecting anyone who owns their music from making money off their music?
The problem isn't Spotify's egalitarian payment system (everyone is paid if someone consumes your music and if you get as many streams as Elton, you get Elton sized payments) or its non-curated addition of 100,000 songs a day. It's that payments follow consumer choices. Eg, The choice to stream your music.
Creating that demand is not Spotify's job.
Whereas, filling the demand that exists? Making it easy to for fans to stream your music? Spotify is class best.
Dennis Pelowski
_________________________________________
Stating perhaps the obvious - but isn't this discussion a microcosm of the moment? An inability to acknowledge/agree on a set of facts, much less being able to have a legitimate discussion on that information?
FWIW - keep up the great work, Bob.
Bob Flint
Springfield, VT
_________________________________________
I suspect we may share something in common that I'm very proud of: I can accept an inconvenient truth.
It makes life much easier to live and makes me more patient with people that can't—hopefully they have other qualities that make interactions tolerable.
Michael Aiken
_________________________________________
R: Mike Froedge
I am a 'creator' - not a 'corp.'
And yet - I don't see a company like Spotify as the enemy - or as 'exploitative,' even though it commits the cardinal sin of making money.
There seems to exist some misunderstanding on a fundamental level with the role of a service provide. But I've seen it before - strong dislike for a firm like Spotify that doesn't produce widgets, but rather provides a key service to creators.
Spotify is a key provider of exposure for the fruits of creators' labors. Theirs is a valid and important service, and I as a creator, thank them for providing it.
And no - I don't hate them for making money in providing their service. Isn't that 'the American Way?!'
Manny Freiser
_________________________________________
There are three certainties in life: Death, taxes, and people convinced that Spotify is the enemy.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." - Louis Armstrong
David Dietrich
_________________________________________
I'm constantly baffled by people (like this first poster Mike Froedge) who seem to be very confused about the source of "wealth". Ek is a billionaire because people are willing to purchase Spotify stock at a certain share price. That may or may not have anything to do with the business itself.
Sheesh...
Roy Liu
_________________________________________
The only cogent point he made was the discussion as to whether Spotify's subscription price could/should be raised. I'm sure they have data through on lost subscriptions vs revenue from retained subscribers at the higher rate. Hell, I was president of a bar association and we had those same discussions related to raising our dues: will the increased annual dues exceed the lost revenue from non-renewals who don't want to pay the higher price?
But side by side to yours, his argument fails misapply because it's based on emotion and bogey men and not logic and math. A 4.77% net profit margin and he wants higher payments? Absurd!
Craig Davis
_________________________________________
I've done some math on this over the years. If Spotify paid what "older" folks think artists should be paid, the consumer would be spending between 4-600 dollars a month on Spotify. Young artists love Spotify because more people show up at their shows, play and simple!
Kevin King
_________________________________________
I believe I see where Mike Froedge is coming from with his insistence that Daniel Ek is the enemy and that you, Bob, are pretending Mr. Ek is not the enemy. My best guess is that Mike wants Spotify's subscribers to pay a lot more for access to music so that Spotify can turn around and pay the artists and other rights holders more. This argument ignores the free, if limited, tier of Spotify and also neglects the basic principle of charging what the market will bear. If Spotify charged people $50 or $100 per month for access to the music, millions would cancel their subscriptions and go elsewhere.
I believe Mike is saying music's inherent value greatly exceeds its potential revenue from Spotify payments. And then, as Spotify gets more and more music, each stream or thousand streams or 10 million streams, is worth less and less in payments to rights holders (including artists). Fair point. But we live in a market economy, for better and worse. Spotify can charge more if it can still make money.
Capitalism has its pitfalls, but communism, for example, works well only in ivory tower minds and maybe some kibbutzim.
If Mike wants more in payments, he can set up his own distribution system and somehow get loads and loads of subscribers.
As Mike himself says, "It is what it is." But Ek is not the enemy. He's just the guy with the market-leading solution. Build a better mousetrap, and Ek gets knocked off the top of the hill.
All the best,
David Arnold
_________________________________________
Well, you're certainly a master of publicly cherry-picking responses which agree with your position.
LOL. Bravo!
Hell, at least Steve Jobs devised a comparatively fair business model.
With iTunes, if you consumed more music from more artists, then you paid more… As one should… And so all of those artists at least got paid accordingly.
With Spotify, etc… it doesn't matter if you consume music from 10 artists or 10,000 artists, you still just pay the same lousy ten dollar subscription. And those 10 or 10,000 artists make essentially nothing.
If 1,000 people bought your single on iTunes (even if they never actually listened to it)… you would have grossed approx $700, after Apple took their piece of pie.
This is not a fortune, of course… But to pretty much any independent artist, 700 bucks is a pretty decent chunk of change, and will pay some bills.
If 999 people listen to your single on Spotify… you get precisely nothing. ZERO dollars, and zero cents… because since 2023, Spotify quietly changed their policy to eliminate paying ANY royalties whatsoever for a song with less than 1000 streams!
I won't argue that streaming isn't the future of music consumption. It absolutely is. But if the business model continues as-is, that future is going to sound increasingly bleak. Sure…
technology has democratized and cheapened (literally and metaphorically) the process of recording, mixing, and releasing music. Any half-assed hack can take a $200 laptop into their bedroom and churn out some "songs" and throw them up on Spotify. Tens of thousands do so literally every day. And the overwhelming majority of it sounds like that's precisely what happened. It's disposable, amateurish tripe. Hell, now you can even get AI to do it for you, and it will probably sound better!
And you're right… Music is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. And increasingly… they're going to be getting their fraction of a fraction of a penny's worth. More and more truly creative and talented people will continue to abandon music for other pursuits… tech, etc… because they can't feed and house themselves on f*cking thin air.
I'm not a stuck-in-the-past dinosaur who longs for the days of horrible record deals, the expensive and tedious logistics of physical distribution, or any of the other BS from that era.
But something about the current status quo has to change.
We are letting "cheap and convenient" suffocate creativity and creators.
And that's sad.
Mike Froedge
Step Up to the Mike Productions, LLC
_________________________________________
Mike Froedge really doesn't get it, does he? Bravo to him for trying to score points with "creatives" and his clients, but thank god more people are becoming clued-in. It's been said before: Keep up or get out of the way.
-Hugo Burnham
_________________________________________
Bob:
Let's do the math and follow the money
- The following approximations are for purposes of this illustration:
- The minimum basic artist royalty is calculated on retail not wholesale sales;
- From 1958-1968, the average artist royalty fluctuated from a low of 3% to a high of 8%;
- Most if not all major label recordings were produced by in-house producers (until 1969 when independent producers producing recordings for majors started to emerge);
- Most, if not all of these in-house producers did not receive a royalty from the artist's gross royalty;
- In 1972 the average independent producer royalty was approx 3%;
- Discounted retail sales prices are not taken into consideration;
- In 1985, with the advent of the CD, the average artist royalty rates starting increasing deom 12% to 15% net 12% after deduction of the 3% producer royalty;
- The most significant standard deductions are used for this illustration;
-In 1968, the growing audience for stereo FM rock radio stations combined with the additional $1.00 price for Stereo helped accelerate the phase out of selling mono record pressings;
The retail list price for an album and the artist's net:
1958-1968: The average List Price of a record (vinyl) went from $2.98 to $3.98 (mono) and $3.98 to $4.98 (stereo) for 10-12 tracks;
From 1958-1968, the average artist royalty fluctuated from a low of 3% to a high of 8%.
$4.98 x 90% (10% breakage deduction) = $4.48 x 75% (25% packaging deduction) = $3.735 x 7% (average artist royalty of 10% minus additional deductions) = $.26145 per album = $.0217875 per track
In 1972, the retail list price of LPs increased to $5.98
$5.98 x 90% = $5.382 x 75% = $4.065 x 9% (average artist minus 3% producer royalty) = $.363285 per album = $.03027375 per track
In 1973, the retail list price of LPs increased to $6.98
$6.98 x 90% = $6.282 x 75% = $4.7115 x 9% = $.424035 per album = $.03533625 per track
In 1976, the retail list price of LPs increased to $7.98
$7.98 x .90% = $7.182 x 75% = $5.3865 x 9% = $.484785 = $.04039875 per track
In 1978, the retail list price of LPs increased to $8.98
$8.98 x 90% = $8.08 x 75% = $6.06 x 9% = $.5454 = $.04545 per track
In 1984, the retail list price of LPs increased to $9.98
$9.98 x .90% = $8.982 x 75% = $5.7365 x 9% = $606285 = .05052375 per track
Compact Discs:
In 1985 the CD was introduced and the initial CD prices were as high as $20+, before settling into a range of:
1985-2000: $13.98 (average list price)
$13.98 x 75% - $10.485 x 12% = $1.2582 = .10485 per track
CD's 2000 - 2010: $11.98
$11.98 x 75% = $8.985 x 12% = $1.0782 = $.08985 per track
CD's 2006-2020: $10.98
$10.98 x 75% = $8.235 x 12% = $.9882 = $.08235 per track
ITunes:
$9.99 x 75% (net of iTunes Distribution Fee) = $7.4925 x 12% = $.8991 = $.074925 per track
.99 cents per track x 75% = $.7425 x 12% = $.0891 per track
Royalty success in the record business has always been a function of small numbers (the royalty rate reduced to cents) times a large number (millions of sales)
Mechanical Royalties:
Starting in 2010, the statutory mechanical royalty rate payable to songwriters for for each composition embodied on each physical product sales and digital downloads was $0.091 per song or $1.092 for each album sold in the US
1/1/23: 12 cents per song for physical product and downloads.
1/1/24: 12.4 cents
1/1/25: 12.7 cents
Streaming:
Songwriters:
Songwriters typically earn fractions of a cent per stream, with the exact amount varying based on the streaming platform, listener location, and subscription type.
Generally, this falls within the range of $0.003 to $0.008 per stream while the current statutory mechanical royalty rate in the U.S. for each composition embodied on each physical product sald and each digital download is 12.4 cents per each download or physical copy sold per composition.
The MMA (Music Modernization Act) was supposed to help correct the songwriter streaming rate imbalance but it was all smoke and mirrors and the NMPA and the administrators of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) have enriched themselves at the expense of the songwriters who don't have a union or guild to represent them and lobby on their behalf to adjust the inequitable streaming rate they are being paid.
Successful writers who fell out of vogue were able to live off their catalog based on statutory rate payments but the low streaming rate payments forced many of those writers to sell their catalogs
Artists:
Over the past 20 years from physical and downloads sales artists earned approx 10 cents per track vs the average artist payment per track from streaming is now between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream on Spotify or $.036 to $.06 per 12 tracks
Over the past 20 years from physical and downloads sales artists earned approx 10 cents This begs the question of whether people were willing to pay more to hold the artist's work in their hands or have it on their hard drive or is that Spotify leveraged the success of their EU and Scandanavian beta test and in exchange for equity, the US major label sold the artists out, (the artists who didn't have the leverage of worldwide success or a union or guild lobby and negotiate on their behalf) when the steaming rate concrete was being poured.
If AFM took up the mantle negotiated for artists as a block against the DSP's for better artist streaming rates got the artist organized like the SAG-AFTRA members did then perhaps they would have had a chance of improving the per stream rate. Unfortunately artists are independent by nature and while they will come together for a cause - to raise money for famine relief in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa, Live Aid, 9-11, Hurricane relief, and the LA Wildfires, they will not combine their leverage and lobby for themselves as a block. The 1% - the highest streaming artists get better rates for themselves but will not use their capital to help get better streaming rates for other artists. THIS rising tide is only limited to a few boats!
The current rates make streaming a loss leader which at best might hopefully help drive people to see the artist live where only little money can be made, until the artist either develops into a great live performer and/or has a breakthrough streaming track.
The low royalty per stream issue may also be more emphasized by the massive number of artists on the low/no royalty end of the spectrum while the percentage of artists on the royalty earning side may be not that different from what it's always been,
Inevitably, the classic artist complaint of not getting any royalties from their record company had a ring of truth to it since many albums never recouped and for those that did, the smart artists pulled advances against royalties that wouldn't be paid for months putting their royalty account back into an unrecouped state.
The few artists that had multiple albums with sustaining sales over many years overcame the cross collateralization hump and were likely the ones that had continual positive royalty statements.
Once again the lesson may be the more things change the more they stay the same
George Gilbert
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Re-Bobby Whitlock
In 1985 Bobby came to L.A. and told his manager he wanted to co write songs with someone and could he please have the billboard chart for that week. I think Stevie Wonder had the number one song so he called him but did not get through. I had the number two song, You Belong To The City, that I had co-written with Glenn Frey. Bobby called me. I had no idea who he was, but he was only a few blocks away so I said come on over.
I can't think of anyone else in the world that would have found a co-writer in that bold way.
When he got to my house we smoked a joint and sat around the kitchen table. We wrote a song called Someone That You Use To Know. We thought it was great and Bobby said "George Jones should do this." Of course every songwriter thinks the greatest country singer of all should do the song they just wrote.
Years later George Jones recorded the song.
In the years we worked together Bobby told me the most amazing stories. He told me things he was going to do. He said he would put on a benefit concert for Ricky Nelson who was having financial problems and I would play. He said Carl Wilson, Graham Nash, John Sebastion, Rick Danko and Chris Hillman would play.
About two months later the concert happened at the Spreckles theatre just as he said it would.
After a while I realized that every story he told me was true and everything he said he would make happen happened.
We worked together in Hollywood and I went to his wedding in Mississippi. He took me way back in the woods to a small deserted church where he first started playing hammond B3.
We wrote a lot of songs together.
His autobiography is the best music biography I have read.
His playing and singing were like no one else, just amazing.
I was so lucky to know him.
Jack Tempchin
___________________________________
Just a word on Clapton. He is one of the most guileless people I have ever met. He was never about money or credit. Derek and the Dominoes was named that because he wanted to be out of the spotlight.
As you know, current producer agreements provide for producers to get their share of Sound Exchange royalties. Of course, back in the day, this was not anticipated and the way the laws read, you need a letter of direction from the artist in order to get Sound Exchange royalties.
I have, of course, requested these letters from all the artists I worked with as a producer. Most of them just referred to their lawyers (of course). None of them, not Dionne Warwick, Kenny Rogers, Barbra Streisand, Diana Ross, the Bee Gees, etc. agreed to give me any Sound Exchange royalties. The one exception was Eric. He was, "Sure, you deserve them."
—albhy galuten
___________________________________
Bobby Whitlock
First met him on the Layla Sessions with Duane. Tom Dowd had brought Eric and band members to an ABB concert in Miami and next thing we knew everyone was playing together back at Criteria Studios. Duane actually came very close to ditching the ABB and accepting an offer from Eric to join him. If he had there would not have been the ABB Live at Fillmore East album. Yikes! Bobby later did two albums for Capricorn. He was a kind, gentle and very talented man. RIP.
Willie Perkins
___________________________________
Hi Bob,
Lovely thoughts on the great Bobby Whitlock. In my opinion, the performance that really illustrates Bobby's talent is his performance of Bell Bottom Blues with Eric Clapton on Jools Holland. Whitlock has said that it was the experience of seeing Clapton exhibit such serenity and comfort in his own skin at those sessions that motivated him to get clean. In the performance, Whitlock handles the lead vocals and inhabits the song in a profound way with his soulfully overwrought vocals making an ideal match for the lovelorn despondency described by the lyrics. This performance illustrates Whitlock's unique gifts as a performer and his ability to make songs his own - even love laments written by former collaborators about other musicians' wives :).
https://youtu.be/q_FTFqDZZEk?si=Faj9_x-iyKwzbIJl
Thanks for all of the insightful and thought-provoking messages, Bob.
Best,
Christopher Cwynar
P. S. Your point about Clapton doing better with strong collaborators is spot-on. Very incisive observation.
___________________________________
Hi there Bob,
I'm a "civilian" non industry insider-"just" a music fan who had met Bobby several times. Like many, the Layla LP was the first time I encountered Bobby's name and likeness. Layla would be the only constant in my evolving Desert Island collection. Including discs bought as gifts for others or Special Editions (Box Sets) I've bought Layla at least 8 times. Bobby and Coco made Austin their home around 2006 and later in the 2010s they had a semi regular gig on Saturday afternoons at a smallish club with a great sounding room in Austin where I'm from. I wish I'd seen Bobby and Coco more but I saw them about a dozen times over a couple of years. Always wonderful performances and somewhere around my third visit, I started arriving early and when the need arose I'd approach Bobby and offer to assist loading in amps, cases etc. So that was my introduction to Bobby and afterwards when there was time and the club was still empty we'd sometimes sit at a table and drink carbonated water with lemon or lime and chat. Bobby was a storyteller extraordinaire. It's hard not to be slack jawed when after several sessions and you know each other a bit and he's opening up and telling you about the state of the fireplace in the kitchen (the only source of heat for a while) at George Harrison's Friar Park estate when the place was still under restoration. Bobby was dating Patti Boyd's sister Jenny at the time. As a total Beatles and Clapton fan, it was fascinating to share a table with a man who could count Eric Clapton and George Harrison as roommates. We shared a love for Italian cars and tales of humorous hijinks and Stax Records. I last sat with him in either 2022 or 2023 at an Art Gallery exhibit of his paintings and later at his home in Ozona Texas (pop 2500) where he'd bought a 6000 sq foot 1920s mansion originally built by a "King of the Mohair Ranchers." I promised to gift him a "spare Hammond organ amp" that I was using as a shelf decoration but I never made it out that way again. He was a wonderful human; funny, gregarious, kind and deeply in love with his wife. They were a refreshingly happy couple. I feel for Coco-she is quite the home decorator and loved making a house a home for the two of them. Bobby gifted me a 3/4 sleeve Dominos Tee shirt I happened to wear a couple of weeks ago. We still have the tunes. We still have the tunes
Steve Wuertz Austin. Texas
___________________________________
Really nice remembrance of the great Robert S. Whitlock, consummate singer /musician and absolutely one of the most underrated supporting players of the entire classic rock period.
I had the amazing good fortune as 19 year old undergraduate at Syracuse University to sit front row for the infamous Derek and the Dominos show at the Onondaga County War Memorial show on 12/2/1970. Infamous because it was one of only two Dominos concerts (the other being a show in Florida two days previous) at which Duane Allman appeared with the band…& the opening act was a last minute booking: the unannounced and virtually unknown Elton John.
The War Memorial was a classic post WW 2 sports arena which held almost 10,000 people and which practically all major rock tours of the era played. But incredibly for this show there were only about 800 people in attendance & I know that for a fact because I sold tix on campus to most War Memorial shows and I had very few takers for this one because of several key factors.
First, this Dominos tour was hastily and haphazardly booked and this show was still several weeks or more BEFORE the Layla collection was even released so not many people even knew who Derek and the Dominos were. Second, Elton John had only played a few mostly West Coast US shows previous to this and I believe that the only music he had released here at that time was the Empty Sky UK import album. Third, very typically for Syracuse in December there were ominous reports of a big snowstorm on the way so there were very light "walk up"ticket sales. And fourth, absolutely nobody had any idea that Duane would be joining the band that night.
Not surprisingly show was no less than spectacular.
Elton was pure artistry and energy and Eric and the Dominos were otherworldly.
To see the two legendary guitarists playing both twin leads and counterpoints all night was great enough; but Whitlock and the legendary Carl Radle/Jim Gordon rhythm section were equally amazing. The band was just a machine.
The show was and is one of the very, very best of hundreds I've seen over the course of many decades in the industry.
And I'll never forget the revelation that Bobby Whitlock was as a co-lead singer and B3 player.
He was icing on the proverbial cake.
A truly unforgettable live music experience.
For any other Whitlock fans out there, I urge them to go to YouTube and check out the "at home" interview series Bobby recorded over the past few years with his wife Coco.
The stories he tells- from Clapton and the Dominos to George Harrison to Delaney and Bonnie to Ahmet Ertegun and Tom Dowd-are remarkable vignettes of rock history, and Whitlock is a natural raconteur.
RIP Bobby Whitlock - you were an all time great artist and made huge and essential contributions to some of the very best music of the entire classic rock era.
Stephen Dessau
___________________________________
Wonderful piece on Whitlock.
Writing to add Tommy Sims as a co-writer on "Change The World".
Tommy took a rough song idea I had in '97 and finished it, gloriously.
Clapton has wisely surrounded himself with outer worldly talent from the start. Rest in power, Bobby Whitlock.
DAMON JOHNSON
guitarist in Lynyrd Skynyrd
founder of Brother Cane
I can't think of anyone else in the world that would have found a co-writer in that bold way.
When he got to my house we smoked a joint and sat around the kitchen table. We wrote a song called Someone That You Use To Know. We thought it was great and Bobby said "George Jones should do this." Of course every songwriter thinks the greatest country singer of all should do the song they just wrote.
Years later George Jones recorded the song.
In the years we worked together Bobby told me the most amazing stories. He told me things he was going to do. He said he would put on a benefit concert for Ricky Nelson who was having financial problems and I would play. He said Carl Wilson, Graham Nash, John Sebastion, Rick Danko and Chris Hillman would play.
About two months later the concert happened at the Spreckles theatre just as he said it would.
After a while I realized that every story he told me was true and everything he said he would make happen happened.
We worked together in Hollywood and I went to his wedding in Mississippi. He took me way back in the woods to a small deserted church where he first started playing hammond B3.
We wrote a lot of songs together.
His autobiography is the best music biography I have read.
His playing and singing were like no one else, just amazing.
I was so lucky to know him.
Jack Tempchin
___________________________________
Just a word on Clapton. He is one of the most guileless people I have ever met. He was never about money or credit. Derek and the Dominoes was named that because he wanted to be out of the spotlight.
As you know, current producer agreements provide for producers to get their share of Sound Exchange royalties. Of course, back in the day, this was not anticipated and the way the laws read, you need a letter of direction from the artist in order to get Sound Exchange royalties.
I have, of course, requested these letters from all the artists I worked with as a producer. Most of them just referred to their lawyers (of course). None of them, not Dionne Warwick, Kenny Rogers, Barbra Streisand, Diana Ross, the Bee Gees, etc. agreed to give me any Sound Exchange royalties. The one exception was Eric. He was, "Sure, you deserve them."
—albhy galuten
___________________________________
Bobby Whitlock
First met him on the Layla Sessions with Duane. Tom Dowd had brought Eric and band members to an ABB concert in Miami and next thing we knew everyone was playing together back at Criteria Studios. Duane actually came very close to ditching the ABB and accepting an offer from Eric to join him. If he had there would not have been the ABB Live at Fillmore East album. Yikes! Bobby later did two albums for Capricorn. He was a kind, gentle and very talented man. RIP.
Willie Perkins
___________________________________
Hi Bob,
Lovely thoughts on the great Bobby Whitlock. In my opinion, the performance that really illustrates Bobby's talent is his performance of Bell Bottom Blues with Eric Clapton on Jools Holland. Whitlock has said that it was the experience of seeing Clapton exhibit such serenity and comfort in his own skin at those sessions that motivated him to get clean. In the performance, Whitlock handles the lead vocals and inhabits the song in a profound way with his soulfully overwrought vocals making an ideal match for the lovelorn despondency described by the lyrics. This performance illustrates Whitlock's unique gifts as a performer and his ability to make songs his own - even love laments written by former collaborators about other musicians' wives :).
https://youtu.be/q_FTFqDZZEk?si=Faj9_x-iyKwzbIJl
Thanks for all of the insightful and thought-provoking messages, Bob.
Best,
Christopher Cwynar
P. S. Your point about Clapton doing better with strong collaborators is spot-on. Very incisive observation.
___________________________________
Hi there Bob,
I'm a "civilian" non industry insider-"just" a music fan who had met Bobby several times. Like many, the Layla LP was the first time I encountered Bobby's name and likeness. Layla would be the only constant in my evolving Desert Island collection. Including discs bought as gifts for others or Special Editions (Box Sets) I've bought Layla at least 8 times. Bobby and Coco made Austin their home around 2006 and later in the 2010s they had a semi regular gig on Saturday afternoons at a smallish club with a great sounding room in Austin where I'm from. I wish I'd seen Bobby and Coco more but I saw them about a dozen times over a couple of years. Always wonderful performances and somewhere around my third visit, I started arriving early and when the need arose I'd approach Bobby and offer to assist loading in amps, cases etc. So that was my introduction to Bobby and afterwards when there was time and the club was still empty we'd sometimes sit at a table and drink carbonated water with lemon or lime and chat. Bobby was a storyteller extraordinaire. It's hard not to be slack jawed when after several sessions and you know each other a bit and he's opening up and telling you about the state of the fireplace in the kitchen (the only source of heat for a while) at George Harrison's Friar Park estate when the place was still under restoration. Bobby was dating Patti Boyd's sister Jenny at the time. As a total Beatles and Clapton fan, it was fascinating to share a table with a man who could count Eric Clapton and George Harrison as roommates. We shared a love for Italian cars and tales of humorous hijinks and Stax Records. I last sat with him in either 2022 or 2023 at an Art Gallery exhibit of his paintings and later at his home in Ozona Texas (pop 2500) where he'd bought a 6000 sq foot 1920s mansion originally built by a "King of the Mohair Ranchers." I promised to gift him a "spare Hammond organ amp" that I was using as a shelf decoration but I never made it out that way again. He was a wonderful human; funny, gregarious, kind and deeply in love with his wife. They were a refreshingly happy couple. I feel for Coco-she is quite the home decorator and loved making a house a home for the two of them. Bobby gifted me a 3/4 sleeve Dominos Tee shirt I happened to wear a couple of weeks ago. We still have the tunes. We still have the tunes
Steve Wuertz Austin. Texas
___________________________________
Really nice remembrance of the great Robert S. Whitlock, consummate singer /musician and absolutely one of the most underrated supporting players of the entire classic rock period.
I had the amazing good fortune as 19 year old undergraduate at Syracuse University to sit front row for the infamous Derek and the Dominos show at the Onondaga County War Memorial show on 12/2/1970. Infamous because it was one of only two Dominos concerts (the other being a show in Florida two days previous) at which Duane Allman appeared with the band…& the opening act was a last minute booking: the unannounced and virtually unknown Elton John.
The War Memorial was a classic post WW 2 sports arena which held almost 10,000 people and which practically all major rock tours of the era played. But incredibly for this show there were only about 800 people in attendance & I know that for a fact because I sold tix on campus to most War Memorial shows and I had very few takers for this one because of several key factors.
First, this Dominos tour was hastily and haphazardly booked and this show was still several weeks or more BEFORE the Layla collection was even released so not many people even knew who Derek and the Dominos were. Second, Elton John had only played a few mostly West Coast US shows previous to this and I believe that the only music he had released here at that time was the Empty Sky UK import album. Third, very typically for Syracuse in December there were ominous reports of a big snowstorm on the way so there were very light "walk up"ticket sales. And fourth, absolutely nobody had any idea that Duane would be joining the band that night.
Not surprisingly show was no less than spectacular.
Elton was pure artistry and energy and Eric and the Dominos were otherworldly.
To see the two legendary guitarists playing both twin leads and counterpoints all night was great enough; but Whitlock and the legendary Carl Radle/Jim Gordon rhythm section were equally amazing. The band was just a machine.
The show was and is one of the very, very best of hundreds I've seen over the course of many decades in the industry.
And I'll never forget the revelation that Bobby Whitlock was as a co-lead singer and B3 player.
He was icing on the proverbial cake.
A truly unforgettable live music experience.
For any other Whitlock fans out there, I urge them to go to YouTube and check out the "at home" interview series Bobby recorded over the past few years with his wife Coco.
The stories he tells- from Clapton and the Dominos to George Harrison to Delaney and Bonnie to Ahmet Ertegun and Tom Dowd-are remarkable vignettes of rock history, and Whitlock is a natural raconteur.
RIP Bobby Whitlock - you were an all time great artist and made huge and essential contributions to some of the very best music of the entire classic rock era.
Stephen Dessau
___________________________________
Wonderful piece on Whitlock.
Writing to add Tommy Sims as a co-writer on "Change The World".
Tommy took a rough song idea I had in '97 and finished it, gloriously.
Clapton has wisely surrounded himself with outer worldly talent from the start. Rest in power, Bobby Whitlock.
DAMON JOHNSON
guitarist in Lynyrd Skynyrd
founder of Brother Cane
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Thursday, 14 August 2025
Can It Be A Hit Again?
"The Song Was a Hit 20 Years Ago. It Just Got a Video. - Decades-old tracks by artists including Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, LL Cool J and Talking Heads are finding younger fans. Record labels hope new videos will feed their interest."
Free link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/arts/music/music-videos-talking-heads-lucy-dacus.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eE8.tKj-.PVDYQPNwr0sA&smid=url-share
The hits of yore still are...HITS!
Now in the pre-internet era it made little sense to promote ancient music, because except for a thin layer of hits, the music was unavailable at retail. However, the internet has completely changed this. All the music of recorded history is at your fingertips! (And for all you lame-o's complaining that Spotify, et al, don't have certain tracks, they are seemingly all available on YouTube. Gotcha is akin to internet hate...it's irrelevant words written to make the creator feel good).
Anyway, if there's a buzz online, people can immediately find the original track and stream it and KACHING! A payment is rendered. Which is another reason why you should never ever sell your publishing. Because you're just one lightning strike away from its value going into the stratosphere. Queen sold its publishing rights to Sony for $1.27 billion. What would the price have been without the feature in "Wayne's World"? Even half?
Yes, that was the paradigm of the late nineties and the first part of the twenty first century, get a sync. But now movies are dead, however, are you following the story of Huntrix, the fictional act that stars in the animated Netflix movie "KPop Demon Hunters"? Their track "Golden" just went to number one. And so far, has reached the Top 10 in 93 countries. That's the power of Netflix. Meanwhile, all we hear about is the power of YouTube, how it eclipses other streamers. But YouTube can't make a star, never ever. Stars, hits, are made on Netflix.
Now the great thing about a fictional act is you don't have to pay them and they don't complain. Not everything is so easy. Then again, have you even heard "Golden"? I have, it's not for everybody. But those hits of yore ARE!
"Smoke on the Water"? Maybe the most iconic riff in hard rock history.
Now "Smoke on the Water" is not hidden, there are videos all over TikTok of people playing the song, or teaching you how to play the song, or video of Deep Purple. Kudos. But as far as original work? BUPKES!
The major labels survive on their catalogs. All paid for, it's pure profit. But they also don't put any money into them. There used to be compilations, but with streaming you can just pick the hit you want and anybody can create a playlist. Catalog is seen as a backwater, when in truth it should be FRONT LINE! If private equity bought a label they'd cancel new music production and milk the catalog. Does Primary Wave sign wannabe songwriters? OF COURSE NOT, THAT'S NOT WHERE THE MONEY IS!
The music labels are run by small-minded people, worried most about their salaries and bonuses. They never want to rock the boat. They're loath to spend. But NOW is the time to maximize the catalog. NOW is the time to make new videos of classic hits that cannot only be seen online, but imitated...
Control is history. Obscurity rules. Let anybody do anything with your music. Otherwise it will languish. This is the era of personal creation, don't hamstring the younger generation. Which is hungry for the hit music of yore because so much of today's hit music is so damn lame.
Once again, it's all about TikTok. Period. Too many hire a social media team which employs a firehose to send the same damn bland content to all platforms. That doesn't work on TikTok. On TikTok it's not so much about information as the essence, the riff. There are so many that young people would cotton to if they were just exposed to them.
You've got Matador making videos for ancient Lucy Dacus material, but nobody at Warner is promoting the iconic intro of "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald," never mind the Gordon Lightfoot song being superior to anything Dacus has never done, never mind her group boygenius.
The riff of "Purple Haze"? I think kids today know of Hendrix, do they know the material?
These are iconic hits, but there are some songs of yore that only have double digit million streams on Spotify BECAUSE NO ONE IS MARKETING THEM!
It's kind of like the sixties, but instead of hiring a house hippie, you should hire someone young who is fluent in TikTok, maybe a student in animation at a university. They're plugged in and looking for opportunity.
The story of the summer is how there is no song of the summer. That oldies are dominating the chart. What this definitively proves is how damn hard it is to break a record these days. But the hits of yore, they've already been broken, they're certified, and people want to hear them! Hell, there was a buzz on early Dylan after the movie, but most of his greatest material was absent and is ready for promotion. Right now "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" only has 16 million streams on Spotify. How about taking a verse and doing a "Subterranean Homesick Blues" video for it? You know, with the cards?
How about:
"While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in"
There's more truth and honesty in this verse than anything in the Top 10, the words still apply today, but the younger generation is mostly oblivious.
Or how about cutting just the intro to "Just the Way You Are"?
"Don't go changin'"
That's a viral hit just waiting to be exploited. The words fit so many situations.
All it takes is a bit of innovation and effort. This is low-hanging fruit. Do I expect everything to go viral on TikTok? Of course not, odds are low. But if you're not playing on the service you can't succeed.
"The Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys"? That only has 11 million streams on Spotify. That haunting sound is ready to be exploited. But the label is dominated by whiners and diners trying to exploit today's dreck, MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFULLY!
It's your move.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Free link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/arts/music/music-videos-talking-heads-lucy-dacus.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eE8.tKj-.PVDYQPNwr0sA&smid=url-share
The hits of yore still are...HITS!
Now in the pre-internet era it made little sense to promote ancient music, because except for a thin layer of hits, the music was unavailable at retail. However, the internet has completely changed this. All the music of recorded history is at your fingertips! (And for all you lame-o's complaining that Spotify, et al, don't have certain tracks, they are seemingly all available on YouTube. Gotcha is akin to internet hate...it's irrelevant words written to make the creator feel good).
Anyway, if there's a buzz online, people can immediately find the original track and stream it and KACHING! A payment is rendered. Which is another reason why you should never ever sell your publishing. Because you're just one lightning strike away from its value going into the stratosphere. Queen sold its publishing rights to Sony for $1.27 billion. What would the price have been without the feature in "Wayne's World"? Even half?
Yes, that was the paradigm of the late nineties and the first part of the twenty first century, get a sync. But now movies are dead, however, are you following the story of Huntrix, the fictional act that stars in the animated Netflix movie "KPop Demon Hunters"? Their track "Golden" just went to number one. And so far, has reached the Top 10 in 93 countries. That's the power of Netflix. Meanwhile, all we hear about is the power of YouTube, how it eclipses other streamers. But YouTube can't make a star, never ever. Stars, hits, are made on Netflix.
Now the great thing about a fictional act is you don't have to pay them and they don't complain. Not everything is so easy. Then again, have you even heard "Golden"? I have, it's not for everybody. But those hits of yore ARE!
"Smoke on the Water"? Maybe the most iconic riff in hard rock history.
Now "Smoke on the Water" is not hidden, there are videos all over TikTok of people playing the song, or teaching you how to play the song, or video of Deep Purple. Kudos. But as far as original work? BUPKES!
The major labels survive on their catalogs. All paid for, it's pure profit. But they also don't put any money into them. There used to be compilations, but with streaming you can just pick the hit you want and anybody can create a playlist. Catalog is seen as a backwater, when in truth it should be FRONT LINE! If private equity bought a label they'd cancel new music production and milk the catalog. Does Primary Wave sign wannabe songwriters? OF COURSE NOT, THAT'S NOT WHERE THE MONEY IS!
The music labels are run by small-minded people, worried most about their salaries and bonuses. They never want to rock the boat. They're loath to spend. But NOW is the time to maximize the catalog. NOW is the time to make new videos of classic hits that cannot only be seen online, but imitated...
Control is history. Obscurity rules. Let anybody do anything with your music. Otherwise it will languish. This is the era of personal creation, don't hamstring the younger generation. Which is hungry for the hit music of yore because so much of today's hit music is so damn lame.
Once again, it's all about TikTok. Period. Too many hire a social media team which employs a firehose to send the same damn bland content to all platforms. That doesn't work on TikTok. On TikTok it's not so much about information as the essence, the riff. There are so many that young people would cotton to if they were just exposed to them.
You've got Matador making videos for ancient Lucy Dacus material, but nobody at Warner is promoting the iconic intro of "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald," never mind the Gordon Lightfoot song being superior to anything Dacus has never done, never mind her group boygenius.
The riff of "Purple Haze"? I think kids today know of Hendrix, do they know the material?
These are iconic hits, but there are some songs of yore that only have double digit million streams on Spotify BECAUSE NO ONE IS MARKETING THEM!
It's kind of like the sixties, but instead of hiring a house hippie, you should hire someone young who is fluent in TikTok, maybe a student in animation at a university. They're plugged in and looking for opportunity.
The story of the summer is how there is no song of the summer. That oldies are dominating the chart. What this definitively proves is how damn hard it is to break a record these days. But the hits of yore, they've already been broken, they're certified, and people want to hear them! Hell, there was a buzz on early Dylan after the movie, but most of his greatest material was absent and is ready for promotion. Right now "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" only has 16 million streams on Spotify. How about taking a verse and doing a "Subterranean Homesick Blues" video for it? You know, with the cards?
How about:
"While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in"
There's more truth and honesty in this verse than anything in the Top 10, the words still apply today, but the younger generation is mostly oblivious.
Or how about cutting just the intro to "Just the Way You Are"?
"Don't go changin'"
That's a viral hit just waiting to be exploited. The words fit so many situations.
All it takes is a bit of innovation and effort. This is low-hanging fruit. Do I expect everything to go viral on TikTok? Of course not, odds are low. But if you're not playing on the service you can't succeed.
"The Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys"? That only has 11 million streams on Spotify. That haunting sound is ready to be exploited. But the label is dominated by whiners and diners trying to exploit today's dreck, MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFULLY!
It's your move.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Re-Spotify Myths
LOL.
I understood perfectly, Bob.
Spotify produces nothing.
It creates nothing.
It is software designed purely for the purpose of using the work of others to generate enormous profits for its owner.
As with most large corporate entities, its business model is an exploitative one.
Its owner has become a deca-billionaire on the backs of ACTUAL creators. If paying out 70% of its revenues to artists and writers isn't enough for their payouts to compare to Apple, Tidal, etc, then it needs to be an even higher percentage.
Or they simply aren't charging subscribers enough.
I've actually been saying since day one that a lousy ten bucks or so for unlimited 24/7/365 access to basically the entire recorded history of music is an absurdly-low fee, and is ultimately unsustainable. And the more music that gets added to the service (a staggering average of 100,000 songs per day, according to many sources), the more inadequate and unsustainable it becomes.
Not sure what your personal motivation is for pretending that Ek isn't the enemy, and that those of us standing up for fair artist compensation are, but…
It is what it is.
Mike Froedge
Step Up to the Mike Productions, LLC
_______
Has Napster been forgotten already? Never mind the era of Tower Records, Peaches, King Karol, ad infinitum?
Somebody needs to distribute music. And even CBS (now Sony) realized that it couldn't do an adequate job of this, that their focus should be production, nor retail, and the company sold Discount Records.
Oh, the acts could do it by themselves... Just like the Grateful Dead with "Wake of the Flood," an utter disaster financially, it wasn't long before the band went back into the system. You see there's more to distribution and retail than just manufacturing records, never mind shipping them. There's getting retailers to buy them and then PAY FOR THEM! Those with occasional releases had hell getting paid. You'd need a steady stream of product in order to get your invoices paid, and the retailer was always behind. To the point when they went bankrupt, which they frequently did, they owed even the major labels millions. Did the owners declare personal bankruptcy? No, most had the companies incorporated and walked away with their wealth.
Now in the old days you needed a physical space with its attendant costs of water, electricity and air-conditioning as well as employees... Which is why it was always about the margins. The difference between what you paid the distributor/wholesaler versus what you charged the customer. Same deal with Spotify.
However, Spotify has the advantage of being an internet company, with little physical space cost. Kind of like the people making the music, who can do so on their computers, costs have gone down. Also, Spotify can scale around the world relatively cheaply, as can your music. Good luck getting your music in a retail store in Uzbekistan or Chile, hell, here's a list of the nations where Spotify operates:
https://www.spotify.com/us/select-your-country-region/
But they're not the only ones. You've got Apple and Microsoft and Facebook and...the list of tech companies operating around the world is huge. And many of their creating entrepreneurs have become billionaires, some the richest people in the world. But if you make your money by distributing music, YOU'RE THE ENEMY! Never mind Daniel Ek single-handedly saved monetized music distribution, before Spotify piracy ruled. As for competing companies, none could come up with a solution, hobbled by limits from copy protection to price.
As for price... Venerated hero Steve Jobs refused to raise the price at the iTunes Store when implored to do so by the money-hungry/greedy labels. He said he was building a business and they wanted to kill it. There comes a point at which people say no. Otherwise everybody would be driving a Mercedes-Benz. The value of music is what people are willing to pay for it, not a penny more.
And here we have America in a nutshell. Everybody gets their information from a different source and believes they're right. And if you're Ticketmaster or Spotify or anybody dealing with the public today you know that the customer is not always right, and should be ignored. This is kind of like the Democrats...you're better educated with greater powers of analysis, luxuriate in this instead of constantly tearing out your hair trying to convince people of the truth, enlighten them when they prefer to live in the dark.
If you want to enlighten someone, employ art, it's the most powerful tool. It's based on speaking truth. But where is said truth today? Other than purveyed by people who can't sing, write or play who e-mail me their songs telling me that the public needs to hear them. No, you have to make the music so irresistible that people pull it, don't have it pushed upon them. And in order for your message to be believed, you must be trustworthy and honest, credible, you cannot take money and be a tool of the Fortune 500. But just like with Napster, people have forgotten about the sixties and the golden era of classic rock, and how music moved the world.
People are clamoring for great music, great art. If they find it they tell everybody they know about it, they believe in it. How many can excite the populace? Very few, but that's the artist's job, not making a living...making a living comes AFTER!
One more thing... If you've got a problem with Spotify and Daniel Ek, create your own music distribution platform, no one is holding you back. So far, no one has been able to compete with Spotify, which keeps nimble and innovative, since there's no royalties from other enterprises to keep the company afloat. People CHOOSE to subscribe to Spotify.
And you can choose to become a business person. And most make more money than the artists. Then again, Clive Calder, who had the biggest financial victory in the history of the music business, is unknown to youngsters today, whereas the songs he purveyed...hell, Backstreet Boys are still playing the Sphere!
You make your choice. If you want to make bank, you probably shouldn't become a social worker. Then again, being a social worker can be extremely fulfilling.
But everybody wants what everybody else has, someone is holding them back...when the dirty little secret is you are holding yourself back.
Do you have the wherewithal to complete umpteen years of schooling? The networking ability to make things happen? I believe in a social safety net, everybody is entitled to a roof over their head and food on the table. But not everybody is entitled to be rich. That's your responsibility. Life isn't fair, but if you want to be wealthy just don't sit at home and do the same thing and complain, CHANGE! Never mind work harder and sacrifice. Or be happy where you are.
But seemingly nobody is.
________________________________________
You need to keep repeating your message. There is a false narrative that needs to end.
The music industry is a popularity contest. Always has been. It doesn't matter the genre, format, or monetization model. If you are popular, you make money.
Sinatra, Elvis, Beatles, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Madonna, Beyonce, Taylor Swift and on and on. Popular = $$$
Scott Cohen
________________________________________
I can't tell you how often I've explained the "no-such-thing-as-a-streaming-rate" thing to songwriters and, as simple as the concept is, they can't/won't accept it. In their minds they are being cheated. And don't get me started on what they think about Spotify taking a cut for operating costs.
Michael Battiston
Previously Director of Copyright and Music Usage at ASCAP.
________________________________________
Seeing these responses to your articles about Spotify reminded me of something…. a few years ago I was teaching part time at a college for recording arts. I had students for music production, songwriting and engineering, some music business, etc. Every single quarter I'd ask the same question… "what do you think is the reason most artists fail in their goal to become successful in music, in this case let's define successful as being able to quit your day job and make a living solely from music"?
I would listen as each student gave their answers….
"bad management"
"drug problems"
"couldn't get a break"
"not enough promotion"
And on and on and on; I then gave MY answer, which was simple. They aren't good enough. Never once did I hear that come from a student first and when I said it they all looked a little surprised and maybe even taken aback. I used the example of "if Jimi Hendrix was on the street corner outside playing guitar don't you think a crowd would probably gather?" I'm not saying talent always wins but true exceptionalism very often does and the lack of it usually doesn't. Not that every act currently on the pop
charts is oozing with talent, but the ones who aren't are often working with writers and producers who are, even if the music might not be my thing. I just thought it was important to remind these kids that NOT EVERYONE IS GOOD ENOUGH. Art isn't democracy, where one person gets one vote. Some people are just better at art than others!
Most work their asses off to be that good, some are just kinda born with it, it's not fair, get used to it!
I will say as a guy who was a little kid in the '60's, my generation is pretty much responsible for this attitude because my generation was the first to grow up with that sense of entitlement… "if you can dream it you can do it!" "everyone gets a medal just for TRYING", etc. My parents generation was a little different, I think their mantra was "if you work your ass off for your entire life then maybe you won't starve to death or get killed by the Nazis". I understand why people are pissed off reading what you write on this subject but the numbers don't lie. I'm working with a completely independent artist right now, no label, no publisher, we split everything 50/50 just like I do with sync music. Several of our songs are over a million and the money coming in is cool, not like 90's platinum record cool but cool. If she continues like this it will be amazing- but it's happening because she's exceptional and works her ass off and apparently people want to listen to her music.
Kevin Bowe
________________________________________
Living wage or better is for those who actually work in the music business and many do well. I co-own a booking agency here in Florida and we book 300+ shows a month in our area. It's mainly singles and duo's, but these guys and girls are making a good living and the market is healthy here for the most part. The other problem is most of these complainers don't even know how to get their money even if they are getting decent streams. I talk with artists all the time who haven't registered their songs with a PRO and don't have a clue about the MLC or SoundExchange. We are flooded with Hobbyists. I have a number of friends in known bands that work other jobs when they are off the road. Look, all the great songs have been written, all the great movies have been done. Not to say that someone might get lucky once in a while, but everything is a retread. We saw it, we lived it, we're lucky. Onward.
B Chapin
________________________________________
Thank you for continuing to fact check these ridiculous, never ending, claims that Spotify pays a worse "per stream rate" than Apple or Tidal. Same conversation for 20 years now - in spite of Spotify's efforts to explain their model, most people have no idea how a shared pool model works.
Michael Abbatista
________________________________________
Hi Bob — I truly do not have much sympathy for musicians who complain that they are not getting paid much for streams.
Back in the "old days," when a top 40 station, say, WLS, added a record, it would get played, maybe, 12-15 times a day. Each play reached an audience of, say, 800,000 or more listeners. A chart record would be played on, say, 200 top 40 stations around the country.
Today, one stream on Spotify or any other service, reaches one listener.
Even a spin on a juke box in a tavern or teen club, reached more listeners than one stream on Spotify.
Do the math.
Jim Charne
________________________________________
Spot on Bob
Again you hit all the basic data points
that it's more emotion than fact. That people not only don't know basic math, but they hate it because it's neutral to feelings
You also remind us that in this "imaginary golden age", Mythologized by rock 'n' roll movies and stories of trashed hotel rooms, the majority of artists never got royalties and tons of them were ripped off so badly It's not funny.
The big difference however was the record companies were not yet grabbing touring revenue -360 deals were not even a thought- so many acts that were excellent live (or even just decent), made fortunes, bought their houses & jets , had the rockstar life, but it was touring money they made.
The biggest thing…. You brought this up the other day, there was a time when going to a studio was absolutely Unreachable for the vast majority of Musicians, the expense to just lay down a little 4-song demo was a huge amount of money and inaccessible to most.
What a lot of musicians refuse to acknowledge is that in any other economic venture, for any other commodity, even in any other art; if the costs of production dropped as far as they have for Musicians, while the number of people now creating that commodity exploded —- the remuneration for said commodity would approach zero.
Today with a $200 Mac from a pawnshop, a 10-year-old interface and a couple microphones, you have more studio power than artists During most of the last century. And there are top ten hits done on GarageBand, like it or not
With free synthesizer plug-ins, free compressors and reverb units, free effects processor, free mastering software, free, free, free, free free. Free storage & distro online. Free word processing & spreadsheet software. These were all costs of doing business not long ago. Free Gmail and Instagram to promote with.
Bandcamp Is essentially free, some would argue that taking the percentage is a cost, but that is a debatable concept.
We have all this FREE stuff and yet no one wants to admit that that means the COST of production has shrunk astronomically. Meaning the entry point bar is low, so there are infinitely more people creating the product we are trying to sell, vs "the golden age" of 1975. But people HATE THE MATH.
Basically, if everyone had a brick oven in their house, every single person…. and a cheap or free supply of flour, spices, cheese and tomato sauce……Slices of pizza would be worth a nickel. If that!! Pizzeria owners will understand that the math is the math, but Musicians would complain that somebody moved their cheese
Thank you
Andre´Cholmondeley
________________________________________
Alright Bob, that was an excellent rant! I have been reading your blog for years… but this one you spelled it out so clearly…particularly the Spotify math concept… I'm grateful to understand it now. Thanks!
Cheers,
- Brett Currie
________________________________________
Good God, Bob, that you have to explain this SIMPLE TRUTH ad nauseum to imbeciles, is truly pathetic.
You have incredible patience, not to mention balls of steel to put up with the blowback.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE.
DG
I understood perfectly, Bob.
Spotify produces nothing.
It creates nothing.
It is software designed purely for the purpose of using the work of others to generate enormous profits for its owner.
As with most large corporate entities, its business model is an exploitative one.
Its owner has become a deca-billionaire on the backs of ACTUAL creators. If paying out 70% of its revenues to artists and writers isn't enough for their payouts to compare to Apple, Tidal, etc, then it needs to be an even higher percentage.
Or they simply aren't charging subscribers enough.
I've actually been saying since day one that a lousy ten bucks or so for unlimited 24/7/365 access to basically the entire recorded history of music is an absurdly-low fee, and is ultimately unsustainable. And the more music that gets added to the service (a staggering average of 100,000 songs per day, according to many sources), the more inadequate and unsustainable it becomes.
Not sure what your personal motivation is for pretending that Ek isn't the enemy, and that those of us standing up for fair artist compensation are, but…
It is what it is.
Mike Froedge
Step Up to the Mike Productions, LLC
_______
Has Napster been forgotten already? Never mind the era of Tower Records, Peaches, King Karol, ad infinitum?
Somebody needs to distribute music. And even CBS (now Sony) realized that it couldn't do an adequate job of this, that their focus should be production, nor retail, and the company sold Discount Records.
Oh, the acts could do it by themselves... Just like the Grateful Dead with "Wake of the Flood," an utter disaster financially, it wasn't long before the band went back into the system. You see there's more to distribution and retail than just manufacturing records, never mind shipping them. There's getting retailers to buy them and then PAY FOR THEM! Those with occasional releases had hell getting paid. You'd need a steady stream of product in order to get your invoices paid, and the retailer was always behind. To the point when they went bankrupt, which they frequently did, they owed even the major labels millions. Did the owners declare personal bankruptcy? No, most had the companies incorporated and walked away with their wealth.
Now in the old days you needed a physical space with its attendant costs of water, electricity and air-conditioning as well as employees... Which is why it was always about the margins. The difference between what you paid the distributor/wholesaler versus what you charged the customer. Same deal with Spotify.
However, Spotify has the advantage of being an internet company, with little physical space cost. Kind of like the people making the music, who can do so on their computers, costs have gone down. Also, Spotify can scale around the world relatively cheaply, as can your music. Good luck getting your music in a retail store in Uzbekistan or Chile, hell, here's a list of the nations where Spotify operates:
https://www.spotify.com/us/select-your-country-region/
But they're not the only ones. You've got Apple and Microsoft and Facebook and...the list of tech companies operating around the world is huge. And many of their creating entrepreneurs have become billionaires, some the richest people in the world. But if you make your money by distributing music, YOU'RE THE ENEMY! Never mind Daniel Ek single-handedly saved monetized music distribution, before Spotify piracy ruled. As for competing companies, none could come up with a solution, hobbled by limits from copy protection to price.
As for price... Venerated hero Steve Jobs refused to raise the price at the iTunes Store when implored to do so by the money-hungry/greedy labels. He said he was building a business and they wanted to kill it. There comes a point at which people say no. Otherwise everybody would be driving a Mercedes-Benz. The value of music is what people are willing to pay for it, not a penny more.
And here we have America in a nutshell. Everybody gets their information from a different source and believes they're right. And if you're Ticketmaster or Spotify or anybody dealing with the public today you know that the customer is not always right, and should be ignored. This is kind of like the Democrats...you're better educated with greater powers of analysis, luxuriate in this instead of constantly tearing out your hair trying to convince people of the truth, enlighten them when they prefer to live in the dark.
If you want to enlighten someone, employ art, it's the most powerful tool. It's based on speaking truth. But where is said truth today? Other than purveyed by people who can't sing, write or play who e-mail me their songs telling me that the public needs to hear them. No, you have to make the music so irresistible that people pull it, don't have it pushed upon them. And in order for your message to be believed, you must be trustworthy and honest, credible, you cannot take money and be a tool of the Fortune 500. But just like with Napster, people have forgotten about the sixties and the golden era of classic rock, and how music moved the world.
People are clamoring for great music, great art. If they find it they tell everybody they know about it, they believe in it. How many can excite the populace? Very few, but that's the artist's job, not making a living...making a living comes AFTER!
One more thing... If you've got a problem with Spotify and Daniel Ek, create your own music distribution platform, no one is holding you back. So far, no one has been able to compete with Spotify, which keeps nimble and innovative, since there's no royalties from other enterprises to keep the company afloat. People CHOOSE to subscribe to Spotify.
And you can choose to become a business person. And most make more money than the artists. Then again, Clive Calder, who had the biggest financial victory in the history of the music business, is unknown to youngsters today, whereas the songs he purveyed...hell, Backstreet Boys are still playing the Sphere!
You make your choice. If you want to make bank, you probably shouldn't become a social worker. Then again, being a social worker can be extremely fulfilling.
But everybody wants what everybody else has, someone is holding them back...when the dirty little secret is you are holding yourself back.
Do you have the wherewithal to complete umpteen years of schooling? The networking ability to make things happen? I believe in a social safety net, everybody is entitled to a roof over their head and food on the table. But not everybody is entitled to be rich. That's your responsibility. Life isn't fair, but if you want to be wealthy just don't sit at home and do the same thing and complain, CHANGE! Never mind work harder and sacrifice. Or be happy where you are.
But seemingly nobody is.
________________________________________
You need to keep repeating your message. There is a false narrative that needs to end.
The music industry is a popularity contest. Always has been. It doesn't matter the genre, format, or monetization model. If you are popular, you make money.
Sinatra, Elvis, Beatles, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Madonna, Beyonce, Taylor Swift and on and on. Popular = $$$
Scott Cohen
________________________________________
I can't tell you how often I've explained the "no-such-thing-as-a-streaming-rate" thing to songwriters and, as simple as the concept is, they can't/won't accept it. In their minds they are being cheated. And don't get me started on what they think about Spotify taking a cut for operating costs.
Michael Battiston
Previously Director of Copyright and Music Usage at ASCAP.
________________________________________
Seeing these responses to your articles about Spotify reminded me of something…. a few years ago I was teaching part time at a college for recording arts. I had students for music production, songwriting and engineering, some music business, etc. Every single quarter I'd ask the same question… "what do you think is the reason most artists fail in their goal to become successful in music, in this case let's define successful as being able to quit your day job and make a living solely from music"?
I would listen as each student gave their answers….
"bad management"
"drug problems"
"couldn't get a break"
"not enough promotion"
And on and on and on; I then gave MY answer, which was simple. They aren't good enough. Never once did I hear that come from a student first and when I said it they all looked a little surprised and maybe even taken aback. I used the example of "if Jimi Hendrix was on the street corner outside playing guitar don't you think a crowd would probably gather?" I'm not saying talent always wins but true exceptionalism very often does and the lack of it usually doesn't. Not that every act currently on the pop
charts is oozing with talent, but the ones who aren't are often working with writers and producers who are, even if the music might not be my thing. I just thought it was important to remind these kids that NOT EVERYONE IS GOOD ENOUGH. Art isn't democracy, where one person gets one vote. Some people are just better at art than others!
Most work their asses off to be that good, some are just kinda born with it, it's not fair, get used to it!
I will say as a guy who was a little kid in the '60's, my generation is pretty much responsible for this attitude because my generation was the first to grow up with that sense of entitlement… "if you can dream it you can do it!" "everyone gets a medal just for TRYING", etc. My parents generation was a little different, I think their mantra was "if you work your ass off for your entire life then maybe you won't starve to death or get killed by the Nazis". I understand why people are pissed off reading what you write on this subject but the numbers don't lie. I'm working with a completely independent artist right now, no label, no publisher, we split everything 50/50 just like I do with sync music. Several of our songs are over a million and the money coming in is cool, not like 90's platinum record cool but cool. If she continues like this it will be amazing- but it's happening because she's exceptional and works her ass off and apparently people want to listen to her music.
Kevin Bowe
________________________________________
Living wage or better is for those who actually work in the music business and many do well. I co-own a booking agency here in Florida and we book 300+ shows a month in our area. It's mainly singles and duo's, but these guys and girls are making a good living and the market is healthy here for the most part. The other problem is most of these complainers don't even know how to get their money even if they are getting decent streams. I talk with artists all the time who haven't registered their songs with a PRO and don't have a clue about the MLC or SoundExchange. We are flooded with Hobbyists. I have a number of friends in known bands that work other jobs when they are off the road. Look, all the great songs have been written, all the great movies have been done. Not to say that someone might get lucky once in a while, but everything is a retread. We saw it, we lived it, we're lucky. Onward.
B Chapin
________________________________________
Thank you for continuing to fact check these ridiculous, never ending, claims that Spotify pays a worse "per stream rate" than Apple or Tidal. Same conversation for 20 years now - in spite of Spotify's efforts to explain their model, most people have no idea how a shared pool model works.
Michael Abbatista
________________________________________
Hi Bob — I truly do not have much sympathy for musicians who complain that they are not getting paid much for streams.
Back in the "old days," when a top 40 station, say, WLS, added a record, it would get played, maybe, 12-15 times a day. Each play reached an audience of, say, 800,000 or more listeners. A chart record would be played on, say, 200 top 40 stations around the country.
Today, one stream on Spotify or any other service, reaches one listener.
Even a spin on a juke box in a tavern or teen club, reached more listeners than one stream on Spotify.
Do the math.
Jim Charne
________________________________________
Spot on Bob
Again you hit all the basic data points
that it's more emotion than fact. That people not only don't know basic math, but they hate it because it's neutral to feelings
You also remind us that in this "imaginary golden age", Mythologized by rock 'n' roll movies and stories of trashed hotel rooms, the majority of artists never got royalties and tons of them were ripped off so badly It's not funny.
The big difference however was the record companies were not yet grabbing touring revenue -360 deals were not even a thought- so many acts that were excellent live (or even just decent), made fortunes, bought their houses & jets , had the rockstar life, but it was touring money they made.
The biggest thing…. You brought this up the other day, there was a time when going to a studio was absolutely Unreachable for the vast majority of Musicians, the expense to just lay down a little 4-song demo was a huge amount of money and inaccessible to most.
What a lot of musicians refuse to acknowledge is that in any other economic venture, for any other commodity, even in any other art; if the costs of production dropped as far as they have for Musicians, while the number of people now creating that commodity exploded —- the remuneration for said commodity would approach zero.
Today with a $200 Mac from a pawnshop, a 10-year-old interface and a couple microphones, you have more studio power than artists During most of the last century. And there are top ten hits done on GarageBand, like it or not
With free synthesizer plug-ins, free compressors and reverb units, free effects processor, free mastering software, free, free, free, free free. Free storage & distro online. Free word processing & spreadsheet software. These were all costs of doing business not long ago. Free Gmail and Instagram to promote with.
Bandcamp Is essentially free, some would argue that taking the percentage is a cost, but that is a debatable concept.
We have all this FREE stuff and yet no one wants to admit that that means the COST of production has shrunk astronomically. Meaning the entry point bar is low, so there are infinitely more people creating the product we are trying to sell, vs "the golden age" of 1975. But people HATE THE MATH.
Basically, if everyone had a brick oven in their house, every single person…. and a cheap or free supply of flour, spices, cheese and tomato sauce……Slices of pizza would be worth a nickel. If that!! Pizzeria owners will understand that the math is the math, but Musicians would complain that somebody moved their cheese
Thank you
Andre´Cholmondeley
________________________________________
Alright Bob, that was an excellent rant! I have been reading your blog for years… but this one you spelled it out so clearly…particularly the Spotify math concept… I'm grateful to understand it now. Thanks!
Cheers,
- Brett Currie
________________________________________
Good God, Bob, that you have to explain this SIMPLE TRUTH ad nauseum to imbeciles, is truly pathetic.
You have incredible patience, not to mention balls of steel to put up with the blowback.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE.
DG
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Carl Stubner-This Week's Podcast
Carl Stubner runs the management company Shelter Music. He personally manages ZZ Top and Crowded House and has been involved with Fleetwood Mac and other acts. This is his story as well as the story of the management group he is growing.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/carl-stubner/id1316200737?i=1000721934253
https://open.spotify.com/episode/42vU9zmUtbz7hSungxxuhF?si=VNPdIcWfRY6knepdO1G3zQ
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-30806836/episode/carl-stubner-289534998/
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/episodes/7235742a-56fd-47da-bb9d-03fc30986669/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-carl-stubner
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/carl-stubner/id1316200737?i=1000721934253
https://open.spotify.com/episode/42vU9zmUtbz7hSungxxuhF?si=VNPdIcWfRY6knepdO1G3zQ
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-30806836/episode/carl-stubner-289534998/
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/episodes/7235742a-56fd-47da-bb9d-03fc30986669/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-carl-stubner
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Wednesday, 13 August 2025
Bobby Whitlock
Spotify playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2qMl8g1Z7ecQ5yNb3fySfl?si=82fe6b77cbc14713
1
I didn't think I had anything to add until I was reminded this morning of all the songs he co-wrote on "Layla." You see, all the focus is on the title track, but it was never my favorite. Actually, there'd be three. First and foremost the cover of Jimi Hendrix's "Little Wing," which I considered definitive until Sting did his version, "Keep on Growing" and...
"Anyday."
"You were talking and I thought I heard you say
Please leave me alone
Nothing in this world can make me stay
I'd rather go back, I'd rather go back home"
Now I have to go back to "Little Wing," so my inbox isn't inundated with classic rockers pissed that I gave the Mr. Tantric Sex credit. No, Sting's take on "Little Wing" is not superior, but it reimagines the song in a heretofore unimaginable way... He quieted and slowed it down and added gravitas to the lyrics. Whereas Derek and the Dominos' version... It's the majesty of that intro guitar sound...
That cover of "Little Wing" is what turned me on to "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" which did not get good reviews and did not sell prodigiously upon release. This was back when you had to buy it to hear it and I did not, buy it, that is. Even though I'd seen both Cream and Blind Faith and bought all the albums, and loved so much of Clapton's initial solo LP only released the previous spring...how come nobody talks about "Easy Now"? You hear "Let it Rain" on the radio now and again. "After Midnight" became successful YEARS later as the soundtrack to a Michelob commercial, but it was just an album cut back in 1970, and I have to mention "Blues Power" too. But really, "Eric Clapton's contemporary release, Dave Mason's "Alone Together," eclipsed the more anticipated LP. Only dedicated Dave Mason fans talk about his solo debut anymore, even though it's legendary throughout, stellar in both music and imagery/packaging. "Alone Together" had no hits, but in your bedroom or living room it sat on the turntable ad infinitum.
And, of course there's a connection. "Only You Know and I Know" was the standout track on Delaney & Bonnie's album "On Tour" released just months previously, featuring not only Clapton and Mason, but Bobby Whitlock.
Supposedly that's where Clapton and Whitlock met, when Delaney & Bonnie featuring Bobby Whitlock on keys opened for Blind Faith. And they worked together, on their own music and George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass." Actually, that's the last time I thought of Whitlock, he went on record that the remix of that three record set was terrible. They shut him up soon thereafter. Although I dug deep and found out he was still alive and making music with his wife, CoCo Carmel. But to say Whitlock and his music were even on the radar screen would be charitable. He was just another dude who played with a legend and then faded into the woodwork. Or was he?
I mean I can list tons of band members for legends who are either dead or retired. Unless you were studying the album credits, you've forgotten them. Hell, Dallas Taylor and Greg Reeves even got album cover credit on "Déjà Vu," but neither wrote the songs, and ultimately their careers petered out, Taylor becoming a drug counselor and passing in 2015, Reeves still alive but unaccounted for.
Yet Bobby Whitlock... It's kind of like Harry "KC" Casey without Richard Finch. In truth, Clapton did have success sans Whitlock, but I believe, and most people would agree, he did his best work with the man from Memphis.
2
One of the exciting things of the past, a veritable anachronism, was going over to someone's house and being turned on to a record.
That was the first thing you did, check out their record collection, to judge their taste. You'd insist they play an album you wanted to hear but did not own, but other times they'd drop the needle on the vinyl and say YOU NEED TO HEAR THIS!
I've got to say, most of the time the taste of these people was substandard, but every once in a while...
So I was a freshman in college. And during January I made a friend at the end of the hall Denis Palmisciano, who brought me down to the second floor of Hepburn Hall to Dave McCormick's room, where all the action was happening. Why it took place in Dave's room, I am not sure. He was not the coolest guy in the dorm, his roommate kept the entire proceedings at arm's length, then again, Dave was welcoming, you could all join in.
Now Dave had the Moody Blues albums I did not. "In Search of the Lost Chord" and "To Our Children's Children's Children." At this point I know that the former is the group's best album. The latter is unjustly ignored.
Dave also played "Idlewild South"... He'd drop the needle on "Revival," and then the music would ultimately segue into "Midnight Rider" and the side would end with "In Memory of Elizabeth Reed." That made me an Allmans fan.
And then there was "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs."
Of course I knew the title track, but I could never figure out why they stuck the coda on it. As for the riff... You know that was Duane Allman, which is why Clapton can't nail it live to this day. But other than that, the album was unknown to me.
Until I heard "Little Wing."
3
Now the goal was to have a stereo with huge speakers that you could turn up the volume on to the point where the whole room was enmeshed in the sound. You wanted to feel it, you wanted it to take you over, squeeze out all your other thoughts.
Listen to "Little Wing" on AirPods and it'll sound like music, but you won't FEEL IT! And that's how it was made to be listened to, LOUD! I'd go into Dave's room and insist he play it. I anticipated the spin. A song gets stuck in your head and you wait all day to hear it.
And that's the side with "Layla," so I heard it quite a bit.
But really, every other side is better, because they're dominated by Whitlock co-written rockers.
My favorite on the first side is "Keep on Growing." Which starts with a kind of shuffle endemic to the south. And the song was good, the unexpected pre-chorus was the kind of treat you no longer get, but it was the chorus that got stuck in your head:
"Keep on growing
KEEP ON GROWING"
Most people would cite "Bell Bottom Blues" as the best song on the first side. And it's damn good, but quiet in a way that the subsequent "Keep on Growing" was not.
However the song gained energy and embedded itself in your heart with its chorus:
"Do you want to see me crawl across the floor
Do you want to hear me beg you to take me back
I'd gladly do it because
I don't want to fade away
Give me one more day please
I don't want to fade away
In your heart I want to stay"
Clapton is imploring her with Whitlock adding vocal emphasis. And not only is the song loud, it's got melody! Too often absent from today's in-your-face rock music where noise triumphs.
The third side is a killer too. It starts with "Tell the Truth," with a walking line straight out of J.J. Cale's ultimate work and then the whole band swaggers down the pike. And then there's that slide guitar and a complete change which is utterly delicious:
"Whole world is shaking now, can't you feel it
New dawn is breaking now, can't you see it"
The entire album is filled with these unexpected changes, little flourishes that spike a spot in your body nothing else does, that illustrate the power of music, THEY JUST FEEL SO RIGHT!
And then there's the tear of "Why Does Love Got to Be So Sad." It starts at full tilt boogie and you do your best to catch up with it. And, once again, the chorus sticks in your head.
But it's the second side that draws my attention, that sticks in my mind today on this album that was produced by Tom Dowd just like "Idlewild South," watch the documentary.
4
It's that flourish at the beginning, heralding the arrival of the king. Like the intro to "Little Wing" but with more lyricism, just a bit of subtlety.
But the magic comes right after the guitar blast, the entire track breaks down, you just hear Bobby Whitlock's organ and then a bit of guitar flourish on top. It's a complete change of mood. As if someone pulled back on the reins of your horse, slowed you right down and made you think.
But then there's an unforeseen swagger:
"Well someday baby I know you're gonna need me
When this old world has got you down
I'll be right here so woman call me
And I'll never let you down"
And you wonder why there were groupies...
And then halfway through the vocal drops out, everybody lays back and there's a guitar solo. Ultimately Clapton and Allman go at it together. This was back when records were cut not for the radio, but the listener...there were no constraints, the key was to get in the groove and try to transcend, deliver something that was based on instinct and feel.
But you still needed the underpinning songs.
And that's where Bobby Whitlock came in. He co-wrote each and every song I've mentioned above other than "Little Wing." Not that you'd know if it you hadn't read the credits...but if you had, you'd never forget him, and I and many more never did.
5
I'm guessing Whitlock could live on the publishing royalties. Then again, did Stigwood own the rights and Bobby only got half of the writers' share? Who knows. I hope the money was enough.
But Eric moved on. Deep into addiction. Ultimately returning with his 1974 comeback album, "461 Ocean Boulevard." He had a huge hit with a cover of Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sheriff," but if you know the original, you'd declare the cover execrable...I certainly did, to this day I press the button when it comes on. Clapton did write "Let It Grow," probably the best song on the LP, but my favorite, "Mainline Florida," was written by George Terry.
From there Clapton went into the wilderness. Every album was eagerly anticipated and always disappointed, and then there was the complete surprise of 1985's "Behind the Sun," made with Phil Collins, Ted Templeman and Lenny Waronker."
Then Clapton had success working with Russ Titelman on "Journeyman," but most of Clapton's post "Layla" albums had a slew of covers, and most people cannot name a song from his post-"Layla" career other than "Tears in Heaven," whose lyrics were written by Will Jennings, and my favorite later period song "Change the World," co-written with the unduly unnoticed Wayne Kirkpatrick, who turned Little Big Town into stars. And I mention "Change the World" because although quiet and slickly produced, it's got the subtle magic and changes of the work Eric did with Bobby Whitlock. Turns out Clapton works best with a collaborator.
6
Now it sounds like I'm putting Clapton down. But that's not my point. He did have a slew of mediocre albums in the late seventies and early eighties, but my point is that comparing them to "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" there is no comparison. And why is that?
Well, got to give Duane Allman his due. Really. Music is not a competition, the greats all have a different style, and my absolute favorite has always been Jeff Beck, but in his short time here on earth Duane Allman left his mark. He both added to and inspired Clapton's work on "Layla." But without the songs...
Now I could go back through every one of Whitlock's credits. But I'm not writing a survey, a conventional obituary. Who knows why his success petered out. Do you know how hard it is to make it to begin with? And some people, having reached the mountaintop, just don't have the gumption to do it once again. It takes too much effort with too little psychic reward. Success didn't solve their problems, so why chase it again. Which is why so many turn to drugs, just to cope with the emotional roller coaster.
And I'm stunned how many outlets have featured a Bobby Whitlock obituary. I didn't expect it, because he's known primarily as a sideman. Never forget, it's DEREK and the Dominos. Whitlock was just one of the Dominos. Then again, as good as Jim Gordon and Carl Radle were, they didn't write the songs. And not only did Whitlock write, he played organ, piano and even picked the guitar.
Is that enough?
Well, at the end of the day all this will just be seen as part of Eric Clapton's oeuvre. The cast of characters changed, and he remained.
So...
It just comes down to the music. And "Anyday" resonates because of the power, one of the essences of rock and roll, and the lyricism and the dynamics. The critics missed it, they often do, they can't clue in to what is in the musician's head until they live with it for a while. "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" is now seen as one of the greatest albums of all time, a double to boot.
But ultimately it comes down to what these albums mean to you, the individual listener. Do you know them, do you play them, do they stick in your heart.
It's a challenging world out there. And if I want to get amped up, I play a record. But oftentimes I can just THINK of a record. And I think of "Anyday."
"Any I know, anyday, I will see you smile"
I'm smiling listening to this, and I hope you are too. There are no tears in heaven tonight, only joy. That's what's embedded into the tracks of "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs." And sans Bobby Whitlock's contribution there's no there there. May not take a village to make a record, but it certainly takes a number of people, at least in the pre-computer age, and Bobby Whitlock was one.
I remember.
1
I didn't think I had anything to add until I was reminded this morning of all the songs he co-wrote on "Layla." You see, all the focus is on the title track, but it was never my favorite. Actually, there'd be three. First and foremost the cover of Jimi Hendrix's "Little Wing," which I considered definitive until Sting did his version, "Keep on Growing" and...
"Anyday."
"You were talking and I thought I heard you say
Please leave me alone
Nothing in this world can make me stay
I'd rather go back, I'd rather go back home"
Now I have to go back to "Little Wing," so my inbox isn't inundated with classic rockers pissed that I gave the Mr. Tantric Sex credit. No, Sting's take on "Little Wing" is not superior, but it reimagines the song in a heretofore unimaginable way... He quieted and slowed it down and added gravitas to the lyrics. Whereas Derek and the Dominos' version... It's the majesty of that intro guitar sound...
That cover of "Little Wing" is what turned me on to "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" which did not get good reviews and did not sell prodigiously upon release. This was back when you had to buy it to hear it and I did not, buy it, that is. Even though I'd seen both Cream and Blind Faith and bought all the albums, and loved so much of Clapton's initial solo LP only released the previous spring...how come nobody talks about "Easy Now"? You hear "Let it Rain" on the radio now and again. "After Midnight" became successful YEARS later as the soundtrack to a Michelob commercial, but it was just an album cut back in 1970, and I have to mention "Blues Power" too. But really, "Eric Clapton's contemporary release, Dave Mason's "Alone Together," eclipsed the more anticipated LP. Only dedicated Dave Mason fans talk about his solo debut anymore, even though it's legendary throughout, stellar in both music and imagery/packaging. "Alone Together" had no hits, but in your bedroom or living room it sat on the turntable ad infinitum.
And, of course there's a connection. "Only You Know and I Know" was the standout track on Delaney & Bonnie's album "On Tour" released just months previously, featuring not only Clapton and Mason, but Bobby Whitlock.
Supposedly that's where Clapton and Whitlock met, when Delaney & Bonnie featuring Bobby Whitlock on keys opened for Blind Faith. And they worked together, on their own music and George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass." Actually, that's the last time I thought of Whitlock, he went on record that the remix of that three record set was terrible. They shut him up soon thereafter. Although I dug deep and found out he was still alive and making music with his wife, CoCo Carmel. But to say Whitlock and his music were even on the radar screen would be charitable. He was just another dude who played with a legend and then faded into the woodwork. Or was he?
I mean I can list tons of band members for legends who are either dead or retired. Unless you were studying the album credits, you've forgotten them. Hell, Dallas Taylor and Greg Reeves even got album cover credit on "Déjà Vu," but neither wrote the songs, and ultimately their careers petered out, Taylor becoming a drug counselor and passing in 2015, Reeves still alive but unaccounted for.
Yet Bobby Whitlock... It's kind of like Harry "KC" Casey without Richard Finch. In truth, Clapton did have success sans Whitlock, but I believe, and most people would agree, he did his best work with the man from Memphis.
2
One of the exciting things of the past, a veritable anachronism, was going over to someone's house and being turned on to a record.
That was the first thing you did, check out their record collection, to judge their taste. You'd insist they play an album you wanted to hear but did not own, but other times they'd drop the needle on the vinyl and say YOU NEED TO HEAR THIS!
I've got to say, most of the time the taste of these people was substandard, but every once in a while...
So I was a freshman in college. And during January I made a friend at the end of the hall Denis Palmisciano, who brought me down to the second floor of Hepburn Hall to Dave McCormick's room, where all the action was happening. Why it took place in Dave's room, I am not sure. He was not the coolest guy in the dorm, his roommate kept the entire proceedings at arm's length, then again, Dave was welcoming, you could all join in.
Now Dave had the Moody Blues albums I did not. "In Search of the Lost Chord" and "To Our Children's Children's Children." At this point I know that the former is the group's best album. The latter is unjustly ignored.
Dave also played "Idlewild South"... He'd drop the needle on "Revival," and then the music would ultimately segue into "Midnight Rider" and the side would end with "In Memory of Elizabeth Reed." That made me an Allmans fan.
And then there was "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs."
Of course I knew the title track, but I could never figure out why they stuck the coda on it. As for the riff... You know that was Duane Allman, which is why Clapton can't nail it live to this day. But other than that, the album was unknown to me.
Until I heard "Little Wing."
3
Now the goal was to have a stereo with huge speakers that you could turn up the volume on to the point where the whole room was enmeshed in the sound. You wanted to feel it, you wanted it to take you over, squeeze out all your other thoughts.
Listen to "Little Wing" on AirPods and it'll sound like music, but you won't FEEL IT! And that's how it was made to be listened to, LOUD! I'd go into Dave's room and insist he play it. I anticipated the spin. A song gets stuck in your head and you wait all day to hear it.
And that's the side with "Layla," so I heard it quite a bit.
But really, every other side is better, because they're dominated by Whitlock co-written rockers.
My favorite on the first side is "Keep on Growing." Which starts with a kind of shuffle endemic to the south. And the song was good, the unexpected pre-chorus was the kind of treat you no longer get, but it was the chorus that got stuck in your head:
"Keep on growing
KEEP ON GROWING"
Most people would cite "Bell Bottom Blues" as the best song on the first side. And it's damn good, but quiet in a way that the subsequent "Keep on Growing" was not.
However the song gained energy and embedded itself in your heart with its chorus:
"Do you want to see me crawl across the floor
Do you want to hear me beg you to take me back
I'd gladly do it because
I don't want to fade away
Give me one more day please
I don't want to fade away
In your heart I want to stay"
Clapton is imploring her with Whitlock adding vocal emphasis. And not only is the song loud, it's got melody! Too often absent from today's in-your-face rock music where noise triumphs.
The third side is a killer too. It starts with "Tell the Truth," with a walking line straight out of J.J. Cale's ultimate work and then the whole band swaggers down the pike. And then there's that slide guitar and a complete change which is utterly delicious:
"Whole world is shaking now, can't you feel it
New dawn is breaking now, can't you see it"
The entire album is filled with these unexpected changes, little flourishes that spike a spot in your body nothing else does, that illustrate the power of music, THEY JUST FEEL SO RIGHT!
And then there's the tear of "Why Does Love Got to Be So Sad." It starts at full tilt boogie and you do your best to catch up with it. And, once again, the chorus sticks in your head.
But it's the second side that draws my attention, that sticks in my mind today on this album that was produced by Tom Dowd just like "Idlewild South," watch the documentary.
4
It's that flourish at the beginning, heralding the arrival of the king. Like the intro to "Little Wing" but with more lyricism, just a bit of subtlety.
But the magic comes right after the guitar blast, the entire track breaks down, you just hear Bobby Whitlock's organ and then a bit of guitar flourish on top. It's a complete change of mood. As if someone pulled back on the reins of your horse, slowed you right down and made you think.
But then there's an unforeseen swagger:
"Well someday baby I know you're gonna need me
When this old world has got you down
I'll be right here so woman call me
And I'll never let you down"
And you wonder why there were groupies...
And then halfway through the vocal drops out, everybody lays back and there's a guitar solo. Ultimately Clapton and Allman go at it together. This was back when records were cut not for the radio, but the listener...there were no constraints, the key was to get in the groove and try to transcend, deliver something that was based on instinct and feel.
But you still needed the underpinning songs.
And that's where Bobby Whitlock came in. He co-wrote each and every song I've mentioned above other than "Little Wing." Not that you'd know if it you hadn't read the credits...but if you had, you'd never forget him, and I and many more never did.
5
I'm guessing Whitlock could live on the publishing royalties. Then again, did Stigwood own the rights and Bobby only got half of the writers' share? Who knows. I hope the money was enough.
But Eric moved on. Deep into addiction. Ultimately returning with his 1974 comeback album, "461 Ocean Boulevard." He had a huge hit with a cover of Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sheriff," but if you know the original, you'd declare the cover execrable...I certainly did, to this day I press the button when it comes on. Clapton did write "Let It Grow," probably the best song on the LP, but my favorite, "Mainline Florida," was written by George Terry.
From there Clapton went into the wilderness. Every album was eagerly anticipated and always disappointed, and then there was the complete surprise of 1985's "Behind the Sun," made with Phil Collins, Ted Templeman and Lenny Waronker."
Then Clapton had success working with Russ Titelman on "Journeyman," but most of Clapton's post "Layla" albums had a slew of covers, and most people cannot name a song from his post-"Layla" career other than "Tears in Heaven," whose lyrics were written by Will Jennings, and my favorite later period song "Change the World," co-written with the unduly unnoticed Wayne Kirkpatrick, who turned Little Big Town into stars. And I mention "Change the World" because although quiet and slickly produced, it's got the subtle magic and changes of the work Eric did with Bobby Whitlock. Turns out Clapton works best with a collaborator.
6
Now it sounds like I'm putting Clapton down. But that's not my point. He did have a slew of mediocre albums in the late seventies and early eighties, but my point is that comparing them to "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" there is no comparison. And why is that?
Well, got to give Duane Allman his due. Really. Music is not a competition, the greats all have a different style, and my absolute favorite has always been Jeff Beck, but in his short time here on earth Duane Allman left his mark. He both added to and inspired Clapton's work on "Layla." But without the songs...
Now I could go back through every one of Whitlock's credits. But I'm not writing a survey, a conventional obituary. Who knows why his success petered out. Do you know how hard it is to make it to begin with? And some people, having reached the mountaintop, just don't have the gumption to do it once again. It takes too much effort with too little psychic reward. Success didn't solve their problems, so why chase it again. Which is why so many turn to drugs, just to cope with the emotional roller coaster.
And I'm stunned how many outlets have featured a Bobby Whitlock obituary. I didn't expect it, because he's known primarily as a sideman. Never forget, it's DEREK and the Dominos. Whitlock was just one of the Dominos. Then again, as good as Jim Gordon and Carl Radle were, they didn't write the songs. And not only did Whitlock write, he played organ, piano and even picked the guitar.
Is that enough?
Well, at the end of the day all this will just be seen as part of Eric Clapton's oeuvre. The cast of characters changed, and he remained.
So...
It just comes down to the music. And "Anyday" resonates because of the power, one of the essences of rock and roll, and the lyricism and the dynamics. The critics missed it, they often do, they can't clue in to what is in the musician's head until they live with it for a while. "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" is now seen as one of the greatest albums of all time, a double to boot.
But ultimately it comes down to what these albums mean to you, the individual listener. Do you know them, do you play them, do they stick in your heart.
It's a challenging world out there. And if I want to get amped up, I play a record. But oftentimes I can just THINK of a record. And I think of "Anyday."
"Any I know, anyday, I will see you smile"
I'm smiling listening to this, and I hope you are too. There are no tears in heaven tonight, only joy. That's what's embedded into the tracks of "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs." And sans Bobby Whitlock's contribution there's no there there. May not take a village to make a record, but it certainly takes a number of people, at least in the pre-computer age, and Bobby Whitlock was one.
I remember.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Tuesday, 12 August 2025
Spotify Myths
I was watching John Oliver talk about ICE and I thought if everybody saw this there would be change.
But everybody didn't.
You can watch the video for free on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfTBhrkae74
But that's not the point. The point is we used to get our news from a limited number of sources, which had fact-checkers and authority. Now we get our news from a plethora of sources, many repeating information they've garnered elsewhere which is repeated to the point where people believe it, even though it is untrue.
Which brings me today's e-mail from Mike Froedge:
--------
Of course the hate isn't as bad for Apple Music, etc.
Apple Music (and Tidal) pay nearly TWICE the average per-stream royalty rate that Spotify does.
Spotify may be the biggest player, but their average per-stream rates are some of the worst in the game.
Basically, they're the Walmart of streaming; They are the giant amongst the hobbits, so they pay people shit, because they can.
Mike Froedge
Step Up to the Mike Productions, LLC
--------
1. There is no per stream rate. Period. On any of these streaming services. There's a pool of money which is divided amongst the tracks based on how many times they were played.
2. Tracks are streamed less on Apple and Amazon. And therefore each stream is worth more.
Let me dive in a bit here. There's a pool of money. If there's only one track and it is played one time it gets all the money. If two tracks each get the same amount of airplay they each get 50%.
But what if a track is streamed A MILLION times instead of once!
The pool of money is still the same, therefore each stream is worth less.
The subscribers to Spotify are much more active listeners, therefore each stream is worth less (and what a stream is worth constantly varies, based on overall income and the number of streams...as I stated above, there is no per stream rate).
So Spotify is the largest streamer with the most active subscribers. This is where the action is. The overall numbers of streams per track is higher (obviously not in each and every case, Apple and Amazon skew older in their listeners), and therefore what is paid per stream is less. The MORE people listen, the less each listen is worth.
It's basic math. But I see this misconception repeated ad infinitum. Just like people believe all the fees go to Ticketmaster. Patently wrong, but it feels good.
Maybe some don't know math, or some want to ignore it, but it doesn't change the numbers. But someone must be screwing the artist, right? I mean you're broke, it must be someone's fault.
OR, you made bank in the old physical era. Well, the game changed. Just like musical tastes. Just like the horse and buggy evolved into the automobile. And these changes happen because the PUBLIC demands them. The PUBLIC wanted faster, lower maintenance transportation. AND the public thought paying for one good track on an overpriced CD was wrong. Ergo, Napster, et al. Spotify and streaming SAVED the music business because they gave the audience what it desired, the ability to stream only the music it wanted to when it wanted to for one low price.
Look at it this way... Do you want to pay a la carte for Netflix? For each and every show? You'd think that's a raw deal.
The irony here is Spotify rebuilt recorded music remuneration. Many are making a ton of money. Why? BECAUSE LISTENERS ARE STREAMING THEIR TRACKS IN PRODIGIOUS NUMBERS! Meaning the value of your track that is streamed a thousand or even a hundred thousand times is not worth that much.
As for basing payment on what subscribers actually play... There's a fantasy that there are all these fans of the alternative who are only listening to the non-hits, even though this is not the case in any other artistic medium. The foreign movie does not outgross the Marvel movie. As a matter of fact, grosses for almost all indie films are de minimis. Turns out MOST people don't want to pay to see them. Maybe they USED TO, but not anymore.
Studies have shown if the money is allocated based on what people listen to the actual payment to some smaller players will be LESS!
Which brings me to e-mail number two, from Bruce Katz:
--------
Regarding Spotify...I don't understand why you don't realize that all that has to happen is for Spotify to pay a little more of the money to the musicians! It's simple...then the whole system works - people get their music from streaming, the musicians are fairly paid and can continue to create music. IT'S SIMPLE! Pay the musicians at least a subsistence wage!! Then there would be no "hatred" of Spotify that you are continually scratching your head about.
Bruce Katz
--------
There are only a hundred cents in the dollar, and if Spotify does not make a profit it goes out of business and artists get NOTHING!
Let's just assume you're not with a label, you've gone to an intermediary like DistroKid to get your tracks on streaming services... If you were on a major...you may never ever see a royalty, because of advances and low percentage royalty rates. The dirty little secret is some of the biggest acts of yesteryear, some still on the road today, NEVER got paid a royalty, NEVER EVER!
So, you're running a business. You have income. You sell a product or service. You've got the cost of goods, the margin between wholesale and retail, and you've got overhead and if your income exceeds your costs, you've made a profit. Voila!
At the end of July, Apple reported its quarterly numbers. There was a gross margin of 46.5%! As for NET margin...it was 24.92%.
When it comes to Spotify... The company pays out approximately 70% of income to rights holders. In its last report, Spotify had a gross margin of 31.5%. A full FIFTEEN PERCENT LESS THAN APPLE! As for Spotify's net margin, it's a paltry 4.77%, nearly twenty percent less than Apple.
But it gets even worse. Spotify doesn't scale. Its costs go up proportionately. The company continues to have to pay approximately 70% of income to rights holders AD INFINITUM!
Compare this to Apple...costs go down with volume, but not at Spotify.
Compare this to RECORD LABELS! The label amortizes costs based on consumption. Sure, it takes money to make a record, but now the distribution costs of yore are essentially history. No pressing, no shipping, no returns, just income. So each stream represents fewer costs for the label, the same way the ten millionth CD sale was more profitable than the first back in the physical era.
In other words, Spotify does not have more money to give to rights holders, as it is the company has frequently run at a loss.
BUT SPOTIFY IS THE ENEMY!
As for a living wage... Where did this come from? Talk to the acts of yore, almost none earned a living wage. But the ones struggling couldn't go on the internet and complain.
I've written all the foregoing multiple times but it never sinks in, I continue to get e-mails like those above. It's an emotional issue, not a factual one. Not everybody can get rich making music, not everybody can make a LIVING WAGE making music. Which is why traditionally parents didn't want their kids to be artists, they were fearful they would starve, ergo the description "starving artist."
So why can't today's players accept this?
Because they believe they've put in their 10,000 hours. Their parents like them, as do their significant others. Everybody they know says they're great, so why aren't they making bank?
Well, very few people are listening to their music. Never mind in most cases it's substandard. When I can listen to the greatest music of all time or the work of a wannabe from nowhere's poorly recorded imitation, which do you think I'm going to choose? There goes one more stream for Drake or Fleetwood Mac or Morgan Wallen...
BUT YOU HATE THESE ACTS!
When was life supposed to be fair?
It's not like music is one big corporation, it's not like you're on salary. It's entrepreneurial. If someone doesn't buy your product you stop selling it, go on to something else...but not in music! In this case the market is wrong, or Spotify is screwing you.
And no matter what I say most won't believe it. Because they don't want to accept that it's their fault, that they're just not that good, that most people don't want to listen to their music. Furthermore, you'd be surprised how many people on big stages are working day jobs! You saw Kenny Lee Lewis say that he worked at Guitar Center when Steve Miller was off the road. Kenny plays bass for a household name act who has sold zillions of tickets, but he has to work a straight job for a living, why don't you?
Not that most people want to advertise these gigs... My inbox is full of them. A guy with a well-known Top Ten hit is a substitute teacher. Another from a legendary act sold jewelry. But somehow today's wannabes are immune?
It's not that you can't handle the truth, YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH!
So not only is Spotify the enemy, I am too. I must be in bed with the streaming company, I must be earning bank. Otherwise why would I write this drivel? But I don't own any Spotify stock nor have I ever taken a dollar from the company. Which I guess makes me a chump in your eyes, but keeps me honest and credible.
Are you willing to be honest and credible? Tell your friends their music isn't good enough? That low stream numbers yield minimal payments? That Spotify is giving the lion's share of the money to rights holders and has rarely been profitable?
I didn't think so. Because then you'd become a pariah. It's like complaining about Kamala to Democrats, or tax reductions on the rich to Republicans. You'd be going against your TEAM!
But music is not a team sport.
Never was.
And that's its genius.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
But everybody didn't.
You can watch the video for free on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfTBhrkae74
But that's not the point. The point is we used to get our news from a limited number of sources, which had fact-checkers and authority. Now we get our news from a plethora of sources, many repeating information they've garnered elsewhere which is repeated to the point where people believe it, even though it is untrue.
Which brings me today's e-mail from Mike Froedge:
--------
Of course the hate isn't as bad for Apple Music, etc.
Apple Music (and Tidal) pay nearly TWICE the average per-stream royalty rate that Spotify does.
Spotify may be the biggest player, but their average per-stream rates are some of the worst in the game.
Basically, they're the Walmart of streaming; They are the giant amongst the hobbits, so they pay people shit, because they can.
Mike Froedge
Step Up to the Mike Productions, LLC
--------
1. There is no per stream rate. Period. On any of these streaming services. There's a pool of money which is divided amongst the tracks based on how many times they were played.
2. Tracks are streamed less on Apple and Amazon. And therefore each stream is worth more.
Let me dive in a bit here. There's a pool of money. If there's only one track and it is played one time it gets all the money. If two tracks each get the same amount of airplay they each get 50%.
But what if a track is streamed A MILLION times instead of once!
The pool of money is still the same, therefore each stream is worth less.
The subscribers to Spotify are much more active listeners, therefore each stream is worth less (and what a stream is worth constantly varies, based on overall income and the number of streams...as I stated above, there is no per stream rate).
So Spotify is the largest streamer with the most active subscribers. This is where the action is. The overall numbers of streams per track is higher (obviously not in each and every case, Apple and Amazon skew older in their listeners), and therefore what is paid per stream is less. The MORE people listen, the less each listen is worth.
It's basic math. But I see this misconception repeated ad infinitum. Just like people believe all the fees go to Ticketmaster. Patently wrong, but it feels good.
Maybe some don't know math, or some want to ignore it, but it doesn't change the numbers. But someone must be screwing the artist, right? I mean you're broke, it must be someone's fault.
OR, you made bank in the old physical era. Well, the game changed. Just like musical tastes. Just like the horse and buggy evolved into the automobile. And these changes happen because the PUBLIC demands them. The PUBLIC wanted faster, lower maintenance transportation. AND the public thought paying for one good track on an overpriced CD was wrong. Ergo, Napster, et al. Spotify and streaming SAVED the music business because they gave the audience what it desired, the ability to stream only the music it wanted to when it wanted to for one low price.
Look at it this way... Do you want to pay a la carte for Netflix? For each and every show? You'd think that's a raw deal.
The irony here is Spotify rebuilt recorded music remuneration. Many are making a ton of money. Why? BECAUSE LISTENERS ARE STREAMING THEIR TRACKS IN PRODIGIOUS NUMBERS! Meaning the value of your track that is streamed a thousand or even a hundred thousand times is not worth that much.
As for basing payment on what subscribers actually play... There's a fantasy that there are all these fans of the alternative who are only listening to the non-hits, even though this is not the case in any other artistic medium. The foreign movie does not outgross the Marvel movie. As a matter of fact, grosses for almost all indie films are de minimis. Turns out MOST people don't want to pay to see them. Maybe they USED TO, but not anymore.
Studies have shown if the money is allocated based on what people listen to the actual payment to some smaller players will be LESS!
Which brings me to e-mail number two, from Bruce Katz:
--------
Regarding Spotify...I don't understand why you don't realize that all that has to happen is for Spotify to pay a little more of the money to the musicians! It's simple...then the whole system works - people get their music from streaming, the musicians are fairly paid and can continue to create music. IT'S SIMPLE! Pay the musicians at least a subsistence wage!! Then there would be no "hatred" of Spotify that you are continually scratching your head about.
Bruce Katz
--------
There are only a hundred cents in the dollar, and if Spotify does not make a profit it goes out of business and artists get NOTHING!
Let's just assume you're not with a label, you've gone to an intermediary like DistroKid to get your tracks on streaming services... If you were on a major...you may never ever see a royalty, because of advances and low percentage royalty rates. The dirty little secret is some of the biggest acts of yesteryear, some still on the road today, NEVER got paid a royalty, NEVER EVER!
So, you're running a business. You have income. You sell a product or service. You've got the cost of goods, the margin between wholesale and retail, and you've got overhead and if your income exceeds your costs, you've made a profit. Voila!
At the end of July, Apple reported its quarterly numbers. There was a gross margin of 46.5%! As for NET margin...it was 24.92%.
When it comes to Spotify... The company pays out approximately 70% of income to rights holders. In its last report, Spotify had a gross margin of 31.5%. A full FIFTEEN PERCENT LESS THAN APPLE! As for Spotify's net margin, it's a paltry 4.77%, nearly twenty percent less than Apple.
But it gets even worse. Spotify doesn't scale. Its costs go up proportionately. The company continues to have to pay approximately 70% of income to rights holders AD INFINITUM!
Compare this to Apple...costs go down with volume, but not at Spotify.
Compare this to RECORD LABELS! The label amortizes costs based on consumption. Sure, it takes money to make a record, but now the distribution costs of yore are essentially history. No pressing, no shipping, no returns, just income. So each stream represents fewer costs for the label, the same way the ten millionth CD sale was more profitable than the first back in the physical era.
In other words, Spotify does not have more money to give to rights holders, as it is the company has frequently run at a loss.
BUT SPOTIFY IS THE ENEMY!
As for a living wage... Where did this come from? Talk to the acts of yore, almost none earned a living wage. But the ones struggling couldn't go on the internet and complain.
I've written all the foregoing multiple times but it never sinks in, I continue to get e-mails like those above. It's an emotional issue, not a factual one. Not everybody can get rich making music, not everybody can make a LIVING WAGE making music. Which is why traditionally parents didn't want their kids to be artists, they were fearful they would starve, ergo the description "starving artist."
So why can't today's players accept this?
Because they believe they've put in their 10,000 hours. Their parents like them, as do their significant others. Everybody they know says they're great, so why aren't they making bank?
Well, very few people are listening to their music. Never mind in most cases it's substandard. When I can listen to the greatest music of all time or the work of a wannabe from nowhere's poorly recorded imitation, which do you think I'm going to choose? There goes one more stream for Drake or Fleetwood Mac or Morgan Wallen...
BUT YOU HATE THESE ACTS!
When was life supposed to be fair?
It's not like music is one big corporation, it's not like you're on salary. It's entrepreneurial. If someone doesn't buy your product you stop selling it, go on to something else...but not in music! In this case the market is wrong, or Spotify is screwing you.
And no matter what I say most won't believe it. Because they don't want to accept that it's their fault, that they're just not that good, that most people don't want to listen to their music. Furthermore, you'd be surprised how many people on big stages are working day jobs! You saw Kenny Lee Lewis say that he worked at Guitar Center when Steve Miller was off the road. Kenny plays bass for a household name act who has sold zillions of tickets, but he has to work a straight job for a living, why don't you?
Not that most people want to advertise these gigs... My inbox is full of them. A guy with a well-known Top Ten hit is a substitute teacher. Another from a legendary act sold jewelry. But somehow today's wannabes are immune?
It's not that you can't handle the truth, YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH!
So not only is Spotify the enemy, I am too. I must be in bed with the streaming company, I must be earning bank. Otherwise why would I write this drivel? But I don't own any Spotify stock nor have I ever taken a dollar from the company. Which I guess makes me a chump in your eyes, but keeps me honest and credible.
Are you willing to be honest and credible? Tell your friends their music isn't good enough? That low stream numbers yield minimal payments? That Spotify is giving the lion's share of the money to rights holders and has rarely been profitable?
I didn't think so. Because then you'd become a pariah. It's like complaining about Kamala to Democrats, or tax reductions on the rich to Republicans. You'd be going against your TEAM!
But music is not a team sport.
Never was.
And that's its genius.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Income Inequality Manifested
1
I don't understand the hatred of Spotify. The constant denigration of its payment system and the animus directed at Daniel Ek.
Then I read this article in today's "New York Times":
"How Liberalism Went to Die on the Texas-Arkansas Border"
Free link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/opinion/liberalism-texarkana-economy-democracy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dk8.Q46T.dtVsEBHA75e2&smid=url-share
You need to read this article, but you also need to read the comments, which spew hatred at the writer and his message.
I'm sitting here wondering why we have the movies produced, the songs recorded and the TV shows displayed. For an educated person, they seem extremely lowbrow, they don't resonate.
But this is what the public wants.
Now three-quarters of the people reading this won't click through to the above piece because it's in the "New York Times." To the right it's a bastion of liberal dishonesty. To the left left it's too conservative.
And there you have America in a nutshell, no consensus.
How about the movies? You remember the movies, don't you? Not unless you're a boomer or older. Sure, some movies represented escapism, but mostly they reflected lives and values. "The Graduate"? As for "Bonnie & Clyde," there was deep analysis of the characters and the filmmaking and...what's there to say about a Marvel movie?
Records used to sway the culture, beamed from the heartbeat of America, the radio. Now they're escapism. When did this start? In the last half of the eighties, certainly into the nineties.
As for TV... Have you noticed that Netflix has gone deep into reality shows?
What do all of these changes have in common? MONEY!
The blockbuster era in movies ushered in by "Jaws" and "Star Wars."
The highly-produced videos that sold tonnage of CDs.
And what was the exponent of all of the above? MONEY!
At first it was cool. "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."
But at some point the populace woke up and realized they'd been screwed, there was no opportunity for them to become rich and famous, other than to win the lottery, or become a pop star.
You could play the market, follow wallstreetbets, but then be ultimately creamed by the professionals.
Go to college and they'll teach you how to analyze and appreciate artistic works. Go to college and you've got a ticket for a better job. Stay home in your burg and stop at high school and what are your opportunities? All the high-paying manufacturing jobs left. Used to be you moved for better opportunities, now nobody can afford this.
2
The underclass, the lower classes, have been screwed, and they know it. Would musicians hate Spotify as much if it wasn't started by Daniel Ek who became a billionaire as a result of its success? Note that there's not an equal hatred of Apple or Amazon. Those are faceless corporations. But Ek? A greedy nobody from Sweden?
That's how many musicians see him.
They bought the American dream. If you work hard you can make it and get rich. They saw everybody on MTV. They saw all those players making bank. And what did they have in common? The majority had no college degree. In other words, there were no impediments to your success. You could start at home and then become rich and world famous.
Forget that this is untrue. Back before the internet most people couldn't afford to record their music, and distribution was an impossibility. Wannabe musicians today see a direct path from nowhere to somewhere. And when they don't get somewhere, it has to be somebody else's fault. Spotify and Daniel Ek's.
Now I come from a previous era. We all wanted to be musicians, we all picked up guitars after seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but it soon became clear who had the talent and who didn't. And even the punters knew it was nearly impossible to get a recording contract. As for a recording studio? That was an exotic place we yearned to get into, even more than the nightclubs behind the velvet rope that didn't let most people through.
So let's say you never made it as a musician, you still don't make it as a musician. You can't become a doctor or a lawyer unless you have boatloads of education. As for tech, can you code? Maybe you've watched "Shark Tank" and you're in your garage formulating a product. But one thing is for sure, you're not going to look into the mirror and say you're a loser, no way. But in a world that venerates billionaires, on some level you feel like one.
3
I guess I don't understand how you want to get paid if no one listens to your music. Seems like raw economics to me. There are certain jobs that only few can do. I'd love to play in the MLB, but I don't have the skills. I accept this. But when it comes to music...
The star musicians of the golden era, the Beatles and after, what is called classic rock, a great percentage were from the middle class, with middle class values. They were sticking it to the man. Now people want to BE the man. With brands and sponsorships. The goal is to get into bed with the Fortune 500, isn't that the essence of being an influencer? Otherwise, how are you going to get rich?
You're not.
Where did your opportunity go?
Oh, the wealthy wanted nothing to do with you, they rigged the system so you couldn't even get into their schools. The elite colleges are almost all need blind. Meaning if you have the academic qualifications and no money, you'll get a free ride. Don't believe me?
"All 116 Need-Blind Colleges in the US: A Complete Guide"
https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list
That was an easy google, but you have to know what to look for. And it's on a site called "PrepScholar" and if you didn't go to prep school...
Reagan lowered taxes on the rich. Clinton signed NAFTA. And somewhere along the line many were left behind, and they're pissed.
And the liberal left just can't understand this. They worked hard for their position in life, they earned their riches, as for those without...they're lazy drug addict whiners. Read the comments to the above article. DEFINITELY READ THE COMMENTS! There's no introspection whatsoever. Those who voted for Trump are ignorant, the commenters are secure in their position. They delineate all the ways in which the Republicans and their minions are guilty. They point to people with money who are Republicans. But most interesting is the wealthy Democrats who want HIGHER taxes! That altruistic moral value, it's absent from most of society, I mean if you're struggling...
4
So what have we established here. I've linked to a "New York Times" article that points to the left and its beliefs and policies and promotion thereof that have ended up with the right in power. This pisses off everybody. The typical "Times" reader just can't accept it, can't even think or analyze it, and those on the right decline to partake, believing that the "Times" is one big conspiracy.
As for the "news" outlets on the right... They're selling slanted falsehoods supported by the sale of supplements. And the church... You've got to believe if you've got nothing, something isn't right.
But those on the left refuse to accept any responsibility for the loss of Harris, never mind the country. They can't be guilty, it's always someone else's responsibility.
It's a dark day in America today. Can you afford to be an optimist?
Well, one thing is for sure, other than the super-wealthy, no one is willing to sacrifice, they don't want to lose a single thing they have.
So...
Get out GarageBand and make a record. Hell, you can buy beats, you can do it. Look at all the rappers who've made it. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into the back of a cab or an Uber and the driver has told me they're a rapper. They don't tell me they're a doctor or even a coder, they're a rapper.
As for the public...
There are the brain-dead youngsters enamored of K-pop. Which sells a fantasy culture not much different from the Marvel movies.
Then there are those who go to the show more to hang with their buddies and shoot selfies than listen to the bands. After all, the bands come and go, and they're here forever.
But to have change we must have introspection. Which we see almost nowhere. No one can be wrong. That's the point of reading the comments to this article. NO ONE questions themselves.
But look at internet hate... What is it about? You have something I want. And if I can't have it I'm going to drag you down into the hole I'm in.
That's the pervading policy in America today. I'm going to bring you down to my level. Which those at upper levels just can't understand, they just don't know how it got so far.
As for literature... Have you been following the brouhaha from the disgruntled novelist saying that there are no male writers? That they're not celebrated by the media/cognoscenti? One thing is for sure... The "New York Times" Book Review is overwhelmed with the novels of women, gay people and those of color. Immigrants telling their story. It's nearly laughable. Now some of these books are good, but where is the story men can relate to?
I don't want to walk back feminism, nor racial advancement. But seemingly no one on the left can admit that Kamala Harris was a bad candidate. If you say this, you're RACIST! And SEXIST TOO! But one of my favorite lefties who'd hung with her labeled her "inauthentic." BINGO! AND I VOTED FOR HER!
5
The sixties were all about revolution. Today it's about conformity, bitching, complaining that the system didn't work for you.
As for major labels... They don't want to sign anything that won't rain down money, no matter what the artistic merit. The Mo and Joe days of Warner/Reprise way back when are completely history. Can you imagine a label today signing Beaver & Krause? Do you even know who Beaver & Krause were? Never mind Ry Cooder and so many more.
But all we can focus on is the money and how we ain't got none. And we alternately hate and envy those who've got it.
But where is our opportunity?
That is the question.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
I don't understand the hatred of Spotify. The constant denigration of its payment system and the animus directed at Daniel Ek.
Then I read this article in today's "New York Times":
"How Liberalism Went to Die on the Texas-Arkansas Border"
Free link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/opinion/liberalism-texarkana-economy-democracy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dk8.Q46T.dtVsEBHA75e2&smid=url-share
You need to read this article, but you also need to read the comments, which spew hatred at the writer and his message.
I'm sitting here wondering why we have the movies produced, the songs recorded and the TV shows displayed. For an educated person, they seem extremely lowbrow, they don't resonate.
But this is what the public wants.
Now three-quarters of the people reading this won't click through to the above piece because it's in the "New York Times." To the right it's a bastion of liberal dishonesty. To the left left it's too conservative.
And there you have America in a nutshell, no consensus.
How about the movies? You remember the movies, don't you? Not unless you're a boomer or older. Sure, some movies represented escapism, but mostly they reflected lives and values. "The Graduate"? As for "Bonnie & Clyde," there was deep analysis of the characters and the filmmaking and...what's there to say about a Marvel movie?
Records used to sway the culture, beamed from the heartbeat of America, the radio. Now they're escapism. When did this start? In the last half of the eighties, certainly into the nineties.
As for TV... Have you noticed that Netflix has gone deep into reality shows?
What do all of these changes have in common? MONEY!
The blockbuster era in movies ushered in by "Jaws" and "Star Wars."
The highly-produced videos that sold tonnage of CDs.
And what was the exponent of all of the above? MONEY!
At first it was cool. "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."
But at some point the populace woke up and realized they'd been screwed, there was no opportunity for them to become rich and famous, other than to win the lottery, or become a pop star.
You could play the market, follow wallstreetbets, but then be ultimately creamed by the professionals.
Go to college and they'll teach you how to analyze and appreciate artistic works. Go to college and you've got a ticket for a better job. Stay home in your burg and stop at high school and what are your opportunities? All the high-paying manufacturing jobs left. Used to be you moved for better opportunities, now nobody can afford this.
2
The underclass, the lower classes, have been screwed, and they know it. Would musicians hate Spotify as much if it wasn't started by Daniel Ek who became a billionaire as a result of its success? Note that there's not an equal hatred of Apple or Amazon. Those are faceless corporations. But Ek? A greedy nobody from Sweden?
That's how many musicians see him.
They bought the American dream. If you work hard you can make it and get rich. They saw everybody on MTV. They saw all those players making bank. And what did they have in common? The majority had no college degree. In other words, there were no impediments to your success. You could start at home and then become rich and world famous.
Forget that this is untrue. Back before the internet most people couldn't afford to record their music, and distribution was an impossibility. Wannabe musicians today see a direct path from nowhere to somewhere. And when they don't get somewhere, it has to be somebody else's fault. Spotify and Daniel Ek's.
Now I come from a previous era. We all wanted to be musicians, we all picked up guitars after seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but it soon became clear who had the talent and who didn't. And even the punters knew it was nearly impossible to get a recording contract. As for a recording studio? That was an exotic place we yearned to get into, even more than the nightclubs behind the velvet rope that didn't let most people through.
So let's say you never made it as a musician, you still don't make it as a musician. You can't become a doctor or a lawyer unless you have boatloads of education. As for tech, can you code? Maybe you've watched "Shark Tank" and you're in your garage formulating a product. But one thing is for sure, you're not going to look into the mirror and say you're a loser, no way. But in a world that venerates billionaires, on some level you feel like one.
3
I guess I don't understand how you want to get paid if no one listens to your music. Seems like raw economics to me. There are certain jobs that only few can do. I'd love to play in the MLB, but I don't have the skills. I accept this. But when it comes to music...
The star musicians of the golden era, the Beatles and after, what is called classic rock, a great percentage were from the middle class, with middle class values. They were sticking it to the man. Now people want to BE the man. With brands and sponsorships. The goal is to get into bed with the Fortune 500, isn't that the essence of being an influencer? Otherwise, how are you going to get rich?
You're not.
Where did your opportunity go?
Oh, the wealthy wanted nothing to do with you, they rigged the system so you couldn't even get into their schools. The elite colleges are almost all need blind. Meaning if you have the academic qualifications and no money, you'll get a free ride. Don't believe me?
"All 116 Need-Blind Colleges in the US: A Complete Guide"
https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list
That was an easy google, but you have to know what to look for. And it's on a site called "PrepScholar" and if you didn't go to prep school...
Reagan lowered taxes on the rich. Clinton signed NAFTA. And somewhere along the line many were left behind, and they're pissed.
And the liberal left just can't understand this. They worked hard for their position in life, they earned their riches, as for those without...they're lazy drug addict whiners. Read the comments to the above article. DEFINITELY READ THE COMMENTS! There's no introspection whatsoever. Those who voted for Trump are ignorant, the commenters are secure in their position. They delineate all the ways in which the Republicans and their minions are guilty. They point to people with money who are Republicans. But most interesting is the wealthy Democrats who want HIGHER taxes! That altruistic moral value, it's absent from most of society, I mean if you're struggling...
4
So what have we established here. I've linked to a "New York Times" article that points to the left and its beliefs and policies and promotion thereof that have ended up with the right in power. This pisses off everybody. The typical "Times" reader just can't accept it, can't even think or analyze it, and those on the right decline to partake, believing that the "Times" is one big conspiracy.
As for the "news" outlets on the right... They're selling slanted falsehoods supported by the sale of supplements. And the church... You've got to believe if you've got nothing, something isn't right.
But those on the left refuse to accept any responsibility for the loss of Harris, never mind the country. They can't be guilty, it's always someone else's responsibility.
It's a dark day in America today. Can you afford to be an optimist?
Well, one thing is for sure, other than the super-wealthy, no one is willing to sacrifice, they don't want to lose a single thing they have.
So...
Get out GarageBand and make a record. Hell, you can buy beats, you can do it. Look at all the rappers who've made it. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into the back of a cab or an Uber and the driver has told me they're a rapper. They don't tell me they're a doctor or even a coder, they're a rapper.
As for the public...
There are the brain-dead youngsters enamored of K-pop. Which sells a fantasy culture not much different from the Marvel movies.
Then there are those who go to the show more to hang with their buddies and shoot selfies than listen to the bands. After all, the bands come and go, and they're here forever.
But to have change we must have introspection. Which we see almost nowhere. No one can be wrong. That's the point of reading the comments to this article. NO ONE questions themselves.
But look at internet hate... What is it about? You have something I want. And if I can't have it I'm going to drag you down into the hole I'm in.
That's the pervading policy in America today. I'm going to bring you down to my level. Which those at upper levels just can't understand, they just don't know how it got so far.
As for literature... Have you been following the brouhaha from the disgruntled novelist saying that there are no male writers? That they're not celebrated by the media/cognoscenti? One thing is for sure... The "New York Times" Book Review is overwhelmed with the novels of women, gay people and those of color. Immigrants telling their story. It's nearly laughable. Now some of these books are good, but where is the story men can relate to?
I don't want to walk back feminism, nor racial advancement. But seemingly no one on the left can admit that Kamala Harris was a bad candidate. If you say this, you're RACIST! And SEXIST TOO! But one of my favorite lefties who'd hung with her labeled her "inauthentic." BINGO! AND I VOTED FOR HER!
5
The sixties were all about revolution. Today it's about conformity, bitching, complaining that the system didn't work for you.
As for major labels... They don't want to sign anything that won't rain down money, no matter what the artistic merit. The Mo and Joe days of Warner/Reprise way back when are completely history. Can you imagine a label today signing Beaver & Krause? Do you even know who Beaver & Krause were? Never mind Ry Cooder and so many more.
But all we can focus on is the money and how we ain't got none. And we alternately hate and envy those who've got it.
But where is our opportunity?
That is the question.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)