FIFA World Cup 2026

[Ram Pant]

Ignoring the 'sticky' issue, are you not allowed satellite dishes in The Netherlands?

We are but they aren't a "thing", or weren't until the recent influx of Eastern Bloc labour over the past 10 to 15 years. They love their satellite dishes.

I could probably get ITV via satellite but I have grave doubts I would even be allowed to pay the huge amounts wanted by Sky, TNT et al for their services.

[Ram Pant]

Even at 15K to 20K indoor venues, if you're at the back the artists are mere dots. Larger dots than from the back of a 60L stadium but still dots.

1986, Feijenoord stadium. Decent seats. Unknown Irish rock band on first. They were good. Next up, the Pretenders. The stadium was full but 3/4 had their backs to the stage, chatting away, chigging on their beers, not interested in what was going on on the stage as they'd all come for the headline act. In no time at all, Chrissie had the entire stadium in her hand. Brilliant performance. Next up the headliner, U2. Absolute chuffin' garbage. The 5 people I was with all thought it was brilliant and said so in the car on the way back to Amsterdam. I disagreed and told them everything that had been poor in the performance. The following Thursday, the new issue of Nieuw Revu came out and 'er indoors bought a copy to read the music critic's view on the show. She came homem showed me the article and asked if I'd written the article. Every single thing I'd mentioned was im there. For me, a crap U2 took some of the shine off an outstanding Pretenders concert. I don't get caughht up in the "hysteria", it's the music I'm there for and I do get carried away by the quality of the music. Dancers, light shows, whatever... all well and good but if the music's crap then the music's crap.

[Andy_Faber]

As bad if not worse than the live event business model (Promoter and artiste extort from punter) is the music streaming model, where Streaming entity (equiv to promoter) and punter extort from the artiste. Spotify and the like pay an absolute pittance to the artistes that they need to sustain their business model and I refuse to use them, if I like a band or artiste I'll buy a physical copy (usually vinyl) of their music (most of which these days come with a free or heavily discounted download code anyway, not of interest to me but I know people that use them) and bugger the cost which is usually quite high due to low production runs. I tried to explain the economics of it to a bunch of twenty-somethings (Gen z's?) a few years ago and those who understood basically weren't bothered that all but the big acts get insufficient to sustain themselves. Being capitalist about that situation, I guess they could stop being musicians and get a proper job

[swaledale]

As bad if not worse than the live event business model (Promoter and artiste extort from punter) is the music streaming model, where Streaming entity (equiv to promoter) and punter extort from the artiste. Spotify and the like pay an absolute pittance to the artistes that they need to sustain their business model and I refuse to use them, if I like a band or artiste I'll buy a physical copy (usually vinyl) of their music (most of which these days come with a free or heavily discounted download code anyway, not of interest to me but I know people that use them) and bugger the cost which is usually quite high due to low production runs. I tried to explain the economics of it to a bunch of twenty-somethings (Gen z's?) a few years ago and those who understood basically weren't bothered that all but the big acts get insufficient to sustain themselves. Being capitalist about that situation, I guess they could stop being musicians and get a proper job

I am in full agreement with that, refuse to use spotify, never have and never will. I do buy downloads direct from the artists, but my preference is Cd or vinyl. There are so many talented artists out there who haven't a hope in hell of making enough to sustain themselves.

[ramAnag]

I am in full agreement with that, refuse to use spotify, never have and never will. I do buy downloads direct from the artists, but my preference is Cd or vinyl. There are so many talented artists out there who haven't a hope in hell of making enough to sustain themselves.

I feel I need clarification on this one from either yourself, Andy or both. I have an extensive collection of both vinyl and CDs but cannot remember the last time I bought either.
I use Spotify a lot, not least because I listen to a lot of music when driving via my phone and because it provides instant access to otherwise mystery tracks that may appear in soundtracks etc.

Didn’t realise it is such a ‘bad’ thing to do, but - serious question - the notable likes of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell apart,
most major artists have no hesitation in linking themselves with Spotify and the vast majority of smaller performers (largely in the 500-700 GBP per performance bracket) I come into contact with via Live and Local also seem to happily advertise their wares via Spotify.

I may be being naive about this, but don’t up and coming artists benefit greatly from the exposure provided by Spotify?

[Ram Pant]

I feel I need clarification on this one from either yourself, Andy or both. I have an extensive collection of both vinyl and CDs but cannot remember the last time I bought either.
I use Spotify a lot, not least because I listen to a lot of music when driving via my phone and because it provides instant access to otherwise mystery tracks that may appear in soundtracks etc.

Didn’t realise it is such a ‘bad’ thing to do, but - serious question - the notable likes of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell apart,
most major artists have no hesitation in linking themselves with Spotify and the vast majority of smaller performers (largely in the 500-700 GBP per performance bracket) I come into contact with via Live and Local also seem to happily advertise their wares via Spotify.

I may be being naive about this, but don’t up and coming artists benefit greatly from the exposure provided by Spotify?

Not greatly, financially from Spotify streams. It might up their exposure a little but that may not necessarily see them selling more records/CDs, merchandise or get more booking or larger payouts from those bookings.

Spotify pays roughly $3,000 to $5,000 for 1 million streams, based on an average rate of $0.003 to $0.005 per stream, but the actual artist payout varies wildly due to label deals, distribution cuts, listener location, and user type (free/premium). Artists usually get a fraction of this total pool after splits with distributors, publishers, and labels, with independent artists earning more than those on major labels. (Source AI)

[ramAnag]

Not greatly, financially from Spotify streams. It might up their exposure a little but that may not necessarily see them selling more records/CDs, merchandise or get more booking or larger payouts from those bookings.

Spotify pays roughly $3,000 to $5,000 for 1 million streams, based on an average rate of $0.003 to $0.005 per stream, but the actual artist payout varies wildly due to label deals, distribution cuts, listener location, and user type (free/premium). Artists usually get a fraction of this total pool after splits with distributors, publishers, and labels, with independent artists earning more than those on major labels. (Source AI)

I’m not disagreeing MA. I understand that Spotify exposure doesn’t ‘necessarily’ see them selling more records/CDs but isn’t that the same with all exposure? Even radio and TV exposure doesn’t guarantee sales.

Honestly don’t fully understand the implications of your second paragraph because I have no knowledge of the expected fee per stream or the variations. It sounds tiny, but it isn’t unique to the music industry. For instance I’ve written a couple of books in the last decade or so. The first made a small profit and the second (different genre/different name) a not quite so small loss, largely because of the fees taken by the publisher and distributor.

That’s just how it is. Until an artiste/writer/artist has ‘made it’ then the rewards will be small, but equally when our small village group selects our next act exposure on Spotify can only help.

Out of interest is there a more ‘acceptable’ alternative to Spotify?

[Geoff Parkstone]

As bad if not worse than the live event business model (Promoter and artiste extort from punter) is the music streaming model, where Streaming entity (equiv to promoter) and punter extort from the artiste. Spotify and the like pay an absolute pittance to the artistes that they need to sustain their business model and I refuse to use them, if I like a band or artiste I'll buy a physical copy (usually vinyl) of their music (most of which these days come with a free or heavily discounted download code anyway, not of interest to me but I know people that use them) and bugger the cost which is usually quite high due to low production runs. I tried to explain the economics of it to a bunch of twenty-somethings (Gen z's?) a few years ago and those who understood basically weren't bothered that all but the big acts get insufficient to sustain themselves. Being capitalist about that situation, I guess they could stop being musicians and get a proper job

So it seems like there's a limited supply of ?45 tickets available for world cup for each team qualified

[swaledale]

So it seems like there's a limited supply of ?45 tickets available for world cup for each team qualified

I belive in the first release its 8,000?

[Ram Pant]

I belive in the first release its 8,000?

I read 10% of the allocation per team. So, if an FA has 4K tickets for a game, then 400 will be at 45GBP. The rest will be the already advertised extortionate price.