Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Streaming Music' started by kirk, Jun 25, 2015.
Why Classical Music Can’t Make Money from Streaming
Kirk writes <<For classical labels to be on a level playing field, their streams need to be paid differently from “songs"....[snip]... as the shift to streaming continues, it’s a good idea to not penalize these labels because of the nature of their recordings.>>
So, wouldn’t it be in their own best interest (Apple, Spotify, etc) to *want* to alter the mechanics of their deals with the classical labels, as you suggest? I mean, making *some* money from the classical labels is better than making none, and since this is, by comparison, such a minuscule part of the overall revenue of music, it would seem to me to a no-brainer to find that mutually-acceptable sweet-spot, where both sides can coexist, rather than streaming services letting classical music wither and die from their catalogs.
I think they see it as too complicated. Once they start changing the terms for classical labels, then jazz musicians will want the same; then other genres with longer tracks. One-size-fits-all is a lot easier.
<< One-size-fits-all is a lot easier. >>
Makes sense. On the other hand, Apple is, perhaps second only to Disney, a mega-corporation which is extremely sensitive to its brand being squeaky-clean and societally progressive (witness the Taylor Swift turnaround & the Confederate flag business). Apple will surely not want to start having to respond to headlines of "Is Apple Single-Handedly Killing Classical Music?" (hyperbole, but such is a lot of the modern press). Even folks out there who don't personally like classical music understand that it is culturally important, and would not be positively disposed toward the possibility of its becoming a casualty of the new streaming dominance.
And you have to admit that a lot of the people who favor classical music are not aware of how to stream music.. I mean I also listen to classical music, however I think I am still in a minority in my age..