ASCAP Runs My Piece on The Future of Songwriting

ASCAP Runs My Piece on The Future of Songwriting

Honored to have ASCAP pick up my piece on tech’s effect on songwriting.

Question: In the streaming economy, do songs have a financial incentive to change what they look and sound like? For instance, Spotify, the clear leader in the streaming space, pays after 30 seconds, so an honest question is:

Why write beyond that? And…
Are you, in fact, screwing yourself six times over for writing a three-minute song (:30 x 6 = 3:00 song)?

A “song disruptor” would just cut everything back to :32 or so, and see huge positive results in his/her own streaming royalty statements. Labels would love it for the same reason (more money).

Thinking ahead: If a critical mass were to adopt song forms of these lengths, would Spotify payouts to creators suddenly rise sixfold? That would probably crush the business model, wouldn’t it? I mean, it can’t make a profit as is, and songs are clocking in at around three minutes. Are streaming services just skating by on all that non-monetized listening time?

Spotify also pays higher rates at around five minutes — because of course it does. It makes the company money to not have to pay out for four entire minutes of a song.

Taking this into account, what is this thing – songwriting – going to look and sound like in the not-too-distant future?

Read more on ASCAP’s web site.

Original post on Cuepoint.