The quote you have, in the most recent report, is designed to focus on the changes from 2011 to 2013. By 2011, certainly, it was no longer mostly about "catching up" on old missing tracks. Yet, it still went from 100 million to 180 million in just two years. Even if a bunch of that was missing tracks, a ton of it was new tracks.
Much of the market growth didn’t make it down to artists: The live music value chain is an incredibly complex one with multiple stakeholders taking their share (ticketing, secondary ticketing, venues, booking agents, promoters, tax, expenses etc.). The share of live revenue that artists make from live has declined every year since 2000. The impact on the total market is that total artist income (i.e. from all revenue sources) has declined every year too since 2009.
Yeah, live is a tricky business to track, and no one has particularly good numbers. It's a challenge, no doubt. Pollstar is the one that everyone goes to, but really only covers the big concerts. We tried to work with others, like Songkick, to get smaller venue data, but the data is quite limited. And, no doubt, touring is a very difficult way to make money.
While Johnson points to touring, we only mention it in passing, because we think other business models appear to be working much better for many artists, including direct to fan (Bandcamp), crowdfunding (Kickstarter, Patreon) and other things as well.
Your own report seems to have the same sort of figures with the exception that you seem to think that a massive increase in the Gracenote database equals a surge in creativity. In 2001, your first date, iTunes was at version 1 and had Gracenote incorporation, since then I've entered data for about 200 CD's myself (mostly small indie releases from New Zealand by artists who didn't know about Gracenote at the time), though I haven't had to enter anything for quite a while. Very few of these CD's were new releases, most were old discs I was digitising.
Did you read the report? We actually note this limitation to the data: "Now, that growth of the Gracenote database obviously includes a lot of older music that has only recently been indexed, so its expanding index doesn't exactly serve as the ideal proxy for the increasing rate of production of new music." We did present plenty of other evidence to show that there is a ton of new music, including the data from TuneCore.
So it's weird for you to suggest that we only relied on Gracenote. We did not, and directly indicated the limitation you pointed out.
That's the point. Mike's calling for figures to show that Johnson is wrong. These are Johnson's only financial figures for music, and they don't back him up at all and, as you say, are useless.
The figures I was discussing was the number of people who are making their living as creators. And I said I wanted proof that the overall numbers were declining, not just that Johnson was off. We have lots more numbers in our reports.
Your side presents... nothing other than a few failed creators whining.
"Demolish"? They throw ad homs and they don't cite a single opposing number.
I think the FMC article has some valid points, but the other two? I mean, those are kind of embarrassing, since all they can do is insult people. Taplin especially. Weird. You'd think someone like him would actually have some data to back up his attacks. But, nothing.
From people who KNOW what the music business is. What do you know of the music business Mike? Other than as a casual observer.
My money's on sweet FA.
I know a good deal about the music business, since I talk to plenty of people in it all the time, but that's besides the point. This isn't about knowing "the music business" it's about numbers and statistics.
And neither Taplin, nor Newhoff, have a single number in their posts. Just weird ad hom attacks.
The FMC post, at least, has some more relevant critiques of the methodologies where the numbers come from, and I accept those as more valid. But they fail to provide any alternatives as well. Given all the numbers we've seen over time (beyond just what Johnson has), I've yet to see a single dataset that suggests there are few people creating today, and making money from it, than in the past.
I don't think any of that is an overreaction at all. I'd like to see a lot more products and services eliciting the same overreaction.
I don't really see why. Thing is, if Spotify were actually going to do those evil things, then there would be legit reasons to worry about the service. Changing the policy has little to do with the actual actions by the company.
That's why focusing on *the policy* is so ridiculous. The policy is meaningless. The actions are what matters.
I'm trying my hardest to figure out what you think this means. If someone signing me up for this, which has no impact on anything, other than that I got three random emails (and a good story to post on the blog), is "karma" then it sounds like I'm living a pretty clean life, huh?