Apple Music to Pay Artists Up to 10% More Royalties for Spatial Audio Content

[MacRumors]

Apple has introduced royalty incentives to encourage music artists and record labels to publish tracks in Spatial Audio.

In an update sent to partners on Monday seen by Music Business Worldwide, Apple said it will pay up to 10% more in royalties for Spatial Audio.

The news follows a Bloomberg report in December that Apple would this year begin prioritizing streams of songs mixed in Dolby Atmos technology in its streaming calculations.

Listeners do not have to listen to the Spatial Audio version of a song for artists to be eligible for the added benefits, with the availability of tracks in Dolby Atmos being sufficient.

According to 9to5Mac, Apple says the 10% bonus is a reward for artists delivering the content, and also compensation to recognize the additional time and effort required to mix in Dolby Atmos.

Apple Music‌ began hosting Spatial Audio tracks in 2021, using Dolby Atmos technology to replicate an in-person music experience with sound coming from various directions around the listener when using compatible speakers or headphones. In February 2022, Apple announced that over half of the service's subscribers used the feature.

Article Link: Apple Music to Pay Artists Up to 10% More Royalties for Spatial Audio Content

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

All artists will do is run their album through some digital process to meet the spatial audio requirement. To the user, it will be a worse experience and further cements the gimmick spatial audio is unless mastered appropriately.

 

[MrWeenus]

All artists will do is run their album through some digital process to meet the spatial audio requirement. To the user, it will be a worse experience and further cements the gimmick spatial audio is unless mastered appropriately.

This is the only thing that I'm scared of. Properly mastered dolby songs sound amazing on my home theatre/AirPods, but if the song is ran just through some automated process it sucks ass.

 

[jayryco]

Now change the compensation model to fan centric.

 

[Ctrlos]

Now change the compensation model to fan centric.

Do you mean fans can tip their favourite artists or that Apple Music somehow pays the listener for their time?

 

[Ctrlos]

It’s worth noting that Apple Pay artists double that of Spotify. I know it’s still a pittance but it’s twice the pittance. You can also directly support them via album sales from the iTunes Store.

In short if you care about the livelihood of your favourite musicians: don’t use Spotify. Oh, and go to as many gigs as you can.

 

[boak]

Do you mean fans can tip their favourite artists or that Apple Music somehow pays the listener for their time?

Fan-centric means each subscriber’s monthly fee is divided up to pay each of the artist they listen to in a month, could be based on number tracks, time spent listening etc. This compensation model has been shown to pay emerging artists more.

 

[wanha]

All artists will do is run their album through some digital process to meet the spatial audio requirement. To the user, it will be a worse experience and further cements the gimmick spatial audio is unless mastered appropriately.

You seem to have a low opinion of artists as greedy swindlers.

And while some certainly are just that, many artists are actually very passionate about how their music sounds.

In the end, if the artist you listen to cares more about money than about sound quality, you are likely to get an inferior product.

 

[wanha]

Fan-centric means each subscriber’s monthly fee is divided up to pay each of the artist they listen to in a month, could be based on number tracks, time spent listening etc. This compensation model has been shown to pay emerging artists more.

While I agree that this would be great, it's hard to see it happening because this compensation model would pay big artists less.

If the big artists were to pull their content from the platform... well, that's a big problem right there.

 

[Ctrlos]

Fan-centric means each subscriber’s monthly fee is divided up to pay each of the artist they listen to in a month, could be based on number tracks, time spent listening etc. This compensation model has been shown to pay emerging artists more.

That’s a really good idea! I try to buy albums as much as stream but even then they’re only getting 10-20% of the sale price, say 90c-$1.80. That’s a one-time deal as well.

Apple tends to pay maybe $0.007 per stream per track. If I listen to the same 10-track album once a week for a year (not unheard of) they’d make $3.50 for the same album. Still not much for a piece of artwork.

Gigs are the best way to support a band, what with them getting at least 40% of a gate. My $30 ticket gives them at least $12, as much as buying 8 albums

 

[makitango]

It’s worth noting that Apple Pay artists double that of Spotify. I know it’s still a pittance but it’s twice the pittance. You can also directly support them via album sales from the iTunes Store.

In short if you care about the livelihood of your favourite musicians: don’t use Spotify. Oh, and go to as many gigs as you can.

Hard to compare though since Apple pays zero commission.

 

[contacos]

Sometimes I question my hearing cuz I can’t hear a difference. I even tried Tidal HiFi + with optimized 360 Real Audio (supported by my headphones) and to me, it might as well just be regular 320kps on Spotify.

I certainly don’t feel like I am being „emerged“ into a concert hall listening to music as Marketing always wants me to believe haha

 

[truthsteve]

All artists will do is run their album through some digital process to meet the spatial audio requirement. To the user, it will be a worse experience and further cements the gimmick spatial audio is unless mastered appropriately.

or you could read the article

Apple said on Monday that it has “a zero-tolerance policy against deceptive or manipulative content and this also applies to Spatial Audio content”. The streaming service added that its teams have implemented “a quality control process that includes flagging content not delivered in accordance with Apple Music’s Spatial Audio specifications and standards of quality”.

 

[Lord of the Pies]

Although I use Apple Music, Apple devices across the board and AirPods Pro 2 & Max, I have Atmos disabled on everything. It seems to take the 'oomph' out of so many tracks, especially bass-heavy stuff. I found plenty of examples where a song sounded weak and in desperate need of more volume (at max), but with Atmos off, had sufficient volume and the bass thumped like thunder. Especially on AirPods Pro 2.

Dunno why, but for me, Atmos takes the life out of so much of my music.

 

[MacKid]

All artists will do is run their album through some digital process to meet the spatial audio requirement. To the user, it will be a worse experience and further cements the gimmick spatial audio is unless mastered appropriately.

Is that so different from the current state of affairs? Even at launch, Spatial Audio tracks had an obvious set of impressively engineered songs from very big pop names, and the farther you got down the list the more it sounded like typical “surround virtualizer” with the mids pushed far away and the highs artificially crisp.

Although I use Apple Music, Apple devices across the board and AirPods Pro 2 & Max, I have Atmos disabled on everything. It seems to take the 'oomph' out of so many tracks, especially bass-heavy stuff. I found plenty of examples where a song sounded weak and in desperate need of more volume (at max), but with Atmos off, had sufficient volume and the bass thumped like thunder. Especially on AirPods Pro 2.

Dunno why, but for me, Atmos takes the life out of so much of my music.

Exactly this.

 

[MacKid]

You seem to have a low opinion of artists as greedy swindlers.

And while some certainly are just that, many artists are actually very passionate about how their music sounds.

In the end, if the artist you listen to cares more about money than about sound quality, you are likely to get an inferior product.

Maybe artists have integrity, but labels don’t concern themselves with principles, and in the side of the industry I listen to, most songs are sold as singles to labels (e.g. Spinnin Records, Monstercat, UKF, Disciple), and when that happens they usually lose control of where the music shows up — and in what quality.

Billie Eilish’s albums belong to Interscope. Ed Sheeran’s music is property of WMG. Megan Thee Stallion is on Atlantic. Unless you’re listening to a uniquely scrappy and undiscovered band (or a “Taylor’s Version”), the mastering/republishing is most likely out of an artist’s hands.

 

[wanha]

Maybe artists have integrity, but labels don’t concern themselves with principles, and in the side of the industry I listen to, most songs are sold as singles to labels (e.g. Spinnin Records, Monstercat, UKF, Disciple), and when that happens they usually lose control of where the music shows up — and in what quality.

Billie Eilish’s albums belong to Interscope. Ed Sheeran’s music is property of WMG. Megan Thee Stallion is on Atlantic. Unless you’re listening to a uniquely scrappy and undiscovered band (or a “Taylor’s Version”), the mastering/republishing is most likely out of an artist’s hands.

Good points 👍

 

[wanha]

Hard to compare though since Apple pays zero commission.

Oh, but Apple does pay commission in the form of creating, maintaining, developing, and supporting their platforms and developer tools.

If that were easy or cheap, everyone would have created their own.

 

[oldwatery]

The basic problem is that Apple squeeze the life out of Spatial with their OTT compression. Listen to real lossless Spatial ands it’s pretty cool. But Apple could care less about quality in music. Never have…never will.

 

[klasma]

You seem to have a low opinion of artists as greedy swindlers.

It's usually labels doing this, not the artists.

 

[klasma]

While I agree that this would be great, it's hard to see it happening because this compensation model would pay big artists less.

The EU is working on mandating it: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news...sure-just-pay-for-artists-and-fair-algorithms

 

[wanha]

It's usually labels doing this, not the artists.

Agreed.

I feel it's high time for more artists to skip the big labels altogether; going direct-to-market has never been easier, as is marketing your own music.

 

[Rychiar]

Sometimes I question my hearing cuz I can’t hear a difference. I even tried Tidal HiFi + with optimized 360 Real Audio (supported by my headphones) and to me, it might as well just be regular 320kps on Spotify.

I certainly don’t feel like I am being „emerged“ into a concert hall listening to music as Marketing always wants me to believe haha

Listen on an atmos or 5.1 home theater

 

[Lord of the Pies]

Agreed.

I feel it's high time for more artists to skip the big labels altogether; going direct-to-market has never been easier, as is marketing your own music.

Wouldn't that have already happened if it was so easy?

• Labels give artists huge upfront sign-on bonuses
• Recording facilities worth millions
• Also easier and cheaper access to top-notch producers
• Access to other artists from the same label
• Dedicated teams who know how to manage tours
• Fronting the cash for tours
• Access to the best venues
• The ability to pair you up with opening or featured artists whilst on tour
• Unlimited legal protection and preemptive copyright checks
• Not having to deal with publishing across all platforms, hiring designers for album art etc.
• Probably way more stuff

To the average, struggling musician or band that has an opportunity to get signed by a major label, that's the flippin' end game as far as they're concerned.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

It’s worth noting that Apple Pay artists double that of Spotify. I know it’s still a pittance but it’s twice the pittance. You can also directly support them via album sales from the iTunes Store.

In short if you care about the livelihood of your favourite musicians: don’t use Spotify. Oh, and go to as many gigs as you can.

They don't stop peddling nonsense.