Pandora Plays Song 1.16M Times, Artist Gets $17

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Ever wonder why artist don't like Pandora that much? This should answer that question. The flipside of the coin is the fact that Sirius XM pays $1 per play. :eek:

Records show that in the last quarter, the song was streamed around 1.16 million times on Pandora, for which the band splits $42.25 in songwriting royalties. Lowery’s share is $16.89. So he earned about $.000015 per play of the song on Pandora. He compares this to his royalties from satellite radio company Sirius XM, where “Low” was only played 179 times but earned him $182, a little more than $1 per play.
 
Wrong unless royalties are calculated differently.

If royalties are split similar to Pandora's scheme, Sirium XM pays more along the lines of $3 per play, with Lowery's share being about less than a third of that.
 
How can any company sustain $1 per play, much less $3 per play? Sounds like some funny maths.
 
Musicians need to whine and shoot heroin way less to get us to pay attention to them.
 
How can any company sustain $1 per play, much less $3 per play? Sounds like some funny maths.

"Plays" are counted differently between the services. If you read the article it explains. Pandora counts every listener as a "Play" while the others count just when the song is played and broadcast regardless of how many are listening. 1 Play on traditional radio could be the equivalent of 60,000 plays on Pandora
 
that plus if you think about how Sirius broadcasts it to all their subscribers simultaneous versus Pandora which streams one per person who gets it....the fees start to make better sense...though still...Sirius must make enough to sustain the high royalty rates.
 
It's comparing apples to bicycles.

Music people really need to stop whining. He's still getting paid for something he spewed out in an hour (if that) almost 20 years ago.
 
Musicians that create with profit as their primary motivation, probably make shitty music anyway.
 
Musicians that create with profit as their primary motivation, probably make shitty music anyway.
Oft repeated, but that doesn't make it true. A talented musician who seeks to profit from that talent is in no way shitty just because of it. It seems as if those in the arts are held to a standard of altruistic purity that folks in more standard professions aren't.
 
Oft repeated, but that doesn't make it true. A talented musician who seeks to profit from that talent is in no way shitty just because of it. It seems as if those in the arts are held to a standard of altruistic purity that folks in more standard professions aren't.

Yep, people think of videogames as that way too, it's ridiculous.
 
If Sirius tracked usage like Pandora then he wouldn't complain as much I bet. I think he's seeing lots of data to crunch from Pandora and not enough from Sirius. Sirius might be cheating him in the end.
 
all artist need to abandoned the big lables riaa mpaa and other conglomerates and sell their ip for royalties directly to pandora etc .. that way pandora gets cheaper music and the artist gets more money.

if he and pandora could work out a penny a song then he would have had 11,600 not exactly great but its better than 47.00

although doing the math for this stuff starts to highlight the problems of streaming music business .

its just down right expensive .

maybe big media has it right and ensures that the artist get paid properly for the mass exposure as they ensure its affordable for company like pandora to play that song . while also ensuring the artist gets compensated .


still think the cutting the riaa/mpaa would be a better deal though.
 
As others have pointed out, he's not comparing the data correctly. The fact SiriusXM could have 100,000,000 or zero listeners for that $1 is why the data can't compare. Pandora allows the "user" to pick what songs they want to play. If they really wanted to listen to his, I'm sure it'd be well over 1.16mil.

Radio: Forces the listener on that station to listen to the song
Pandora: Allows listener to "skip" or block certain songs.

He's getting more from the radio because of the sheer fact that they're playing it more.
 
if it bugs him them he should pull his song. i bet the riaa got 100x what he got . does any one have any stats on what % the riaa takes and what % the band gets?
 
Cry me a fucking river. They still get paid multiple times more than I do while working about .01% as hard. Not gonna get any sympathy from me.
 
Oft repeated, but that doesn't make it true. A talented musician who seeks to profit from that talent is in no way shitty just because of it. It seems as if those in the arts are held to a standard of altruistic purity that folks in more standard professions aren't.

Except a lot of so called artists today shouldn't even be considered that. They don't write their own songs, can't play any instrument, and can't really even sing. Some other person writes the song, some other musicians play the music, while the "artist" screeches out the lyrics and some other guy makes it sound decent through editing. The artist is just a face for marketing and nothing more.
 
Except a lot of so called artists today shouldn't even be considered that. They don't write their own songs, can't play any instrument, and can't really even sing. Some other person writes the song, some other musicians play the music, while the "artist" screeches out the lyrics and some other guy makes it sound decent through editing. The artist is just a face for marketing and nothing more.
What percentage of artists who are recording and trying to sell their music would you say the above applies to? There are a lot more out there than just the ones TMZ covers.
 
All I can think about is Don't Download This Song by Weird Al. Diamond crusted swimming pools don't grow on trees.
 
Except a lot of so called artists today shouldn't even be considered that. They don't write their own songs, can't play any instrument, and can't really even sing. Some other person writes the song, some other musicians play the music, while the "artist" screeches out the lyrics and some other guy makes it sound decent through editing. The artist is just a face for marketing and nothing more.

Totally bro. Artists from (Insert Decade Here) are so much better than Artists from (Insert Decade Here).

It's practically a fact.
 
Music people really need to stop whining. He's still getting paid for something he spewed out in an hour (if that) almost 20 years ago.

This is so ignorant it hurts. You have absolutely NO idea what creating music is like.
 
If I was a musician and especially one not numbers-inclined, that report might make me angry too. Of course it's all because the report they get presents the Pandora numbers in a very misleading and confusing way.

The report should be formatted showing how many times a person heard the song. That way the Sirius numbers would show not 179 but 179 * [# of listeners of those channels], which may come out to far higher than Pandora's 1mm streams (and thus far lower on a per-play basis.)

The irony is that on a per person basis Pandora actually pays a lot more than radio stations.
 
How much does Pandora make per song? The middleman? There might be a bigger story beneath.

Seems like an apples and oranges comparison to me...

Everything is apples and oranges until you break it down to its relevant components.
 
What gets me is that you know the label is taking a HUGE chunk from the artist, and from what I recall, even more when it's through Pandora than other radio style services.

The whole system is a scam. Don't blame Pandora... they're trying to play by the rules set out for them. When the RIAA stops making music playing a minefield, then I might start feeling sorry for artists.
 
The article writer is either dumb or he has issues against Pandora.
 
Any REAL musician will tell you that you don't make money off of music sales or air play. You make your money touring. Lazy fucks can get off their asses and do some shows.
 
I can understand the feeling a bit in seeing the disparity on the amounts of money, but at the same time comparing the "plays" on those two isn't even like apples to oranges, it's more like apples to durians. :p
 
I think artists have it rough but if Pandora is paying per user play, why should they have to pay the full cost of the song from iTunes to own, to rent the song one time?

I think sirus should be paying more since it is for an entire audience, like 10 or 12% of what sirus made but it's never going to happen the only thing is services like Pandora will go away. Personally as little as I think of iTunes and Apple I still think that it does the most for artists. Which is why I will keep buying from iTunes and Apple, and use services like Pandora to find new artists.
 
I wonder if they have any stats on how many people purchased their CD/song through Pandora's links - that would be more interesting. I thought that a big part of selling anything was, you know, getting the word out (even if it is decades later)?
 
I suppose my question is this:

Where would these musicians be without the exposure these services bring to their music? Shouldn't they instead consider these plays as a virtually free marketing channel for their product, and focus instead on a model that might work, i.e. making money form live performances?

While I certainly understand the desire of the folks to earn a living simply based on people listening to their songs, I don't think anyone can sit back in this day and age and expect that to be a viable model anymore. Napster ended that dream a long time ago.

If you want to earn a real living as a performer, then you are going to need to actually perform, as opposed to recording your music and sending it out in the world to earn for you.

Consider this: How many musicians knocked on door after door from 1950 to 19XX begging DJ's/radio stations to get their content on the air just so people could hear it? Those barriers have all been blown away by the internet. Why not - instead of bemoaning the fact that you can't really earn a living from all the massive exposure the web brings to your music - use it as a platform to market yourself a a performer, and sell some concert tickets?
 
Back
Top