45 Million tracks had ZERO streams. 152 Million had less than 1000.

[GregB]

With growth ... now an estimated 120,000 new tracks uploaded to streaming services every day ... people wonder why they are not getting heard.  Well, rest assured, you're part of a big crowd!

 

According to Luminate’s 2023 Year-End Music Report, fully 152.2 million tracks each received 1,000 or fewer plays on audio streaming services in 2023.  That number amounts to a whopping 82.7% of the 184 million music tracks that Luminate measured on audio streaming services at the close of last year via ISRCs (International Standard Recording Codes).

Even more tellingly, a total of 45.6 million tracks received zero plays in 2023. That represents 24.8% of the 184 million tracks available on audio streaming platforms.  Yup: nearly a quarter of streaming services’ entire available music catalog wasn’t streamed even once last year.

 

Full story: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/152-million-tracks-1000-plays-on-streaming-services/

[john]

It just underlines the need to learn the basics of music marketing and a sustainable artist model. It’s not about getting famous, but just getting your music heard. Back in the day, you had to learn to get people to your gigs in order to even book at places that already had a reasonable audience more than once. They all wanted to know you could pull in more of a crowd. More to the point, if you didn’t learn the basics of that, you could be playing to a more or less empty room in a lot of venues.

 

Many bands didn’t learn that, or thought that they should be treated like rock stars already.

 

For years now the rule is:

 

If you want to make music, and you want people to actually hear it, you need to do much more than just “make it available”.

 

If you aren’t prepared to do more, you have to accept that it is unlikely to be heard. Simple.

[VoiceEx]

4 hours ago, john said:

Back in the day, you had to learn to get people to your gigs in order to even book at places that already had a reasonable audience more than once. They all wanted to know you could pull in more of a crowd. More to the point, if you didn’t learn the basics of that, you could be playing to a more or less empty room in a lot of venues.

 

I used to be in several bands and I can attest that this is very true! I can't tell you how much running around (i.e making connections) and live gigs we had do before we started to build a decent audience. Not to mention, building a good reputation as performers, as well as learning how to handle ourselves efficiently in recording studios. Which back in the day were rather expensive.

 

There's also the matter of booking gigs outside one's country (i.e long term tours, festivals etc). Which back the day, involved making all kinds of preparations, not to mention, all the sleepless nights you'd be spending making rather expensive phone calls. A small glimpse into a world without the internet 😅👍

[GregB]

All true.

Also, 'back in the day', there was LESS music released/available, and MOST people heard it on the radio.  The program hosts/DJs had a professional interest in wanting to catch/lead the next wave, and they would select/play/promote tracks ... who knows whether this was personal taste, adventurism, brown-nosing the stars/studios, or payola.  But it worked to break new artists and releases.   In the UK, there was John Peel, Tony Blackburn, Kenny Everett and about half a dozen other main 'pushers' of new music.   Through lack of other technologies, EVERYONE listened to the radio ... so unknowns were easily thrust into the limelight.  
Radio today is a spent force.  The many streaming platforms have thousands of playlists concocted by unknowns, and often bought and paid for by the labels.  The 'waves' seem to have moved to things like YouTube and TikTok.  Does any big hit these days NOT have a video?

[john]

16 minutes ago, GregB said:

All true.

Also, 'back in the day', there was LESS music released/available, and MOST people heard it on the radio.  The program hosts/DJs had a professional interest in wanting to catch/lead the next wave, and they would select/play/promote tracks ... who knows whether this was personal taste, adventurism, brown-nosing the stars/studios, or payola.  But it worked to break new artists and releases.   In the UK, there was John Peel, Tony Blackburn, Kenny Everett and about half a dozen other main 'pushers' of new music.   Through lack of other technologies, EVERYONE listened to the radio ... so unknowns were easily thrust into the limelight.  
Radio today is a spent force.  The many streaming platforms have thousands of playlists concocted by unknowns, and often bought and paid for by the labels.  The 'waves' seem to have moved to things like YouTube and TikTok.  Does any big hit these days NOT have a video?

 

The landscape has changed. radio still has a useful place, just much less useful than it once was. YouTube is the platform for discovery. Channel hosts and Reactioners are the new music champions and as such they can convey your music to millions. Ask Ren Gill about his new number one album in the UK, almost entirely made possible via reaction channels on YouTube. Unsigned. No management company… although I believe he does have some kind of relationship with an independent label towards the end of that campaign.

 

My point is, there are new mechanisms to achieve the same ends. Everything is always moving. We shouldn’t be afraid of change. Change will happen, and you either roll with it or you don’t, but be aware, when you don’t roll with it, you might as well try to hold back the tide.

 

Better to find out how the new shit works, and do that.

[VoiceEx]

@john @GregB I hope you don't mind, but I would like to ask you both an interesting question in the spirit of things 👍

 

Do you prefer how things used to be back in the day, or do you prefer how it goes nowadays? Needless to say, if more people are interested in sharing similar thoughts about this subject: Please join in!

[GregB]

6 hours ago, VoiceEx said:

Do you prefer how things used to be back in the day, or do you prefer how it goes nowadays?

 

I did write a response to John's comments but it's not visible here.  Did I not press "Submit"?  Who knows? (Who cares?)

 

Hmmm. "prefer" ... "like". As with many discussions related to music it is very subjective.

• I LIKE the music I like. Sometimes I can analyse WHY (e.g. chord progressions, lyrics, etc..), othertimes not.  Music 'these days' is definitely simpler.  Two people can argue opposite views ... it doesn't matter ... we all like what we like, and (fortunately) 'liking' harms no-one.
• MY experiences are MY experiences. It's impossible to convey experiences fully to others.
• The age at which one hears music provides a massive bias towards 'liking'
• I HAVE heard some great music in the latter half of my life, but it then has to compete for space in my tiny brain with so much that I cherish from the past (including the Great Amercian Songbook).

I opened this topic simply because I am fascinated by numbers/statistics.  The AMOUNT of music is growing faster than the pairs of ears and listening time available to hear it.  Arithmetic suggests that any one new track has fewer opportunities to heard.

 

Performance. My reading is that the number of venues, massive to tiny, is diminishing ... cost, transportation, insurance, audiences.

 

SUMMARY.  "Now vs Then".  Good or Bad?  Who am I to say (even though I AM opinionated). I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake. But there's many many worse things in the world than not having my songs being listened to.  I'M happy with having written them and having the wherewithal to produce them .  I don't perform in public.  I have a feeling for the music industry (without understanding it) and I simply acknowledge the raw numbers.  End of story.

 

I'l stop here, take my medication and have a lie down  

 

Greg

[john]

Somethings I like the way they were, some the way they are, most on how I think they could be. In the past much was limited by who you knew and how much money you had. That still plays an important role, particularly in mainstream music, but I think, the modern age only highlights the reality that musicians always were challenged in getting their music in front of listeners. It is much more obvious now. While the scale is ever increasing, we now have far greater spread of knowledge, incredible reach, tools and better access to detailed metrics than ever before. For a creative, detail oriented mind, tools just amplify what we can do applying our knowledge.

 

Make sense?

[VoiceEx]

On 1/15/2024 at 2:23 AM, GregB said:

The AMOUNT of music is growing faster than the pairs of ears and listening time available to hear it.  Arithmetic suggests that any one new track has fewer opportunities to heard.

 

I completely agree with you on that 👍 In fact, I would also like to point that that overly excessive "content loops" also play a part in all of this. Not only is the amount of music growing faster, but the amount of content that many musicians force themselves to dish out for the sake of appeasing the algorithms is equally to blame (IMO).

 

On 1/15/2024 at 2:23 AM, GregB said:

I have a feeling for the music industry (without understanding it) and I simply acknowledge the raw numbers.  End of story.

 

I'l stop here, take my medication and have a lie down 

 

We are a little different. My interest in the music industry itself and its inner workings grew strictly out of necessity. But you know how it is. We are where we choose to be. You have your pills and I have mine 😅👍

[VoiceEx]

On 1/15/2024 at 3:33 AM, john said:

Somethings I like the way they were, some the way they are, most on how I think they could be. In the past much was limited by who you knew and how much money you had. That still plays an important role, particularly in mainstream music, but I think, the modern age only highlights the reality that musicians always were challenged in getting their music in front of listeners. It is much more obvious now. While the scale is ever increasing, we now have far greater spread of knowledge, incredible reach, tools and better access to detailed metrics than ever before. For a creative, detail oriented mind, tools just amplify what we can do applying our knowledge.

 

Make sense?

 

Yeah it makes sense and I couldn't agree more 👍 Though I would like to ask, in terms of how things could be, what do you mean exactly? Like, if you had the power to change what's going on, what would those changes be? i.e what is your vision of an ideal mix between the past and the present?

Edited January 16 by VoiceEx

[john]

1 hour ago, VoiceEx said:

 

Yeah it makes sense and I couldn't agree more 👍 Though I would like to ask, in terms of how things could be, what do you mean exactly? Like, if you had the power to change what's going on, what would those changes be? i.e what is your vision of an ideal mix between the past and the present?

 

Hocus pocus!

 

Oh to have a crystal ball. I guess the biggest things I would like to see is more stability in the industry for earnings mechanisms for songwriters and artists, however I expect what has been happening so far will continue… that is the assault on musicians and music related income. So, realistically, what is already possible for songwriters will become more established and a broader range of effective tools will be available. I think it will take a period of success to convince the largely cynical artistic community to get off their ass. Being fair, some very much are getting their feet dirty, which is great to see. I don’t see it being a tsunami any time soon, but it will continue to evolve. Putting on my Songstuff hat for a moment, I look forward to Songstuff playing a more active roll in educating and enabling. Things continue to evolve for the site too.

 

I believe there is an artist based need for EPs/albums that is not served well by the “all songs being available on a single song basis”. Back in the day (here we go again!) artists had radio/single mixes, extended plays/ 12” singles, and album mixes… and they would be different enough to justify buying multiple versions of a song. For that to work artists need to be able to offer albums, and empowered to offer bundle offers to fans, where artists really can challenge what is offered to fans. Ok, they can already do a lot of this, but a lot of artists and labels will need to decide to offer single songs and collections where songs that are not singles are not available outside the collection. At some point we have to act in our own best interest! As for bundles, yes you can do these on your own websites, but then you have the nightmare of sales tax to contend with. Do-able but takes effort.

 

Other than that, I’d like to see collection agencies better integrated with independent music, so that indies can more easily earn from traditional music industry income streams.

 

Lastly, Spotify have just announced that they plan to stop payouts on any track that has less than 1000 plays in a year (while they still get ad income from those plays). YouTube effectively does similar by only allowing monetization when you have more than so many followers and so many plays. They too of course get the income from ads on those plays. I don’t think Spotify even has provision for a roll-over. Point is, for indies album tracks rarely go anywhere on Spotify. Truthful 99% of indies get zero out of putting almost all of their tracks on Spotify. Better to do something more fruitful with them.

 

Of course the truth is also painful. To do well, realistically, you need a great marketing campaign to go along with great songs. Fail on either and you might as well drive blindly through unknown country roads with your windows down and your music turned up, for all the good it does you.

 

Common strategies used by indies:

 

Exposure model

Build it and they will come (Aka my music is good enough to be discovered on it’s own)

Hope and pray

 

They don’t have the budget to crack the exposure model. Only way it works is with innovative marketing and upwards of 2 years hard work with as much budget as you can muster.

 

Build it and they will come is a snowball’s chance in hell. It’s arrogant and lazy. Putting it all on the music is not a strategy.

 

Hope is not a strategy either.

 

There are a few ways besides the above that can work, but they take learning, patience and hard work. I’d like to see more artists prepared to work. Too many older artists are ignorant or misinformed or lazy or unrealistic or completely consumed by cynicism. Perhaps a combination of these. I used to think it was worth investing in changing their minds using knowledge, but people don’t like being told. People like to discover. 

 

So, if I could wave a wand and fix something, it would be to get artists to use realistic, achievable strategies now, instead of waiting to see younger artists blaze a trail.

 

Cheers

 

John

[john]

19 hours ago, NigelXiex said:

Whoa, those stats are mind-blowing! It's crazy how the sheer volume of new tracks daily can make it tough to get noticed. But hey, we're all in this together, right?

yeah, though typically, some more than others lol