His 2nd song to achieve 100 million streams on Spotify after Kiss.

A classic.

Awesome! Thanks for sharing.

yay

On the one hand, I'm glad for Prince's legacy.

On the other hand, Prince would have made a maximum of $840,000 from that - assuming Spotify paid him their max, and he didn't have to split it with anyone.

i never understand how these things are worked out therefore in cold hard $ what does the estate / WB etc earn from this?

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

i never understand how these things are worked out therefore in cold hard $ what does the estate / WB etc earn from this?

Spotify pays between $0.006 and $0.0084 for each play. That's GROSS. There could be splits in the money - the artist could get some; the label could get some; the writer(s) could get some.

But assuming the Prince estate owned the master of "Purple Rain" and received the maximum payout of $0.0084 per playfrom Spotify, and didn't have to split anything with anyone, then the absolute maximum the estate could make (before taxes) is $840,000.

I do not know anything else you could sell 100,000,000 of and end up with less than $1 million profit in the absolute best case scenario.

TKO said:

His 2nd song to achieve 100 million streams on Spotify after Kiss.

A classic.

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

RodeoSchro said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

i never understand how these things are worked out therefore in cold hard $ what does the estate / WB etc earn from this?

Spotify pays between $0.006 and $0.0084 for each play. That's GROSS. There could be splits in the money - the artist could get some; the label could get some; the writer(s) could get some.

But assuming the Prince estate owned the master of "Purple Rain" and received the maximum payout of $0.0084 per playfrom Spotify, and didn't have to split anything with anyone, then the absolute maximum the estate could make (before taxes) is $840,000.

I do not know anything else you could sell 100,000,000 of and end up with less than $1 million profit in the absolute best case scenario.

The estate won't see that much as there are other people and companies involved that will need paying, as well as admin fees, as that is how publishers make money, and of course the tax man.

Owning a master means you have free will to exploit the recording but you still have to pay people involved in the entire process.

skywalker said:

TKO said:

His 2nd song to achieve 100 million streams on Spotify after Kiss.

A classic.

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

I care about streams because it's the present of music industry.

Artists are not making music from album sales anymore, it's all about Tour/Merchandising. Good sales are just a bonus.

TKO said:

skywalker said:

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

I care about streams because it's the present of music industry.

Artists are not making music from album sales anymore, it's all about Tour/Merchandising. Good sales are just a bonus.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say though the artist isn't making that much money from this platform, somebody is.

TKO said:

skywalker said:

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

I care about streams because it's the present of music industry.

Artists are not making music from album sales anymore, it's all about Tour/Merchandising. Good sales are just a bonus.

I get it, but it's a laughable measuring stick. It's like somebody winning the Superbowl on a Madden video game vs. actually winning the Superbowl. Nobody's buying music? Well, that means nobody's really got a hit record or song anymore. It's like Demolition Man where the commercial jingles are the hit songs.

[Edited 10/25/18 19:28pm]

skywalker said:

TKO said:

His 2nd song to achieve 100 million streams on Spotify after Kiss.

A classic.

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

The internet boomed on greed. The old world did not get the implications of being able to copy images and sounds indefinitely.

It should have been patched with copyrights management years ago. Unable to transmit unathorized bits. It's still feasible, but they rather use big data to show you an ad for a product you already buyed (pretty artificial as an intelligence).

Remember, this is all pipes (unintended pun).
You can control the flow form any point of the current.

RodeoSchro said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

i never understand how these things are worked out therefore in cold hard $ what does the estate / WB etc earn from this?

Spotify pays between $0.006 and $0.0084 for each play. That's GROSS. There could be splits in the money - the artist could get some; the label could get some; the writer(s) could get some.

But assuming the Prince estate owned the master of "Purple Rain" and received the maximum payout of $0.0084 per playfrom Spotify, and didn't have to split anything with anyone, then the absolute maximum the estate could make (before taxes) is $840,000.

I do not know anything else you could sell 100,000,000 of and end up with less than $1 million profit in the absolute best case scenario.

great info, much appreciated.

Dandroppedadime said:

To try and put another view on things, this is only one of many Prince songs on the many streaming services. So once you add all those plays up, surely it starts to become a nice revenue stream for the estate (with very little initial outlay). Also bare in mind that these “plays” continue to accumulate over time.

great point when you consider the entire catalogue & stream per song. Each year this should be a good earner for all band members too who are credited as co-writers & in particular Wendy & Lisa?

RodeoSchro said:

RodeoSchro said:

Prince had the wrong idea holding back songs that were old from streaming. Purple Rain? I think I have 5 or 6 vinyl pressings. I bought the cassette a few times, cd a few times and then remaster. Why not allow old songs to be streamed and make a little more money and on top of that keeping legacy alive. The biggest problem he faced when holding out from streaming services is all other artists were on the streaming services and people that used it would listen to others music, his hardcore base already owned all the catalog on cd, vinyl format so no need to pay for exclusive streaming. Prince, he had 30 songs that eventually could get that amount and then repeat. So $840,000 times 30 times they will repeat adds up and we are only talking Spotify for songs that he already sold his base many times over.

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Prince had the wrong idea holding back songs that were old from streaming. Purple Rain? I think I have 5 or 6 vinyl pressings. I bought the cassette a few times, cd a few times and then remaster. Why not allow old songs to be streamed and make a little more money and on top of that keeping legacy alive. The biggest problem he faced when holding out from streaming services is all other artists were on the streaming services and people that used it would listen to others music, his hardcore base already owned all the catalog on cd, vinyl format so no need to pay for exclusive streaming. Prince, he had 30 songs that eventually could get that amount and then repeat. So $840,000 times 30 times they will repeat adds up and we are only talking Spotify for songs that he already sold his base many times over.

I was thinking this too. Even ten of his top songs, raking in this kind of money -- not only from Spotify, but from Apple Music, Pandora, etc. will be a huge income over the long haul.

YES - I agree that $.006 per play is nothing taken on face value. But thousands of plays of hundreds of his songs (with probably two dozen of them achieving million-play status) and that's where the money is in streaming!

And, add to the fact that his hardcore base has already bought his catalog 2-3 times over. I had everything up to Gold on cassette. Everything up to Parade on vinyl. And everything from start to finish on CDs.

Se7en said:

RodeoSchro said:

Spotify pays between $0.006 and $0.0084 for each play. That's GROSS. There could be splits in the money - the artist could get some; the label could get some; the writer(s) could get some.

But assuming the Prince estate owned the master of "Purple Rain" and received the maximum payout of $0.0084 per playfrom Spotify, and didn't have to split anything with anyone, then the absolute maximum the estate could make (before taxes) is $840,000.

I do not know anything else you could sell 100,000,000 of and end up with less than $1 million profit in the absolute best case scenario.

This is for Purple Rain the song, not the whole album. $840,000 seems like a VERY good number for the Estate to rake in for ONE song. And, as someone posted already, it will only go up in time.

First of all, that $840K is max. That's IF Sportify paid their highest rate, and IF the estate got to keep 100% of the streaming revenue. The actual amount the estate got could have been less, even much less.

$840K for 100,000,000 sales is peanuts. Ask any artist.

RodeoSchro said:

Se7en said:

RodeoSchro said: This is for Purple Rain the song, not the whole album. $840,000 seems like a VERY good number for the Estate to rake in for ONE song. And, as someone posted already, it will only go up in time.

First of all, that $840K is max. That's IF Sportify paid their highest rate, and IF the estate got to keep 100% of the streaming revenue. The actual amount the estate got could have been less, even much less.

$840K for 100,000,000 sales is peanuts. Ask any artist.

These are not sales. I agree it's peanuts,
but I can understand, from a business standpoint,
making a strong distinction between someone who casually listens to a song,
and someone who wants to own it.
Streamings are not sales.

bonatoc said:

RodeoSchro said:

First of all, that $840K is max. That's IF Sportify paid their highest rate, and IF the estate got to keep 100% of the streaming revenue. The actual amount the estate got could have been less, even much less.

$840K for 100,000,000 sales is peanuts. Ask any artist.

These are not sales. I agree it's peanuts,
but I can understand, from a business standpoint,
making a strong distinction between someone who casually listens to a song,
and someone who wants to own it.
Streamings are not sales.

Again - ask any artist if they think getting a maximum of $804K for moving 100,000,000 of anything is fair. I haven't found one yet that does.

And unless they own the masters and wrote the song entirely by themselves, that sum is probably 30% - 50% lower. Before taxes.

RodeoSchro said:

bonatoc said:

These are not sales. I agree it's peanuts,
but I can understand, from a business standpoint,
making a strong distinction between someone who casually listens to a song,
and someone who wants to own it.
Streamings are not sales.

Again - ask any artist if they think getting a maximum of $804K for moving 100,000,000 of anything is fair. I haven't found one yet that does.

And unless they own the masters and wrote the song entirely by themselves, that sum is probably 30% - 50% lower. Before taxes.

I agree, it's a scandal.
It's even worse, it impoverishes culture.

TKO said:

skywalker said:

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

I care about streams because it's the present of music industry.

Artists are not making music from album sales anymore, it's all about Tour/Merchandising. Good sales are just a bonus.

Few artists have ever been able to live from their work, and this issue predates the internet.

I mean of course you have to be profitable in this world, and people fail at other ventures as well, but the proportion of artists failing was always much higher.

.

Take fiction writers in France. Each year about 10,000 novels and short stories books are published. Take away dead authors reprints and translations, that's probably about 5000 new books and living authors reprints. Piracy of books is a minor issue in France, because whereas people pirate music and movie like crazy (IDK anyone who buys them anymore), novel readers still buy those for the most part, if only second hand.

.

Now how many fiction writers make a living from their books only in France? That's about 50 each year. Fifty people. 1%.

Of course there's non-fiction, film scripts, comics, children books, that are a tiny bit more profitable. But novels, the historically most important field of fiction writing? 50 people. How many jobs do you know where only 1% of the workforce make a living?

How about poetry? Songwriters apart, how many living poets make a living only from their poetry in France?

0. Ze-ro.

.

The answer for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

skywalker said:

TKO said:

His 2nd song to achieve 100 million streams on Spotify after Kiss.

A classic.

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

The internet killed the music industry, newspapers, is slowly killing the TV and radio networks; yet has giving many an opportunity to shine on their own in music, news, or entertainment (yet pennies on the dollar). Just like Uber and Airbnb where people earn less, but assume all the risk. It's trickle down economics at it's worst.

And since popular music isn't that good anymore-it's killing the industry faster.

kewlschool said:

skywalker said:

It's funny to me that people care about streams, or times played on youtube. It essentially costs you nothing to hit "play" on a song, but it is now a badge of merit in the current music industry. It yields very little $$ for the artist. Remember when we used to care about albums/songs sold? People actually had to sacrifice their earnings for art? Good times.

---

How many times do you estimate people have "pushed play" on the album/tape/CD version of "Purple Rain" that they purchased? Too bad we can't count those "streams" and pay artists for that. The music business (now a crumbling shell of it's former self) is somehow more shady now that music is essentially "free."

The internet killed the music industry, newspapers, is slowly killing the TV and radio networks; yet has giving many an opportunity to shine on their own in music, news, or entertainment (yet pennies on the dollar). Just like Uber and Airbnb where people earn less, but assume all the risk. It's trickle down economics at it's worst.

And since popular music isn't that good anymore-it's killing the industry faster.

Popular music is still very good. What's not good anymore is the music that's popular.

bonatoc said:

RodeoSchro said:

First of all, that $840K is max. That's IF Sportify paid their highest rate, and IF the estate got to keep 100% of the streaming revenue. The actual amount the estate got could have been less, even much less.

$840K for 100,000,000 sales is peanuts. Ask any artist.

These are not sales. I agree it's peanuts,
but I can understand, from a business standpoint,
making a strong distinction between someone who casually listens to a song,
and someone who wants to own it.
Streamings are not sales.

Streaming is a whole other animal than Sales, but let's discuss as if they were sales . . .

Average album cost: $10. Average artist cut of that: $1. So average person's income off 100,000,000 albums sales is 10,000,000. Still pretty good.

Now, Purple Rain the song is 1/9th of the overall album. 1/9th of 10,000,000 is 1.1 million. Not too far off from the $840K mentioned above.

And, imagine streaming figures adding up across his entire catalog simultaneously. One could argue that the Estate will make more from streaming than Prince did with actual album sales . . .

That's an appauling amout to pay an artist for their work. I don't care if it's sales or streaming. Flip it around; somebody who had nothing to do with composing or playing that music is making 99% of the profit.