An elderly tweet, or X as I suppose I must call it these days, was resurrected yet again last week by way of a ‘new’ Facebook meme. In it, the musician Peter Frampton explained that for 55 million streams of his song ‘Baby I Love Your Way’ he had received the grand total of $1700. To be fair to the streaming companies, that was the figure in 2018 and it’s probably closer to $1705 by now. Frampton was on his way to meet with ‘lawmakers’, which is to say the American version of MPs, to discuss this scandal. My guess is that his efforts probably didn’t come to very much if the story is still being resurrected today, in which case, why not, or perhaps more importantly do we really care?
Those who consume music solely by way of streaming services clearly don’t care and in legal terms there’s nothing wrong with that. Companies like Spotify are operated on a legal basis and sell music to consumers at rock bottom prices. Music consumers – I find it hard to describe those who stream music as fans, in the same was as I can’t regard people who like a football team but don’t go to games as fans, either – like a bargain, just like a BOGOF deal at the supermarket. And anyway, who gives a fuck about Peter Frampton? He’s loaded anyway, isn’t he? He doesn’t need the money.
I’ve heard that one before. Why should U2, the Rolling Stones, the surviving Beatles get money for their music? In other words, if someone does a job of work or provides a service, if they have more than a certain amount in the bank, or are perceived to have it in the bank since we don’t really know, they should give it away for peanuts. It’s a terrible argument because it applies all the way down the line. If you work, or provide a service, you should be paid for it, properly paid.
I don’t know what’s a reasonable sum to pay to listen to a track – I’ll leave that kind of detail to musicians and the record companies, in that order – but to earn a mere $1700 for 55 million listens, well that’s wrong. Shouldn’t the listener pay at least an amount that the artist received a couple of pennies? If you are Wayne Scrote, a musician who has released an album on a small independent label at great personal cost, would you not hope that people who enjoyed listening to your music paid you for the privilege? In the old days, if you liked a song you bought the record. Is it simply okay today to just steal it?
I’m in favour of everyone getting paid for their work. Whether that’s a writer who sells books but gets paid a pittance, a jobbing actor or a member of a stage crew and every other person who provides popular and not always popular forms of art because – and here’s the thing – those at the top are making a mint, those who create nothing except money off the back of the artists they exploit. And if we stream and not buy, we are a part of the problem.
I appreciate that I am on the other extreme in that I buy all my music and refuse to stream it, other than via You Tube (and yes, I see the contradiction here because that’s stealing too). Since we are not about to uninvent streaming, how about we encourage people to stream music at a fairer price and encourage them to buy it if they like it? If we want to listen to great music, are we not more likely to hear more of it if the artists we love can afford to do things like eating?
Streaming today is legalised theft, pure and simple. People should pay paid for their work and if their art is their work, it’s the same thing. But don’t tell me you’re a fan of a certain artist if you are still happy to steal from them.
