Radiohead's Thom Yorke Pulls Albums From Spotify In Protest of Low Royalties 301
First time accepted submitter rpopescu writes "Thom Yorke of Radiohead fame has pulled his solo album 'Eraser' (as well as music made as Atoms for Peace) from the music streaming service Spotify, as a protest at how much it pays the artists. Quote: '"Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system."'"
Everything in its right place (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to every other news outlet it came to this two days ago and was reported back then as well, but better late than never I guess.
Re:Everything in its right place (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No surprises, Before our very eyes Spotify are destroying the music industry. I Reckoner lot of what Thom says here is like all I need to hear on the music industry. I mean anyone can play Guitar, but what gives Spotify the rights to Creep around grabbing all the Dollars and Cents. Hail to the thief is what they say, call the Karma police and arrest Spotify I say! Spotify and their ilk are a bunch of High and Dry Thiefs. We should Stop Whispering and Start Shouting from the hilltops. Just the Million Dollar
Reward the artist (Score:5, Insightful)
Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.
This is what you get when you mess with us (Score:2)
Re:This is what you get when you mess with us (Score:5, Interesting)
From memory Radiohead and NIN have both offered albums, available online where you can pay what you want for them, and both walked away with over $1million.
Unless there's some crazy contract shenanigans going on, I really don't see why some of the bigger artists don't pull a Valve and create their own content delivery platform that is fair for the artist, fair for the consumer and criticism free.
Re:This is what you get when you mess with us (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is what you get when you mess with us (Score:5, Interesting)
Like United Artists Corporation [wikipedia.org], now part of MGM.
By which I mean to say that endeavors that start like this wind up being "captured" over time by industry managers anyway. To keep that from happening you'd need some kind of clever artist-ownership arrangement, maybe a bit like the Vanguard Group or TIAA-CREF.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is what you get when you mess with us (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but in the case of the two mentioned, the members of Radiohead and Trent Reznor are all pretty adept at studio work, so there's a lot less spent hiring sound guys, producers, etc, when you can do it yourself. If you've got the money (which they do), then time/labor isn't really an issue either since you can rely on saved cash to get by while you do it your way. Not saying this will always be the case, but generally, if you can do it yourself at a fraction of the cost you would face going through an agency, you'd probably walk off in the black no problem (assuming too that your music is good and you can find a fanbase).
Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Insightful)
There is more there then just money, the recording industry wants to keeps it monopoly on music. They are branching out into other countries to rob those artists of there copyrights. If you sign a deal you lose the right to control your own music, companies can re-release songs, or do whatever they want with the music. Obviously this has been talked about already, but they do not want artists to create and actually own there own music, they continue to go after artists with the DMCA take down. Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??
The merch, profits I believe still go to record companies, but your right, money artists make from concerts is there source of revenue. Some bands are not very ggod and because they had a couple of hits (at least in the states) they act as if they reinvented music and are god.
Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??
They are busy protecting our civil liberties and trying to prevent our country from turning into a police state. Some millionaires making tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the greed of their corporate owners may not be "just" but I'm betting it's not a real high priority for the EFF.
Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??
They are busy protecting our civil liberties and trying to prevent our country from turning into a police state. Some millionaires making tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the greed of their corporate owners may not be "just" but I'm betting it's not a real high priority for the EFF.
And there's a huge problem with precisely this type of thinking. Bands like Radiohead are trying extremely hard to "do the right thing" - i.e. what they consider fair to themselves and to their audience. We, the listeners, should be trying to prop them up instead of calling sour grapes on them because they happen to be millionaires or whatever. If you like Joe No-Name band that has sold all of 50 albums so far, good for you.
Do remember though that your (and my) media consumption largely consists of authors, bands, movie directors, and artists that have attained some level of commercial success. It is really sad to see initiatives like Radiohead's honor based payment scheme - not be wildly successful. I would actually have loved to see Radiohead make 10 times the money from this experiment than they would have from the record label. Just imagine the message that would have sent - not just to Radiohead but to every other artist and even to us.
Honestly, if Radiohead makes a hundred mil instead of ten mil, I wish him all the very best. Thom Yorke's talent, consistency, and hard work deserves all the money he can get. The concept of money is completely nonsensical when it comes to creative works anyway. Heck, even manufactured products nowadays cost what they cost because of factors that have little to do with their manufacturing cost.
But at the very least, if someone is doing good work in a creative field, they should at least have some level of trust in the fact that they can circumvent the established system with its attendant bloodsucking leeches, and still feel like they are getting the same level of respect, exposure, and money. In fact, it should be a lot more.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Insightful)
Musicians? That's a hobby, not a profession. If they want to get paid, let them sell t-shirts. Heh heh you'd never catch me dead wearing one of those, but maybe some get-a-lifers would. BTW I downloaded some of their songs and most of them suck. They should THANK ME and PAY ME for listening to that crap they call music. If they recorded something worthwhile I might buy a CD, in fact I did that once seven years ago.
- typical Slashdot post
Re: (Score:3)
I'll have you know that this is so typical I thought you were serious until I got to the end.
Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Interesting)
I will say no to that for 2 reasons.
First, there is music that I want to listen to that does not travel well. Sometimes the original artist is dead. Sometimes, like “Einstein on the Beach” – is a 5 hour beast which requires symphony, singers, narrator, choir, and dances. It’s done about once every 10 years or so. I worked with the tour manager. Kind of fascinating on how much work it took for a performance.
Back to the point. Some things travel better than other. It is easier to tour with a girl and a guitar then to tour with a four piece band, which is easier to tour then something that has a brass section.
Second I live in fly over land so shows are far and few between. And when I want to spend my money I want to spend it on music – not another t-shirt – I have too many already.
The problem is that the internet has shifted more power to the consumers and away from the producers – be they artists or record companies. Complaining that the record companies are taking a too large slice of the pie does not address the issue of the shrinking pie.
Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem? In our economic system, fewer and fewer transactions exist where the balance of power favors the consumer. The world has been on a "supply-side" fantasy for thirty years, and it has not gone well for most people.
But artists have complete control over the pricing and over which distribution channels they choose to use. Once the last nails are in the coffin of the entertainment/industrial complex, you'll see that happen, and it will be better for all artists except the ones without talent at the top of the food chain.
Thom Yorke has benefited greatly from the mainstream music industry. Now that he's on the downward slope of his career, he decides that he doesn't like how things are done any more. That's fine. I buy a lot of music that I've first heard on Spotify. If Thom doesn't want to be part of that any more, it's his choice.
Re: (Score:3)
I tend to prefer the consumer over the producer, but I am aware that market structure is important. Starve the producers of all profits and they will collapse.
So Artist are in complete control? So what? 100% of nothing is still nothing. It’s not that bad but take a look at the industry.
There are fewer major acts (which I know is subjective, but I go hard numbers) and profits are getting concentrated in fewer, older acts. It is easier to sell a $400 ticket with nostalgia to a middle age affluen
Re: (Score:3)
Saying t-shirts and live concerts is not the answer is not saying Spotify is the answer.
Look up economic surplus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_surplus [wikipedia.org]
Back in the 80s, selling physical CDs with 1 or 2 good songs for $15 was a great way to extract money from the consumers – maximizing producer surplus going to artists, record companies, and distributors. That changed - You may say it was because of iTunes or Spotify – I say internet and technology - but the result is the same - producer s
Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Insightful)
Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.
Although I agree with you wholeheartedly and try to support my favorite artists as much as I can, this is nowhere near as practical for most of the world as one might first think.
One of my closest friends is a mad Dave Matthews Band fan and has been fortunate enough to attend at least four DMB gigs over the past twelve months. I'm sure Dave Matthews and my friend are both pleased as punch about this setup. My favorite artists include amongst others David Bowie and Tom Waits. I live in Japan. Go on and have a guess how many gigs either of them have put on in Japan in the past 12 months.
Now guess how many gigs either of them have put on here in Japan in the past 12 years.
Hint: you could have a nasty accident with a bandsaw and still count them on one hand. Now I'm not faulting the artists or their manager or anybody. That's life unfortunately. Even if my tastes were more mainstream, I still wouldn't come close to being able to see as many concerts as most Americans. I don't see Rihanna or Jay Z or Radiohead hosting many concerts here either. Radiohead hasn't toured here since 1994!
I've seen many of my favorite artists both here and overseas and almost without exception I've gone out of my way to get great (read: expensive) seats because I see great value for money in spending hundreds of dollars in seeing my favorite artists perform live. It's unfortunate for both me and the artists I would be willing to support that I don't live in the continental US or mainland Europe where most concerts seem to be held.
Re: (Score:2)
Now guess how many gigs either of them have put on here in Japan in the past 12 years.
David Bowie must not need your money very much then.
It's unfortunate for both me and the artists I would be willing to support that I don't live in the continental US or mainland Europe where most concerts seem to be held.
It's not unfortunate for the artists. They are doing well enough that they can leave money on the table by not performing in your country. Good for them, you don't have to feel sorry for them. Save yo
Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I've always heard that Tom Waits was Big in Japan.
Weird, i always thought Alphaville was Big in Japan.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This, exactly. This is precisely what pisses me off about the entertainment industry in general. The vast majority of entertainment "artists" who are primarily in it for money seem to think they are entitled to get paid just because they're entertainment artists, and that they should get a free pass on reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Interesting)
"The market" - or at least the free market - doesn't really apply to music. First, the government creates a new kind of property and then gives a person (or corporation) monopoly rights to it. If you could still call it a free market at that point, then the government legislates prices for certain kinds of "performances", like radio or internet radio play (which for some reason have different rates). Once that happens, the supplier is totally written out of the equation. Spotify is still a little bit markety, in that they are not a "radio station" and are instead playing stuff on-demand so they still have to negotiate with the rights holders. So your comment has some truth to it, but Spotify has to compete against Pandora (and regular radio, for that matter), who pay the government-mandated rate. That is going to seriously distort Spotify's ability to arrive at a true "market" price for recorded music, which even with government support is very close to zero.
My artist friend hates Spotify. He'd rather get zero dollars from them than $5000, because he deems the deal to be "unfair". Um, OK. I'd take the "free" $5000, myself. It's not like Spotify is terribly profitable, laughing it's way to the bank.
Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Insightful)
People only have so much money to spend and they are going to spend even less on that on extreme luxury items like entertainment. The fact that people don't have an infinite amount of money to spend on pop music is totally a 1st world problem.
The real problem here is that you've got artists that aren't too bright about anything that isn't music having their heads filled with nonsense by media executives. They start drinking their own kool-aid after awhile.
It's far more likely that the explosion of digital media of all kinds has devalued ALL forms of entertainment. If you think you can get a bigger payday from someone else then you're probably just kidding yourself.
You have to compete against EVERYTHING that can distract your customer. This includes freebie tablet games and LOLCats.
It's not 1950 any more.
Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Interesting)
The record companies are setting the price. They hold an 18% share [guardian.co.uk] in Spotify. Still, Spotify is the only legal way for me to listen to music without buying shitloads of even more expensive albums each month. If artists want money from me directly, they need to skip the middle man.
Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Interesting)
Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.
This.
I read an interview with Mick Jagger on the BBC website a few years ago and the BBC interviewer asked him about MP3 and digital downloads, figuring that Mick would likely be a stuffy old guy who would rail about how MP3s were killing music and so. Was the interviewer ever mistaken! Mick stated that for the majority of his career the Stones had actually not made all that much money from recordings. He said that there were exceptions in the late 80s into the 90s when labels actually were paying the artists a lot of money, but from his perspective MP3s hadn't changed anything and the Stones made their real money off touring. He said he had no problem with digital downloads. In fact, the Stones long ago got on iTunes and they offer special downloads of selected old concerts on a website they run. Sadly, it's somewhat younger artists like U2 who just do not get it at all and continue to bitch about how things are not what they once were.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems like as good a time as any to post Steve Albini's article on the topic: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17 [negativland.com]
Re:Lame Copout (Score:5, Insightful)
> I'm so tired of reading "I help myself to all their stuff but I'll buy their merch". Quit being a freeloader.
"Stop listening to the radio you thieving scum!"
Pay the artists? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this guy nuts? Who gets paid for their work? Just steal it from TPB or someplace else.
Pfft. Getting paid for their work. How quaint. Move into the 21st century!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay the artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lazy fucks can tour if they want to earn some dosh from their music.
Pfft. Getting paid for life for 2 weeks' work. How quaint. Move into the 21st century!
Re: (Score:3)
Which two weeks? Do you think artists just vomit out tunes in the studio? Maybe you're listening to the wrong music.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pay the artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like saying Usain Bolt gets paid for running for 10 seconds!
Re:Pay the artists? (Score:4)
No kidding! The creators of Spotify need to get a real job!
Startups are the new business model (Score:2)
Note to musicians. Here is a possible business model.
1. Set up a retarded hipster startup - something like http://www.hellolamppost.co.uk/ [hellolamppost.co.uk]
2. Get dumb people to fund you (if you're struggling, maybe you need to dumb down your concept a notch or two)
3. Pay yourself that money and do what you really want instead
4. Wait for the world to lose interest in your startup, fold, and GOTO 1
Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (Score:5, Informative)
I believe since the graphic was made, there has been extensive lobbying for royalties per play to be reduced from the figures shown in this picture. There's something to the original musician's case if it takes more than 4 million plays per month to get to one individual's *minimum wage* of $1160 per month (and that's with the *generous* current pay per play rate).
Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be interested to see how much Spotify gets out of all this on average. Are they greedy or are they not charging us enough? If a popular artist's work gets, say, half its plays through Spotify, how much would Spotify have to charge us to provide a decent income to the artist?
By the way, that graph seems to be comparing CDs against single songs, if I'm reading it right. Also, the retail royalty figure is deceptive, as this is rarely an $x per CD deal. Usually yo
Re: (Score:2)
don't need a label though..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I still don't see what the problem is. Spotify (et al) have done their math and decided that's what they will pay. If an author doesn't like it, nobody is forcing him to sell his songs to Spotify.
Making songs today doesn't pay as much as they expected? Well, that's so bad, they can surely find another job and leave music to people who do it because they love it.
If a miracle killed every single person involved in the music industry and all existing music records, I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing music again b
Re: (Score:2)
Massive sense of entitlement & missing perspec (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically I think that's pretty good, isn't it? Write some songs, receive residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life. Win win.
What none of these reports seem to show is any perspective on how much the delivery service (Pandora/Spotify) is making. (Raising IPO capital isn't exactly making a profit..)
If (without creative accounting) they're breaking even, then the artists are getting paid too much.
If they're running at a loss, then the artists are definitely getting paid too much.
If they're reaping in huge profits then the artists aren't getting paid enough.
That kind of transparency isn't available (or I haven't seen it).
Either way I'd quite like $5000 for work I did last year.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most professional musicians do work all year round. Most of them aren't superstars, and losing all of their album income to streaming would be enough to force them into a desk job.
Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (Score:4, Insightful)
When you're trying to force your way as a supplier into an industry where supply already vastly exceeds demand, you should expect that to happen.
As a poster above indicated, if you could wipe all contemporary professional musicians and their music off the face of the earth, we'd still have more new music tomorrow. People make music because they love to make music, and that will always be the case. You actually don't have to have paid professionals to supply it. Much of the stuff produced by the paid professionals isn't even that good, and gets surpassed in quality by no-name indie bands a thousand times every week.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW: I know many musicians (I live near Austin) who play and record professionally, and most of them DO have other jobs. Many are quite good, too. I've seen some of the most amazing and talented musicians playing around a campfire on my ranch. But they make maybe a couple hundred playing in clubs a couple nights a week, with the occasional big gig (usually weddings or other events) where they'll maybe clear a grand.
It's just 1% of musicians that actually make enough to live on, and 1% of that 1% that ma
Re: (Score:2)
If Spotify was purely supplementary income that'd be accurate, but many people have stopped buying music in favour of buying streaming subscriptions, or simply putting up with adverts; if Spotify is replacing your album and singles income, then depending on how much your label is shafting you it could be quite a pay cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Playing an album on the Spotify app, and playing an album off my MP3 library, are essentially identical from a user experience (moreso if I have Spotify Premium and have the album cached locally). Leaving the radio on all day and hoping the tracks I want to hear will be played is very different.
Re: (Score:2)
Well quite honestly nowadays you can leave the radio on and be fairly certain that the song you want to be played will come on within the next 30-40 minutes... as long as what you want to hear is one of the current top 15 songs or so for the genre of the station in question.
It was bad enough when I was young, but now it's to the point where the same song will be played multiple times per hour, like the stations just have a "greatest hits of summer 2013" cd on repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point. Radio ate into boy band sales more than it ate into indie or obscure records, levelling the playing field. Spotify cuts into both equally.
Re: (Score:2)
(And to complete the thought, listening to an FM radio is so different that listening to the album that I will buy the album regardless. I might not, however, buy a CD if I can get it on demand from Spotify for free.)
Re: (Score:2)
Spotify limited you to 10 plays per track for a while back there. They rescinded that because it was unpopular with users.
Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (Score:4, Interesting)
By "less than $5000" they don't mean "most make about $5000." A handful make $5000, a bunch make $500, the rest make $5 to $50. So enjoy the juicy hamburger you just bought with your earnings from last year.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that the artist knocks out a few tunes over the weekend, and have no other costs. Mostly music takes a lot more effort, time and money to produce than that -- the stuff you want to listen to at least.
Re: (Score:3)
You're assuming that the artist knocks out a few tunes over the weekend, and have no other costs. Mostly music takes a lot more effort, time and money to produce than that -- the stuff you want to listen to at least.
I think he was imagining that musicians get a good fixed monthly salary that is related to the quality of their work (like I do), and on top of that get thousands and thousands every year after that for doing nothing (unlike me).
And that's wrong on two accounts: One, they don't get a fixed amount of money for their work. And second, if someone creates music this year and next year so many people buy it that he makes $5,000, then his music must have been bloody good in the first place, so he fully deserve
Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically I think that's pretty good, isn't it? Write some songs, receive residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life. Win win.
I think there are two issues with this kind of logic.
The first is counter to your argument - the residual income is essentially a big part of the total compensation. When I get paid at work to do a job, I get paid the full value of the job. I don't really have an expectation of residual income. Now imagine that I'm a software developer and I get paid a share of productivity savings over time - I get paid $10k up-front for six months of work, but then I get 30% of any efficiencies the company that bought the software realizes as a result of using my software. Then the company uses accounting games to undermeasure the savings. In a situation like this the residual income was promised as the major component of the total compensation.
On the other hand, I think that a statement that 90% of artists make less than $5000/yr is very misleading because of the way the payments tend to be distributed. With digital distribution there really is no barrier to getting your item listed. That means that I can probably play a few bars on a kazoo and put it up for sale, and maybe sell a few copies to relatives if I'm lucky. When the same service sells that alongside of a top-10 hit I don't think you can really talk about averages in any kind of meaningful way.
The Music Industry must Die! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that the existing music business establishment is trying to devise an internet business models that will fuck over music creative types until the end of time.
Open source music store (Score:2)
Is there not an online place where artists can just produce and sell music without the MAFIAA being involved? If so, why are not more musicians using it?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need a record label to make your music available on Spotify?
Re: (Score:3)
technically no. but you can't directly commit music to spotify, you need to use a content service.
http://www.merlinnetwork.org/joining/ [merlinnetwork.org]
plenty of very indie stuff on spotify.. for shits'n'giggles search c64 and amiga on there.
anyone can be a "label" nowadays too. doesn't take anything.
be your own label (Score:2)
Spotify's retort (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/spotify-responds-to-thom-yorke-and-nigel-godrich-criticism/055383 [musicweek.com]
Doesn't seem so bad. I think Thom Yorke is missing a step... spotify pays the LABELS. The LABELS obviously decided the royalties from spotify are enough... Perhaps the labels aren't paying artists enough...
Switch to Pay What You Want (Score:3)
Some music groups have switched to Pay What You Want for a digital copy (mp3 download) of their album.
I bet they will have much more money than with any other distribution model.
For example, Psygnosis band started with this model, along with other merch and bonuses for those who want extra.
Even if I'm not a big fan, I paid a whooping 8€ for their album, digital copy, because I was happy to have it DRM free, and to be trusted by the band which feels confident that their listeners will pay a fair price.
All this money goes to the band, this is at least three times what they could get with physical sales.
Re: (Score:3)
Some music groups have switched to Pay What You Want for a digital copy (mp3 download) of their album.
I bet they will have much more money than with any other distribution model.
For example, Psygnosis band started with this model, along with other merch and bonuses for those who want extra.
Even if I'm not a big fan, I paid a whooping 8€ for their album, digital copy, because I was happy to have it DRM free, and to be trusted by the band which feels confident that their listeners will pay a fair price.
All this money goes to the band, this is at least three times what they could get with physical sales.
I'm fairly sure Thom Yorke knows all about pay what you want [time.com], and How much he's likely to make [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the refs, I forgot that...
So... do you also know why did they not carry on with this model ?
Unbelievable how Spotify replies (Score:3)
The reply from Spotify:
"Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music," a company spokesperson said today. "We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base and make a living from the music we all love. Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid US$500M to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach US$1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music. We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers."
Unbelievable how they respond with corporate drivel. For me, this is the sign that no real human is at the helm and I'd rather keep downloading than give money to this faceless entity.
RH gets NOTHING for radio play (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the WSJ:
"In the United States...radio companies pay only songwriters and music publishers, not record companies. The system, dating back almost a century, is based on the idea that radio play has enough promotional value for performers that they do not also need to be paid royalties."
Yes, that's right - the actual performance of the song gets them NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, not one thin dime. So if Clear Channel plays a Radiohead song on 200 radio stations 100 times in a month reaching (on average) 40,000 listeners per station, that's 800 Million listener-plays for absolutely $zero.
Remind me again why RadioHead is getting such a raw deal at $1000/4M plays, but $0 is just fine?
Re: (Score:3)
A band like Radiohead write their own songs; so according to what you wrote, wouldn't they be getting paid as songwriters?
Re: (Score:3)
only if your songs are played on the radio, it's tracked, and a group like ASCAP or BMI is actively seeking to enforce payments to you.
Infinitely more (Score:3)
I love radiohead (Score:3)
Re:Nice graph (Score:5, Interesting)
Spotify pays up. It's the labels that aren't sharing.
Internet streaming services shouldn't be expected to pay any more per head than any other form of "broadcast" out there. If you put all of this stuff out of business, you will have NO ONE to help promote the talent.
You'll be trapped in a vaccuum where no one can here you b*tch and moan and whine.
Re: (Score:3)
With the advent of the the internet, and convenient social networking, word of mouth is a pretty good way of "promoting talent". Nobody really needs publishers any more, as long as they're good.
I use Spotify because it's very convenient, and legal to boot. I've bought a few songs/albums on Bandcamp even since I started using Spotify though, from seeing songs posted up by friends, or in groups on Facebook.
Re:Nice graph (Score:4, Informative)
Spotify does not pay up. Labels an artists get about a 5:1 split of the payment from both iTunes and Spotify, but Spotify's payment per play is five hundred times smaller than iTunes payment per purchase. Unless each of your listeners hits that Spotify play button five hundred times, you don't make the same money by streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly my point. iTunes rates are deplorable but a musician could count on making a few cents per person who liked their record enough to listen at home; now that listener has to be enthusiastic enough to listen to that track eight times a day for two months for the artist to make the same pittance. Revenues will go down for almost all artists, and the ones that aren't superstars - who don't have superfans listening to their single five hundred times - will get absolutely obliterated.
Re: (Score:2)
From my perspective as a user they're interchangable. If one can replace the other as the way I listen to music, a comparison seems reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
For those catchy songs and the artists that made them it's good news. For the guys who made that concept album you only played four times but love deeply, it's the end of the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Which competitors? When it stepped onto the market the only equivalent I could see in the UK was Last.fm's premium service.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike Spotify, radio didn't displace album sales; radio doesn't let me cue up whatever track I want, on demand.
Re:Misinformed, a shame (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike Spotify, radio didn't displace album sales; radio doesn't let me cue up whatever track I want, on demand.
radio also paid a lot to a small circle. a circle he was part of, but now nobody gives a shit so he is trying to be all "new artist"... it ends up being the natural progression that more artists are paid - but each is paid less and he is seemingly arguing this is unfair to new artists, while the only thing unfair to new artists in this new system is the labels and they were unfair to new artists before as well... if anything he should be promoting that you don't need a label. this only affects few people on the top though at all.. like 0.1% of performing artists are actually affected("ug" is _huge_ compared to top 40).
Re: (Score:2)
How does it only affect a few people on top? Suppose I'm in a garage band selling 150 copies of a 12-track album every month through iTunes, to people who've seen me play live. To make the same amount on Spotify I need to have 900,000 listens* per month. That's probably not going to happen.
*Spotify pays about 1/500 per play what iTunes does per purchase. Multiply the 500 plays you need, by 12 tracks, and by 150 copies.
Re: (Score:2)
(One million Spotify listens - earning you the same income as selling 150 CDs - is a lofty enough target that Pink Floyd used it as a publicity stunt.)
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/121824-pink-floyd-catalogue-added-to-spotify-after-1-million-plays-of-wish-you-were-here [pocket-lint.com]
Re:Just Listen on Youtube (Score:5, Interesting)
Spotify's "basic" quality is Q5 Vorbis, which is roughly equivalent to VBR mp3 in the 192kbps range (only with better handling of edge cases than mp3). i.e. virtually transparent to most listeners on most equipment. Spotify's premium quality is Q9 vorbis, which is, well, complete overkill. Even more pointless than 320kbps cbr mp3.
Youtube's "basic" quality is shit. Youtube's premium quality is... is there even such a thing?
Don't misunderstand me, I find out about songs often though youtube, but then I go load the tune up on spotify to actually enjoy the music.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be having difficulties understanding the concept of protest.
it's not royalties artists put their stuff on streaming services.. it's for pr. this guy didn't get enough plays on spotify so he dropped it to get some pr. you have to remember just who this guy is. the problem for him is that nobody gives a shit about his solo music, I hadn't even heard that he had a solo album. and the guts to say that he is doing this for new artists, hah.
if you spread the royalties and plays to 10 000 artists.. of course it's not that much that any single artist is going to get. the "p
Re: (Score:2)
People who have spent a long time in an institution naturally want to protect the status quo. These big, famous musicians might not honestly care about money, but they certainly have had their egos stroked and owe their entire livelihoods to the way the music business works (or worked in the 90s). It is impossible to separate them from what they grew up in, even if they profess to hate it. (See also, the US Senate or the British Monarchy.)
Re: (Score:2)