Independent record labels have expressed concerns about Apple's plans to pay more money for songs recorded in Spatial Audio, claiming it will only benefit the biggest companies in the marketplace, reports the Financial Times.
Last week, Apple announced royalty incentives to encourage music artists and record labels to publish tracks in Spatial Audio. Apple said it will pay up to 10% more in royalties for Spatial Audio, which uses Dolby Atmos technology to replicate an in-person music experience with sound coming from various directions around the listener.
Apple has said that over half of Apple Music subscribers use the feature, and that the 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.
However, several independent labels told FT that the new incentive will effectively channel cash towards established megastars and away from other musicians who do not have the resources to compete.
"It's literally going to take the money out of independent labels and their artists, to benefit the biggest companies in the marketplace," said a senior executive at a large independent record company.
"It's going to benefit the biggest player, Universal, because they're the ones with the resources to invest in that. Whereas the independent sector . . . we've found it hard to justify the expense of creating spatial masters . . . we're not in the business of chucking money just because Apple is saying you should be spending money on this."
Another independent label told FT that the new deal will badly impact its revenues.
Producing music in Spatial Audio is not cheap. Executives say it costs an extra $1,000 per song, or roughly $10,000 per album, and going back to remaster older tracks can double the costs. Some record executives have also questioned the artistic value of Spatial Audio, with one executive likening it to "hanging a digital 3D version of the 'Mona Lisa' and expecting Louvre patrons to prefer it."
Indie labels say they hope to work with Apple to make changes to the new policy. If those negotiations fail, they would explore legal or regulatory options, said people familiar with the matter who spoke to FT.
Top Rated Comments
This boils down to you (a business) spending more time, effort, and money to get a higher reward. Just because that might be easier for larger labels (economies of scale) and they might see a benefit, doesn't mean that somehow hurts the smaller labels.
This is like someone who does not work overtime hours complaining that they're not getting paid overtime when other people working overtime are getting paid overtime. Something requires more time and effort (and possibly money) and Apple is providing higher compensation for that.
On the other hand, it is possible that long-term smaller labels might lose artists, if the artists are getting more money from the larger labels due to Spatial Audio. However, indie labels tend to pay artists better than the large labels, so this is unlikely to be an issue. That is unless the artist specifically wants tracks in Spatial Audio. In that case, the indie label could offer lower royalties for that artist due to the extra sound engineering costs.
It's a business. Figure it out.
Almost no recordings are legitimately mixed for these new Spatial Audio formats. A very, very small minority in the grand scheme of what is actually advertised and on offer. And in the end, the vast majority of it is still only listened to by consumers on stereo equipment anyway, in the end achieving nothing that couldn’t also have been achieved *better* by a standard, competently made stereo mix.
This is by and large a return to the “duophonic” / “electronically reprocessed” fake stereo records that were pushed on us in the 60’s. Time is a flat circle.
Oh please. So many victims in the world now. Apple has forwarded a technology that many people like, and has offered an incentive to artists to produce it. How is that incentive now an obligation to Apple? You want government to now dictate this aspect of business too?
Indie artists can't afford to record in the most expensive studios, can't pay the best session musicians, can't hire the best producers...should that all be legislated too?
This very whining attitude is very anti-indie, actually.
I mean, just makes music people love to listen. Problem solved. ??♂️