Spotify CEO: Musicians Can No Longer Release Music Only 'Once Every 3-4 Years' (thefader.com) 105
In a recent interview with Music Ally, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek denied criticisms that Spotify pays insufficient royalties to artists, and insisted that the role of the musician had changed in today's "future landscape." The FADER reports: Ek claimed that a "narrative fallacy" had been created and caused music fans to believe that Spotify doesn't pay musicians enough for streams of their music. "Some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape," Ek said, "where you can't record music once every three to four years and think that's going to be enough." What is required from successful musicians, Ek insisted, is a deeper, more consistent, and prolonged commitment than in the past. "The artists today that are making it realize that it's about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans."
Ek alleged that artists have said "many times" in private that they are happy with their royalties from Spotify, and said that he believes that musicians who cannot make a living may not be in step with modern standards. "I feel, really, that the ones that aren't doing well in streaming are predominantly people who want to release music the way it used to be released," Ek said.
Ek alleged that artists have said "many times" in private that they are happy with their royalties from Spotify, and said that he believes that musicians who cannot make a living may not be in step with modern standards. "I feel, really, that the ones that aren't doing well in streaming are predominantly people who want to release music the way it used to be released," Ek said.
Spotify is getting too big, mouthed too. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree here conceptually. Many great albums took years to make. Better one excellent album than five more of the same. Some musicians really need to regenerate, get the inspiration or the muse, whatever you want to call it. Or to create plenty stuff to select the best from to publish.
Of course there are exceptions to any rule, but i don't buy this continues stream argument. Spotify confuses continues stream of revenue with continues inspiration and production. If music is good, i might listen it for years. Same stuff over and over again or with intervals, while ignoring other work by same artists even if i'm familiar with it. Quality comes over quantity.
But how are they wrong re: earning money? (Score:1)
I don't agree here conceptually. Many great albums took years to make
The thing is, both what you say and what Spotify says can both be true.
If you want excellent albums, that will take a while. But it also will mean listeners with so many other options, will loose track of them and not provide them with a continuous stream of revenue.
Meanwhile the band that just produces a pretty steady stream, with some of it great but not really much amazing or any whole albums to speak of, they could do very well in a s
Re:But how are they wrong re: earning money? (Score:5, Interesting)
the "need" for constant production is the same as every other modern platform.
quantity over quality, to flood the algorithms with as much content as possible to get it in front of as many eyes as possible.
tech companies pushing for the quantity over quality mindset are the problem, not the content itself.
music is especially true of this, music doesn't diminish over time.
my favorite concert of all time was watching the final tour of a 30+ year running band, playing songs that were that old.
Not just the companies though, consumers too. (Score:1)
tech companies pushing for the quantity over quality mindset are the problem, not the content itself.
What I am saying though, is that it is not just tech companies pushing for this, but consumers as well. They are asking for quantity. They are not caring so much, that maybe it will diminish quality.
iTunes would have been just as happy to keep selling albums digitally, but consumer demand for services like Spotify that delivered quantity, led them to produce Apple Music...
music is especially true of this,
Re: But how are they wrong re: earning money? (Score:2)
Almost no working musicians think they are owed gobs of money for a few minutes work recording.
They DO think they are owed gobs of money for selling out shows.
And they DO think they are owed an amount of money that's on par with how much the lawyer made.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've talked with numerous bands in the reggae scene and am friends with one. I've watched Sensi Trails go from opening for people and having no audience to headlining the same places a year later. They say a big portion of the money they make is off merchandise. Not much money from the venue itself but typically free drinks.
Ironically, it's my wife that found a lot of this music on spotify and then we started going to shows. Going to shows and buying merch is how you support bands you like. CDs, shirts,
Re: (Score:1)
They say a big portion of the money they make is off merchandise.
This is a great point, I also try to buy merch from the bands I really like, even if maybe I didn't really want the merch that bad... it's a way to get a much higher percentage of what I'm paying to the band.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like it's going back to how things used to be. Live performances were always the money spinners, and recordings were to get you a bit of exposure. And before recordings, musical score was how you exposed your art to the populace (who needed a fair modicum of skill themselves to reproduce it).. And the live tours that composers performed was where they earned their money.
Prior to that there were bards and troubadours who literally travelled, putting on shows. The greater their reputation and
Re: But how are they wrong re: earning money? (Score:3)
But it also will mean listeners with so many other options, will loose track of them and not provide them with a continuous stream of revenue.
Maybe music isn't supposed to be a continuous stream of revenue. Maybe they should get a day job and do music for fun, and for the enrichment of society at large.
Other people have other talents which enrich society and for which they don't get paid.
Maybe money kills the quality in music.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe getting a day job kills their creative spirit. Maybe they already have jobs, unconventional jobs - maybe performing music IS their job (wedding bands, stock music/advertising, house band for a bar, studio musician). Trying to hustle your music to the point that they can "make money off of touring and merchandise" can also be a full time job. Touring is a full-time job that requires 100% dedication and would cost you most jobs.
"Music" is a hobby. Real musicianship, real songwriting, real skill, is an a
Re: (Score:2)
Way back (when I used to play in bands) I did a stint working in a recording studio, and that was gruelling work. Even with a set of songs already written and honed by the artists, and practiced by the bands, we would spend months from the start to actually getting the final masters sorted.
Making the good stuff doesn't have the short cuts that the latest high advertisement pop track does (stick a pretty face behind a microphone and autotune the crap out of it while setting a synth and drum machine going u
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe getting a day job kills their creative spirit.
That's BS, there's plenty of precedent to the contrary. See all the older folcloric stuff -- that was essentially farmers and hunters doing their regular "day jobs" in the season (e.g. summer) and arts off-season.
If you prefer more recent examples, check out YouTube. Most videos there are from amateurs. They're pretty creative. Some are monetizing, but some are not, and most not nearly enough to skip their day job.
Maybe they already have jobs, unconventional jobs - maybe performing music IS their job (wedding bands, stock music/advertising, house band for a bar, studio musician).
I think you don't realize that I'm not bashing on them for not having jobs, but for making mus
Re: (Score:2)
How benevolent of you to prescribe the course of their lives for them.
Names? Examples?
Think you need really devoted time to do well (Score:1)
Maybe they should get a day job and do music for fun, and for the enrichment of society at large.
Speaking as someone who has started, but not finished, a variety of side-project apps, I have to say that plan seems like it would end up with even more mediocre albums than if they were just releasing a stream of marginal stuff and then occasionally an album...
I think to produce a really great work in any creative field, it's not something really doable over nights and weekends for most people, you can get a m
Re: (Score:2)
Comments on YouTube argue against that.
Value is not a function of effort. (Score:1)
The world is teeming with people who want to be successful musicians. When the supply is high, the price is low. That's just basic economics. There is nothing special about music creation that entitles the creators to money. They get what someone is willing to pay them for it, and that's it. If that isn't enough for them to make a living, then they should enter a different line of work. That is ALSO basic economics.
How much Spotify pays for music is a matter of negotiation between Spotify and the musi
Re: (Score:2)
They are saying that the album is dead and they aren't entirely wrong. Albums have been becoming irrelevant for pop for decades now. At best a lot of them are just a bunch of random songs thrown together, no connection or concept. With people moving to streaming stuff like the artwork and text that the album includes is lost anyway.
Of course some bands will keep making them but for pop acts they practically already have a continual stream of singles.
Re: Spotify is getting too big, mouthed too. (Score:2)
The album was always a side effect of the technological limits of the record. It mutated a bit over time with 8 track or cassette, but until streaming it was simply cost efficient to produce albums.
But some of the best acts took the medium's limitations (play length) and turned it into an art form (the concept album). And what really sucks is that today we don't have any technological limitations.
Now we just have Spotify and their ilk limiting how music can be made due to their shitty business models.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Music for the most part was always the single song. The album was a recent invention dating from 1950-60 or so when the LP came out.
You see, when Edicon did his first phonograph, the cylinder held only about 5 minutes of recording, sufficient for a few minutes of speech or so. This remained when the cy
Re: (Score:3)
"Many great albums took years to make"
True, 100% agree even, but irrelevant.
"but i don't buy this continues stream argument."
Which continuous stream argument are you talking about??? He didn't say you needed to release a continous stream of new music. What he said was:
"What is required from successful musicians, Ek insisted, is a deeper, more consistent, and prolonged commitment than in the past. "The artists today that are making it realize that it's about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans."
Emphasis mine.
If you go into a cave for 4 years between albums, the fans are going to engage with someone else in between, and maybe they'll be there for you when your next album comes out, or maybe not. How is he really wrong? He's not saying
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If music is good, i might listen it for years.
In fact, if music is good, it is something I want to own, not rent.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree here conceptually. Many great albums took years to make. Better one excellent album than five more of the same. Some musicians really need to regenerate, get the inspiration or the muse, whatever you want to call it. Or to create plenty stuff to select the best from to publish.
I completely agree with you, but most bands, during their start, churn out album after album without any delay. Pink Floyd had a few albums right at the start, but their best works were those that took a while to produce. The Doors had a slew of albums, but then Morrison had to die and the band fell apart. Even they would have slowed down, had Morrison not died.
And I'm a firm believer that in order to make great art, you have to have something mentally wrong with you, or at least be under the influence o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
A massive marketing effort goes into even middlingly successful artists. If you have to fire up the machinery every month, you're going to burn people out - they just won't care. For established artists, albums are an event - a catalyst around which 6 months of interviews, touring, promo videos, and other marketing are planned. There are people who can drop a new single every couple months, but it really depends on the genre and audience - if your audience is adults, they won't have time for your shit if yo
Re: (Score:2)
Also, with streaming, whenever an artist you listen to release new material, it will show up in recommendations. You do not have to actively check for new material.
Also, to keep fans active, artists do not necessarily need to keep releasing fully produced stuff. Just look at Larkin Po
Re: (Score:1)
what a crock of shit
Re: (Score:3)
Let me guess, you work in tech and don't have a creative bone in your body?
Re: (Score:1)
Technology isn't creative?
Let me guess, you live in the hills somewhere and you're using dial-up? :)
Re: (Score:3)
Developing technology doesn't inherently have to be a creative act. Making art does....although that's changing too thanks to tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, developing something is, quite literally, being creative.
Some of the very expensive artists take the tack "If you think it's art, it's art" due to their very strange pieces. With that in mind, you can quite happily say that a piece of code is a piece of art.
Art is.. Well, whatever anyone calls art. There was a time when art and science were closely related, skill and technique were something that needed to be studied hard and mastered. These days, it's often quite disposable, and an artist often
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been a developer for the last 15 years and a musician for the last 30. I feel I can speak with good authority when I say that coding and music are two separate creative endeavors. It's very VERY easy for me to see how a tech guy can mistake one for the other. Developing an app is something you can absolutely accelerate development of by merely working more hours or throwing more more people at. Writing and recording a music album? Absolutely not. That process is more organic and emotional and can
Re: (Score:2)
Counterpoint: Motown. Lots of amazing music created on what was pretty much an assembly line of songwriters and studio musicians.
Also look at the recording output of any of the stars of the jazz age. In 3 years, Louis Armstrong made 60 recordings that are "generally regarded as the most important and influential recordings in jazz history." Duke Ellington wrote over 1000 compositions in his lifetime. These guys were geniuses, to be sure, but they do show that it's possible to produce a lot of great mu
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it wasn't possible. It's just that you can't mandate an artist work at a certain pace and expect positive outcomes. I'd argue that Motown was a unique situation that was run by the right people. Many have tried to mimic that success and have failed. As for Jazz, most of that music was developed over years of playing before they were put to record. Armstrong didn't just come up with that music overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it wasn't possible.
You kind of did.
Writing and recording a music album? Absolutely not.
I'd argue that Motown was a unique situation that was run by the right people. Many have tried to mimic that success and have failed.
In a lot of ways, it is the same with tech. Some people create something new and unique, while others try to mimic and fail. And like music, it is not always the originator that becomes successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I was being sarcastic. But Poe's law is alive and well on Slashdot, I even got modded down to 0...
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to music or any other form of art, clearly quantity is more important than quality. That's why we have so much great music from the last two decades which will endure forever while nobody even remembers the music from the 70s and 80s.
Although you're being sarcastic, you are actually right when taken literally. Good music has become so commonplace that it has almost no market value. That's why pop stars sell a personality more than music (ironically this all began in the 70s/80s when good music started to become a cheap commodity). Just go through YouTube or Spotify and look for musicians of your favorite genre: You will find way more good stuff in the past ten years than all the preceding decades. Recording a high quality album once req
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to undo accidental mod...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets just completely ignore BJs in limos and how publisher had total control over who was successful and who was not. They did not even have to sing well, autotune did that for them, let alone write music or lyrics. You seemingly either won or lost based upon how good you BJs in limos skills were but yeah sure creativity.
Suck it up music geek, you face for more competition because far more access to publishers and you can no longer use a BJ in a limo to get ahead. Just the way it is, you have to compete an
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "artistic", not "creative"
No more one-hit wonders (Score:5, Interesting)
No more one-hit wonders. No recreating the magic of 80's pop radio and MTV.
Here is a fascinating 20 minute documentary on "Come on Eileen" -- how the artist Kevin Rowland kept reinventing the band's members, musical style, and fashion motif evert 12-18 months until after several years he finally got his hit, in part by merging together several styles from his various influencers. (And then he sabotaged his career by declining to open for Bowie because he hated being known as a one-hit wonder.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRofRIm5uM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing of value is lost, because ultimately the only person affected here will be the artist resting on their laurels. From a consumer point of view that one hit still comes through and still may be amazing. The hits are examples that people have the capability of making good music. The idea of chasing one hit however is the single most absurd thing in the industry.
Work for money just like everyone else. If you are relying on being creative, then to make money you better be good at it, and if you can o
800 Musicians Wanted (Score:1)
The cost of learning, creating, and publishing most forms of art are approaching zero. That is not exactly the same thing as it becoming unskilled labor, but the practical result for anyone wanting to make money doing it is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
You can outsource tech workers too, I'm sure they're exactly as good everywhere around the world because the tools to learn are all out there for anyone, all you need is a free language and a "pay what you want" humble bundle and you too can write your own app with enough practice.
where's the music? (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, nobody gives a shit about the small artist. If we did they would be big artists.
And I don't say this to put down the small artists. I mostly listen to small artists myself. But the big chunk of the population don't. They want easy to digest pop music, and they don't really think about the small artists getting paid, because the artists they listen to are making millions. Or at least have the appearance of making millions...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Figuratively nobody does not mean zero people. It means too few to make a difference.
I am a nobody but I do care about the small artists.
But there are not enough people like me, to pay a living wage for the artists we like.
Being a small artists says nothing about the quality of the music. But by definition it means there are not that many listeners. And until there are enough people complaining they have no incentive to change.
Good for more better music from the best artists? (Score:2)
Once an artist had to put something out every year or two, or even multiple times per year. Then it was 3+ years, sometimes quite more than just 3. Now we can finally get more good music from the few greats, I hope.
spotify has removed several of my favorite tracks (Score:1)
quality >>>>>> quantity every time.
I follow artists regardless of how often they produce something new.
I follow them because they have already produced something great that I listen to repeatedly.
I lost count of how many times tracks in my playlist have become "unavailable".
Why not let me keep listening to it, and paying the artist royalties for it? Otherwise it undermines the model, no?
I've actually contacted some artists via FB and a few have said that for "complicated reasons" that spec
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting on that George RR Martin album (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways, writers are ahead of musicians here. Look at what Kindle Unlimited has done.
I think the tradition of "pulp" writing and the mail subscription model makes it a bit easier for writers to consider the online subscription model.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How many artists from the time when Beatles/Zeppelin were active are listened to these days? Very few. And that is how the future will be. But I would not be surprised if "I kissed a girl" is still on low rotation in 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually started listening to the music created the last 10 years, you might find that there is a lot of great music being created. Probably more than ever. It is just that you may need to look for it.
Re: (Score:2)
>Then again, I consider anything from the last 10 years, at least, to be noise too.
If you actually started listening to the music created the last 10 years, you might find that there is a lot of great music being created. Probably more than ever. It is just that you may need to look for it.
The fact that pop music has songs that share rhythms, chord progressions, and lyrical themes is nothing new. Most people would likely concur that for the past half-century, popular music hasn't been a shining bastion of artistic expression or diversity.
What *is* new is the quantity. Rapper Drake, according to Wikipedia, is the record-holder for the following categories: ,
-the most charted songs on the Billboard 100 (209)
-the most simultaneously charted Hot 100 songs in a single week (27),
-the most time on t
Today it is not about quality. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at all the garbage media people consume today. Instagram, tiktok and similar.
Let's be honest though, it's still better than daytime TV. That messed with your brain.
work harder for me says billionaire (Score:4, Insightful)
think about it, this 35yo rent-seeker is worth $4.5 Billion dollars, more than any artist will every earn in multiple lifetimes, for sitting in an office talking.
Re: (Score:2)
the general problem with billionaires is that with perhaps a literal handful of exceptions you could debate, they didn't really do anything worthy of that kind of money, they got it by taking advantage of the talent and skills of others or by inheriting it
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think rent-seeking is fair to describe Spotify. They do provide a service that people like, so they add at least *some* value.
Itâ(TM)s Not That We Pay Badly (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s not that we pay badly. We pay really well. Itâ(TM)s just that this is a new era where making 10 widgets an hour, forty hours a week, which used to make a living wage, just wonâ(TM)t cut it anymore. Modern thinkers understand they have just have to be making fifty widgets an hour for 80 hours to make money in this modern world!
So five times the productivity for twice the hours isnâ(TM)t just you slashing payments to a tenth and people having to deliver ten times as much, itâ
All the good music is taken. (Score:2)
What that sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)
is a polite way of saying "Work harder and we'll pay you less."
Which sounds like business as usual for the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't sound like a bad philosophy compared to a history of releasing big hits and then sitting on your arse snorting cocaine while the dollars rolled in.
It's ok when we do it (Score:4, Funny)
How many times did they make Spotify? Why should they expect to keep getting money from that?
Re: It's ok when we do it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many times did they make Spotify?
Continuously. The most recent version was released on the 27/7/20. The version before that on the 10/7/20, before that 8/7/20, before that 1/7/20, and that's just one version of the app for one OS.
That is to say nothing of the 4500 people working for Spotify who continuously maintain the service through contracts ensuring that when that new band comes out you actually have the ability to hear it.
This is why I'll never renew with Spotify (Score:2)
As someone who is both a music lover and musician, they do nothing I need, and they screw the people who inspire me. I urge you to do the same. Support the artists as directly as you can!
Oh really? (Score:4, Funny)
Best argument that Spotify does pay too little (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
....or the really simple and more obvious reason: They had valuable assets that Spotify (and the other streaming services) really REALLY wanted, so t
Spotify can't make money unless musicians change (Score:1)
To Spotify CEO (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They did fix the shuffle. Humans in general do not like true randomness. This was true at the dawn of computers. This was true when Apple defended the iTunes shuffle feature as being true random despite everyone insisting the alternative, and it was true when Spotify abandoned true randomness due to customer complaints. [atspotify.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As is so often the case, it's a matter of "I don't think that word means what you think it means". Spotify's users didn't want a random shuffle, they wanted a well-mixed playlist. The Carol's caterpillarization of words disembiggens us all as it removes the versatility and specificity of perfectly cromulent words from our lexicon.
Technology guy.... (Score:2)
...demands the artists make more art faster. What a tool.
Speaking as a songwriter and producer (Score:3)
Mr Spotify doesn't know what he is talking about. If you want music to be as shit as the formulaic way movies are made, that's how it happens. Making music is easy, making good music is hard, making good music that people want to listen to is a sacrifice of many other things in a musicians life to produce it.
Creating culture through music has so many things going *against* it that the comment of 'a deeper commitment' just shows someone that wants to push more product that he doesn't understand how to create. Inspirations doesn't work that way, it's not like making a widget, it's the coordination of people's musical abilities to create culture whilst trying to make enough money to live. If you think it's so easy, try it yourself Daniel.
Looking that the photo of Mr Spotify's fat fingered smiley glad hands really epitomizes what many musicians face today and why our culture is as hollow as his words.
Album, then tour? (Score:2)
I thought the general way performers did things was release an album, of which they would receive say 10% of sales income, and then they'd tour to play to the fans and promote the album, and they would receive 100% of those profits. It's the touring that would take a lot of their time.
Paradigm Shift (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Why Does He Care? (Score:3)
If I stream mostly 60s-80s rock, isn't he making just as much as if I stream some brand new crap? Why does he give a shit? Does he intend to stop paying the great artists of those years because they're no longer creating new content?
Re: (Score:2)
They are not the ones complaining about too little royalties. The artists who made records in the 60's are probably quite happy that you pay them a third time. First you bought the vinyl in the 60's, then the CD version in the 90's, and now you pay again to stream their music. They were not selling a lot of CDs lately anyway, but now they start to get paid again when you pay for Spotify.
The artists complaining are making new music today, and try to live off it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said who's complaining, I'm saying they all should get paid the same per stream, period.
Re: (Score:2)
He is not saying that old music *should* get paid less.
He is describing the new reality without judging whether it is good or bad.
It is a fact in today's world that you make more money if you put out music more frequently, and that is *because* every stream is paid the same.
This could mean artists have a financial incentive to make a constant stream of mediocre songs over taking their time to make a great album.
You can see this effect in that many artists make more, but shorter songs on their albums today.
More garbage is not better garbage (Score:1)
Much like movies, today's music is almost all complete garbage, formulaic, and processed. I'm pretty sure almost all of it could be created by AI. Hmmm.... maybe it already is.
It all depends... (Score:1)
Sure, there is a place for this kind of commonality, like how a McDonalds' cheesburger relates to a full course gourmet meal.
Sometimes, you're okay with a quick cheeseburger. Other times, you want a real meal that "hits the spot".
Yet, there are real ARTISTIC contributions that offer a far deeper reflection of human sentience.
Stuff that comes from deep insights from (places) few ever get to (visit). This stuff is much closer to timele
Stream rates are fundamentally lopsided (Score:2)
If I like an artist and do nothing but stream them 24/7, they do not get my full monthly subscription payment, they get the stream rate, so they might make a few pennies depending on how the money is divvied you that month. It's BS for this guy to be sitting there and telling me that artists get their fair share when they give the only artist I listen to 50c and pocket the rest of my subscription fee.
I'm trying to buy more from Bandcamp, especially when they waive their own royalty collection. Making sure m
So what's a reasonable royalty for Spotify to pay? (Score:2)
I often hear people saying Spotify pays to little royalties. But I never hear anyone saying how much they think a Spotify subscription should cost.
I don't know the details about royalty payments, but my understanding is this:
Spotify take about 50% and the rest goes to artists and labels.
If more money goes to the label than goes to you, then I assume you have a shitty record deal, and that is not really Spotify's fault. Is this wrong? It's an old trope that artist are getting fucked by their labels, but that
Re: (Score:1)
Spotify keeps about 30% of revenue for operating the service, not 50%.
Love this (Score:1)
Is National Geographic accessible on the Roku devi (Score:1)