Was having a couple with my flatmate the other night and we started discussing how these Spotify-type websites pretty much look like they will be the ones to rise up from the decline of traditional major record companies. Obviously nothing's gonna stop the underground releasing whatever it wants, how it wants, but the whole subscription and monthly fees essentially allowing you to "own" whatever gets released on the site whereas also paying the artist based on the number of "plays" tracks receive model looks like it might be the way forward for the majors.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

DIY For LiFe!!

FLACs would be downloaded though, not streamed, right? So artists would probably get paid per download, like mp3s on iTunes or Amazon. It's a technicality I know, but actual plays aren't counted, just the initial download.

Just saw an article this morning about Google getting into the music streaming game, so it's certainly something big business has deemed lucrative (meaning they get to keep more, and pay out less). Pandora and Spotify have been criticized extensively for their small royalty payouts, even as they rake it in as a company.

I see where you're coming from, though: all a major would have to do is sign an exclusivity deal with one of these services and revamp their royalty system. But it just doesn't seem like a smart financial decision, since they'd have to cut the other revenue streams to do it (like mp3 downloads, CD & LP hardcopies). Maybe at some point in the future, but right now streaming services are just one part of their profit-mix. I suppose Universal could always just go BUY a streaming service, too... (god help us...)

haha your right it is rather evil thinking about the way majors could sort their shit out! 

What i was thinking was for instance say universal started this kind of model and uploaded their back catalog in like say Flacs or another lossless file. Recalled all their digital rights and exclusively started releasing all their records on a site like this. Everybody would pay their monthly fee which kinda eliminates having to go out and get the new pop record because with your membership you essentially already have it as it gets released, and the artist gets their cut with the plays so their happy (maybe). It just seem that more and more people are only getting digital music these days and it seems odd that the majors aren't planning their next moves, just sitting there suing people and complaining.

theres so many details we rambled on about for a web based record company but they would just end up tedious and annoying....like drunk people haha

Audio Gasoline said:

I don't know, that sounds like two completely different business models - I think these pay-to-listen radio stations are happy as middle men in the music chain. Less risk, more reward, and a lot less work than running a record label.

I'm curious, in what ways do you see the majors using the pay-per-play model differently than it is currently being used? These sorts of pro-rated royalty payments are pretty standard fare for the common digital distribution channels. I just wonder what sort of evil musings you've come up with.

I don't know, that sounds like two completely different business models - I think these pay-to-listen radio stations are happy as middle men in the music chain. Less risk, more reward, and a lot less work than running a record label.

I'm curious, in what ways do you see the majors using the pay-per-play model differently than it is currently being used? These sorts of pro-rated royalty payments are pretty standard fare for the common digital distribution channels. I just wonder what sort of evil musings you've come up with.