Thom Yorke to leave Spotify
July 15, 2013 4:35 AM   Subscribe

 
Kickstarter &c. for new music, Spotify &c. for back catalogs?
posted by Elementary Penguin at 4:39 AM on July 15, 2013


Mod note: Fixed the cut-off text problem.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:41 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The invisible problem here is that in the US artists have never been paid a penny for radio play (which is viewed as 'promotion'), so that's where Spotify et al are starting their negotiations.
posted by unSane at 4:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


PS good FFPP
posted by unSane at 4:43 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


2000: "Radiohead's record company have teamed up with a Napster-style song swap site to promote their new album Kid A."

2007: "Radiohead doesn't seem to care if the music is free."

2009: "On what's essentially the two-year anniversary of In Rainbows' release, I'm struck by how safe it all seems now. Releasing a pay-what-you-wish album now is almost yawn-worthy."

2013: Thom Yorke pulls music from Spotify.
"But Godrich's statements show how much a segment of the industry still depend on customer purchases. Without mentioning it by name, Godrich reveals the thought process behind "windowing," the practice of staggering release dates to encourage purchases before fans can stream at services like Spotify."
posted by iviken at 4:47 AM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


The article says nothing about Radiohead pulling their music, only that "Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has pulled his solo songs and those with his group Atoms For Peace from music streaming service Spotify."
posted by FreezBoy at 4:51 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


And so, after 70 years, playing music returned to largely being a hobby.
posted by Brian Lux at 4:52 AM on July 15, 2013 [27 favorites]


The invisible problem here is that in the US artists have never been paid a penny for radio play (which is viewed as 'promotion'), so that's where Spotify et al are starting their negotiations.

MTV doesn't pay artists in the US either.

Why should they? Back in the day, the record companies paid radio stations to play their music:
2005: "Sony BMG Music Entertainment admitted that its employees lavished cash, trips and other bribes on radio stations and their employees to get its music on the air in a settlement that is part of a wider investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer into payola in the music industry."
posted by iviken at 5:00 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


My sister-in-law and I have been talking about how we've felt lulled from buying music directly from artists by Spotify, and how we're going to have huge holes in our music library because of it.

I guess, deep down, I know Spotify is on borrowed time. I want musicians to get paid. I want a lot of easy access to music. How do those competing desires get rectified?
posted by elmer benson at 5:24 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Tip jars, where after you listen to a song you like on a streaming service, you can push a button and give 25c or whatever directly to the artist with just a few points shaved off for the conveyance. This also adds the song to your bookmark list, where you can go later to learn more about the artist and buy songs/albums/merch.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:28 AM on July 15, 2013 [15 favorites]


Also, live performance. What we'll be really craving in the "future" is bespoke art rather than factory reproduced art. Live performances in smaller venues give us at least a bit of interactivity.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:29 AM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


I want musicians to get paid. I want a lot of easy access to music. How do those competing desires get rectified?

Don't take away money from artists just like me, How will I afford that solid gold Humvee?
posted by Melismata at 5:35 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's not at all true that US radio play doesn't generate income for artists. It doesn't generate income for record labels or bands as such, that's so, but it generates very substantial royalties for songwriters, which is a set more or less identical to performers in rock (although not for other genres). One of the biggest legal / financial challenges for streaming services, artists, and the incumbent music industry has been to figure out the "right" level of these royalties versus what gets paid on radio plays or the sale of tracks or albums.
posted by MattD at 5:36 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


I want musicians to get paid. I want a lot of easy access to music. How do those competing desires get rectified?
posted by elmer benson at 5:24 AM on July 15

Simply by purchasing their music from on-line retailers that offer digital downloads. Amazon, itunes, etc. It is and will be the same as it ever was. You listen on the radio ( internet, satellite, MTV, etc.) and you purchase at a record store ( on-line store, instant download, traditional CD or vinyl etc.). What has been missing recently is the purchasing part, so artists and their publishers are trying to squeeze the radio stations et al to try and make up a bit for the lost traditional revenue stream.
posted by Gungho at 5:39 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


No Led Zeppelin on Spotify, either. And they rule.
posted by thelonius at 5:45 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


I have some ideas. I'll throw a couple out.

Live streams. Gamers make money off live streams of them fucking around playing Starcraft. Steam your rehearsals.

Collectible tracks. Have an online service that only allows like 500 copies of a song worldwide at any time. Yes, I know I can rip it, Listening to the song is not really the point. Thinks hats in TF2. People wanna show off to other fans they paid 2k for a collectible track

Skype with fans. I'd pay like $20 bucks for Thom Yorke to Skye me to ask how my day was.

Personalized songs. Have Thom record every common name and algorithmically stick them into songs. Like those coke cans with names in the UK.

Product placement. Rappers already do this. Everyone on Bad Boy records drinks only Ciroc and Aquafina in their videos.

Music Biz, You can have those for free. Consider them payment for all the music I pirated over the years.
posted by Ad hominem at 5:47 AM on July 15, 2013 [17 favorites]


See, here's the thing. For the vast majority of signed artists, the music industry never really paid. It's not that the music industry is being taken over by people who don't believe in paying artists, it's that the music industry is being taken over from people who don't believe in paying artists by people who don't believe in paying artists even harder than ever.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:48 AM on July 15, 2013 [20 favorites]


Mark my words, any day now Record Execs will start approaching this problem from the other side: instead of making access to music more restrictive in order to secure income, they'll secure it by using their great and myriad influences to lobby against income inequality. That way everyone has discretionary income to buy music with.

This will happen any day now. I know this because Record Execs become who they are due to their love of music and desire to share it. A lot of other industries will do this too, of course. :)
posted by tychotesla at 5:53 AM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


From a consumer perspective, I feel like the record industry has been pushing the streaming model since Napster, and now that they've finally found some success with it, it doesn't actually work for them. Or at least it doesn't work for all parties involved all of the time.

It is interesting, the distinction between new release and back catalog here. From an artist/industry POV, streaming is a way of getting paid per listen, so that older material keeps paying off in a way that it wouldn't if I bought it up front. And, as a consumer, that is working for me at this price point.

New releases are different. The expectation has always been that there will be a initial influx of cash. Presumably, recording is budgeted based on that expectation. Now, it seems likely to me that artists get paid for streaming on a per-play basis, some percentage of net subscription fees taken in. And it also seems likely that new releases get a burst of attention, so there should be an initial influx of cash. The artists would then just be haggling over the price, as it were.

There's a lot of money to be made here, so I assume that they can all come to an agreement. I don't see any reason to believe that streaming services are anti-artist in design.
posted by He Is Only The Imposter at 5:55 AM on July 15, 2013


Kinda weird - I always assumed Thom Yorke / Radiohead were exactly the sort of artists, like Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, The Beatles, who I would never find on Spotify, so I never actually went searching for them.

And I also became surprised to see new releases appearing on Spotify - I never thought I'd see that happening, it seems like a no-brainer to me that you'd want to pick up some actual album sales before making the release available to the casual streamer.

I'm a fully-paid-up Spotify user (who has spent way more of my income on music since Spotify came along than any time since the '90s), but I would be completely happy with a 1-year delay after album release before music appeared on the service.
posted by Jimbob at 6:00 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


On the subject of how the artists are supposed to get paid: See Josh Freese's purchase options for his newest EP, My New Friends.

(previously)
posted by sublivious at 6:05 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]




As Freezboy says, the article makes no mention of Radiohead leaving Spotify.

Please change the title of this thread!
posted by noaccident at 6:09 AM on July 15, 2013


How many times do I have to play a small, indie band's tracks on Spotify for them to get the same amount of money as if I bought the album on iTunes?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:11 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


I bet Jaron Lanier is feeling a little smug today. Just a little bit.
posted by The River Ivel at 6:12 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I bet Jaron Lanier is feeling a little smug today. Just a little bit.
I don't think it's possible for him to feel any other way. It's just sometimes he's actually right.
posted by fullerine at 6:15 AM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


How many times do I have to play a small, indie band's tracks on Spotify for them to get the same amount of money as if I bought the album on iTunes?

This article give some good info for how Spotify works:
"Currently, assuming an average of a half-cent per stream, Spotify pays about $5 for every 1,000 plays."
posted by petri at 6:17 AM on July 15, 2013


I've got a paid Slacker subscription, and one of the things I would like from the service is to be able to integrate music I own with the randomized music on my custom stations (and the ability to weight those songs so they pop up more frequently.)

I don't think this would work with Spotify's playlist model, but it would go a looooong way towards making streaming services palatable if a "Buy now!" button popped up along with the album cover art on the services that use the station model, like Pandora and Slacker.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:24 AM on July 15, 2013


Spotify is where I go to listen to music that I bought a decade ago. It's much easier than listening to the CDs I bought back then (which are in a box on another continent right now).

As far as I am aware, good new music doesn't appear on Spotify. Like, at all. It's on bandcamp.com. I pay 7 bucks for a new album there, I can download it, stream it from bandcamp, etc. etc. Most of the money goes to the artist. There isn't really a record label there necessarily.

Spotify doesn't even make much sense as a way to get famous. Spotify users just share to other Spotify users, so the artist won't sell any albums that way. Why should I want to be well known amongst people who don't buy music? Perhaps if I did a lot of concerts, sure, but not to sell albums.

Basically, Spotify is where songs go to retire. It's the old-folks home of music, and it's great for nostalgia. That's about it.
posted by sixohsix at 6:26 AM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


This tweet from the CEO of Spotify raises an important point, I think. So far I've not seen any cannibalisation. So question should be - Why shouldn't you do streaming?

His argument seems to be that Spotify is an added extra that doesn't mean that you're losing money elsewhere. I'm not sure I really believe that, though.
posted by liquidindian at 6:29 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Fixed the title to read "Thom Yorke" instead of "Radiohead" by request of OP
posted by taz (staff) at 6:29 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The article says nothing about Radiohead pulling their music, only that "Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has pulled his solo songs and those with his group Atoms For Peace from music streaming service Spotify."

Indeed, the majority of Radiohead's back catalogue, from Pablo Honey to Hail to the Thief, will be the "property" of EMI, their record label at the time, so a choice that Thom Yorke won't get to make. Would imagine more control over the newer stuff - with a better negotiating point for the contract - but still no guarantee they have the final say.

Nigel Godrich clarified the three albums that have been pulled: "Eraser," the 2006 solo album Radiohead singer Thom Yorke; the 2013 album "Amok" by Atoms for Peace (of which Yorke and Godrich are members); and the self-titled album by Ultraista, a collaboration between Godrich, Joey Waronker (also a member of Atoms for Peace) and Laura Bettinson."
posted by Hobo at 6:30 AM on July 15, 2013


Why should I want to be well known amongst people who don't buy music?

Pretty much all the music I buy (~1 album a month) is stuff I discover on Spotify.
posted by ghharr at 6:31 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


For the vast majority of signed artists, the music industry never really paid.

The basic idea of a record deal is this:
"If the record company get it wrong and it just doesn't sell for whatever reason, they pick up the slack on it - it's their risk. They don't come knocking on the door saying, 'give me your money back'." (...)
"The IFPI estimates that between one in five and one in 10 new acts are successful."

Compare this to the restaurant industry: "(...) about one in four restaurants close or change ownership within their first year of business. Over three years, that number rises to three in five. (...) Because of the belief that restaurants are high-risk investments, he says, many banks won't lend to restaurants at all. Typically, the ones that do require would-be restaurateurs to pay sky-high interest rates or put up significant collateral (say, a house) to mitigate the perceived risk."

Maybe we should feel a bit more sorry for failed restaurant owners, or even failed pro athletes, than for less successfull artists.
posted by iviken at 6:31 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


As a side note, I kinda like that Ultraista album. If it helps, Pitchfork didn't, particularly.
posted by secretseasons at 6:32 AM on July 15, 2013


I want musicians to get paid. I want a lot of easy access to music. How do those competing desires get rectified?

Personally, what I really want is a version of Spotify that costs a lot more and puts that additional money entirely into the pockets of the people making the music I'm enjoying. $10/month feels inappropriately cheap for instant access to all the music ever.
posted by Tomorrowful at 6:33 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Thom is wrong. Spotify is the best thing ever for finding and distributing new music. If that doesn't lead to a band making gobs of 90s CD Sales money, that means it is exactly as useful as every other streaming and digital download service ever created online.

Unless musicians unionize worldwide (not a bad idea really) the market has decided that new bands should be paid about as much as itinerant blue singers in 1912 were. Wishing it wasn't like that doesn't make it change.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:37 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


The last time we discussed Spotify on the blue I voiced my misgivings. Nothing has changed. Artists are still being shortchanged while consumers have no idea what sites are ok. Spotify makes us feel better for not torrenting, but it hasn't replaced purchasing music. Hoping this kicks off a proper debate rather than 'Yorke and Godrich are rich who cares'.

Field Music have been very open about how little they earn. It's bands like that I hope will be able to carry on in a viable way with a more equitable business model.
posted by wingless_angel at 6:40 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't love the way that Spotify compensates its artists, but as a music enthusiast, I do quite like Spotify (and not just because of the cost). Having access to their gigantic library is really, really nice.

Because of my Spotify subscription, I listen to more music, across a much wider range of artists (most of whom are rather obscure). Spotify, Soundcloud, and the other similar services also give independent/international artists far more exposure than any traditional distribution channel ever could.

I don't really know how we can enable easy/free music discovery, while still fairly compensating musicians. Small artists weren't necessarily being compensated very well (or at all) from iTunes or physical album sales, so I'm not even sure that the current status quo is a tremendous step backwards, especially given that it's now much easier to gain exposure.

I try to see as many live performances as I can cram into my schedule/budget, because I enjoy it, and also want to support the artists that I listen to. However, I'm not sure that I want to force artists to constantly engage in a grueling touring schedule to make ends meet. That seems cruel, and not every artist can support a worldwide tour...

I'd love to see a Spotify-like service that provided a ridiculously simple (and universal) interface that allows me to give a small ($1-$5) "tip" to the artists that I like, and have 100% of that tip go directly into the band's pockets.
posted by schmod at 6:41 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Apologies for the title error. First FPP and all that. Thanks taz.
posted by we are the music makers at 6:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


My personal rule of thumb is that if I listen to a particular album (or some significant portion of the album) three times on the streaming music service of my choice, I buy the album. Because if I've listened to it three times, it's very likely I'll want to listen to it more than that, and I that means I should pay the artist.

This has been a very way for me to balance the convenience of streaming services with my desire to reward creators.

The irony is that these days I will typically purchase the MP3 album via Amazon and then not download it, since it's easier just to keep listening to the album via the streaming service. But for me these days, the point is to pay the artist, not (usually) have physical possession of the tracks (Amazon keeps them in their cloud storage and I can download them at any point if I like, however).
posted by jscalzi at 6:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


sio42: "I've decided if I want to hear a song RIGHT NOW I will just pay thru iTunes to download it to my phone. "

As far as artist compensation goes, iTunes is barely better than Spotify. Apple's profit margins on iTunes are borderline exploitative.
posted by schmod at 6:45 AM on July 15, 2013


As far as artist compensation goes, iTunes is barely better than Spotify. Apple's profit margins on iTunes are borderline exploitative.

Is that true? I've seen a few artists speak positively about it and the 'How to Fix Spotify' article posted above says self-released artists get around $6.30/album.
posted by ghharr at 6:52 AM on July 15, 2013


Information is Beautiful: How artists make money online

Is the best compromise to only purchase digital download (if you don't mind about licensing) or physical media (if you actually want to own) from an indie retailer? No streaming, iTunes, or Amazon?
posted by wingless_angel at 6:57 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


All these articles are so short-sighted. Over the course of a million years, artists will make slightly more on Spotify than with the CD sales. It's all a matter of perspective.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:59 AM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


I've heard good things about microdonation service Flattr. Although it's certainly not universal (relevant to this discussion it only supports YouTube, Soundcloud, and Grooveshark), and not all of your donation goes to the artist (only 90%), it sounds like the best thing out there at the moment.
posted by Quilford at 7:02 AM on July 15, 2013


Here's the flip side of all this bad news, bands don't have to sign contracts with shitty record labels any more. The methods of distribution are as easy as "Upload file to Bandcamp + Upload files to CD Baby = Instant Profit." And Spotify/Itunes distro is built in, if you want it. Now, nobody's going to pay for your recording time in this, but hey, lucky you, studio time is now: sitting your buddy's basement with his pirated copy of Protools. And that's fucking it. So now the only excuse you have for not releasing a record on your own is laziness. I know that a sacrosanct part of the musician personality, but all the best musicians I know are delighted by the freedom and ease by which they can get their music into the world. I know that's poor consolation to someone who used to make a certain amount of money from being a professional pop musician but I didn't see anyone in the rock world weeping over jazz pianists reduced to playing in hotel bars exclusively in the 80s (except Dire Straits). Fuck a rock star anyway.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:07 AM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]


I love buying music directly from artists. I've actually struck up some conversations after purchasing everything my new favorite artist was offering (usually between $30 and $40) and they threw in some freebies. Most of it was due to my music geek questions about catalog numbers and release dates, to fill in gaps on Discogs.

Bandcamp is a great middle point, between setting up your own web shop and handing everything over to a distribution company. Plus the fact they allow customers to pick the bitrate and format for the same price is great. No more guessing game for quality of the download, as experienced on Amazon, eMusic, and so many other sites.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:10 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


bands don't have to sign contracts with shitty record labels any more.

Yes, but:
"No one else can write the songs I can write," Reznor told the audience, "But there's other people that can do some of that (marketing) stuff. The great part of self-releasing has been control of your own destiny. Nobody has approval. Finishing a song at midnight and putting it out the next day. Getting fans excited with no leak because you have the only copy and you uploaded and you didn’t publish. That’s fun. It felt great, particularly after a long career in the weirdness of the labels. But we wanted a team of people that are better at that than I am worldwide. That felt like it was worth slicing the pie up monetarily."
posted by iviken at 7:14 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


On the subject of how the artists are supposed to get paid: See Josh Freese's purchase options for his newest EP, My New Friends.

Man, I have never even heard this guy's music, but his album purchase options are always entertaining!
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 7:15 AM on July 15, 2013


Is the best compromise to only purchase digital download (if you don't mind about licensing) or physical media (if you actually want to own) from an indie retailer? No streaming, iTunes, or Amazon?

If you look at the blog post that inspired the Information is Beautiful thing, he determines that he makes $8.12 selling a CD at a show and $7.49 selling a digital album via CD Baby.

But...it doesn't look like his $8.12 number includes any of the risks and costs involved in selling a physical product, like hauling hundreds of CDs across the country, paying someone to man your merch table, paying sales tax (haha), theft or broken discs, or being stuck with hundreds of discs that don't sell. I'd guess digital is better for him than he would admit (though that post is more than 3 years old so digital rates may have changed).
posted by ghharr at 7:31 AM on July 15, 2013


Thom is wrong. Spotify is the best thing ever for finding and distributing new music. If that doesn't lead to a band making gobs of 90s CD Sales money, that means it is exactly as useful as every other streaming and digital download service ever created online.

Bullshit to this. TheSixtyOne is better for music discovery, and Bandcamp is by far the best option I've seen available to musicians. Free streaming for listeners, which can be made optional per-track by the musician; custom price-setting, with an option for a pay-what-you-want with minimum; choices to release some things for free, or save other things for a download-only release.

If an album is on Bandcamp, I don't bother torrenting it, because why should I? I can listen to it right from there. And every time I listen, there's a big bright number telling me how few dollars I'd have to pay to download the album and have it forever. And then the band has my money. It's great for listeners, and great for musicians; my favorite band had two solo albums released on it, each of which apparently sold pretty well.
posted by Rory Marinich at 7:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]


I want musicians to get paid. I want a lot of easy access to music. How do those competing desires get rectified?
posted by elmer benson at 5:24 AM on July 15

Simply by purchasing their music from on-line retailers that offer digital downloads. Amazon, itunes, etc. It is and will be the same as it ever was.


Except the first album I downloaded via iTunes (less than a year ago) had no less than three bunged tracks (they cut short, less than halfway through their listed running time). I considered going through official channels to get a refund or whatever, but then thought, to hell with it, I'll just get them from Youtube, which I did.

So in my case at least, stealing wasn't just cheaper than official legit means, it was of a higher quality

Which gets me to my standard position in these discussions. The only functional future for recorded music that includes some income for its creators is some variant of crowdfunding.
posted by philip-random at 8:08 AM on July 15, 2013


The successful streamers are often running a talk radio show/vlog with gaming- people don't just watch things like twitch to see zerg rushes, the successful ones are good at playing the crowd and put a lot of effort into promoting their stream as a product. This means that you are going to favour musicians who are already really good at self promotion, which means more Amanda Palmers, or other people who are exhibitionists by nature. and believe me, mefi is not kind to people who are happy to Tweet, blog and stream Me, Me, Me, Me at the volume to get noticed.

This comment struck a chord with me, because I find these people uniquely repulsive - and in the context of rap music, which culturally supports the idea of self promotion to a degree which melanin impoverished people might be struck by, things are getting out of hand. Being an expert self promoter is not an additional skill anymore, it is the baseline for anyone to have heard of you. I recently downloaded a compilation of Harry Fraud produced tracks, containing probably a dozen rappers I'd never heard before, and the uniformity of perspective (me) and scope of concern (my shit) was striking. Rap music has always been braggadocious and about individuality, but the sort of people who succeed now are incredibly uninteresting (a criticism rightfully leveled at J Cole and wrongly at Kanye.) At best we have people who are just so high they make no sense. Hip Hop in general has never been better, but the amount of garbage is truly remarkable.

The compensation for music will dictate the type of music we get. Monarchy gives us Mozart and Haydn, a strong church gives us Bach - postwar spoils, displaced jewish people and an educated public get us Stravinsky and Horowitz. Widespread reproduction technology and people spending a good chunk of money on a CD or LP give us Led Zeppelin, Bill Evans, Tom Lehrer, Queen, Alice in Chains. Spotify will give us thousands of hobbiests and mediocrities, rich kids, craven self promoters, type-a strivers. It gives us a culture with no shape or significance. Think of your favorite artists from the 60s onward and ask if they would have ever become known today. Elliot Smith, Jeff Buckley, Curt, sensitive unstable types? Uncompromising geniuses like Robert Fripp? Do you think Spotify would have given us Pet Sounds?

You need to make a little money to take something seriously, and right now there is very little reason for most people to take their music very seriously, so gratification of vanity has become part of the compensation package.

It also informs the expectations of the audience - the wide availability of recorded music has reduced the significance of the recording, and people are wanting intimate live concerts and other forms of gratification. This only suits certain artists and certain types of music (a travel budget, no job ie daddy's money). It is also far more costly in terms of time and effort for an artist than it is for you to put their record on. Again, it doesn't take much to see the sort of music we are going to get out of it.

As always, my hat is doffed to Robert Fripp.
posted by Teakettle at 8:10 AM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


I pay for Spotify to have easy access to music while I'm at my desk at work all day. It's much more convenient than any other system I've tried. I also like making playlists and listening to full albums and trying out new bands I hear about.

I felt bad about it for a while, then decided that yeah, if I am listening to an album on Spotify regularly I have to buy it. Typically I buy the LP which comes with a download code, so I have the physical and digital versions. I still mostly do my music listening at work which means Spotify, though.

I also have spent $$$ on seeing bands live this year, so I feel fairly confident I am doing my part to support artists I like.

But I'm not gonna argue with artists making their own decisions about whether or not their music should go on Spotify. It's their art, it's up to them.
posted by misskaz at 8:21 AM on July 15, 2013


You need to make a little money to take something seriously

Very much not true. I'm not saying musicians shouldn't be paid properly, far from it. As the sister of a musician I totally think art should be rewarded. I disagree that people don't take their work seriously unless they make money, otherwise there wouldn't be a gazillion, very earnest, young unsigned bands out there. Jeff Buckley and Elliot Smith were musicians long before they were signed, famous ones.
posted by billiebee at 8:22 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Major label promotion was/is still promotion. Self-promotion is in many ways better because there are so many different ways about getting your name out there (including touring like crazy).

Major labels were all about hyping bands/songs they thought would sell and more or less ignoring anything else. They made a lot of money on record sales just out of curiosity. Everyone is talking about this new _____ album, I gotta hear it! Before the internet that meant buying the album (or borrowing it, or making a copy on cassette).

I have (and have had) a lot of albums that were not worth buying. I spent money on records that I listened to once or twice. The record companies are not making that kind of money any more because I have a dozen ways of hearing a record before buying it (many of them legal) and they're not really going to go back to getting it.
posted by mountmccabe at 8:35 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


And so, after 70 years, playing music returned to largely being a hobby.

Actually it's been a profession for a coupla thousand years at least.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:51 AM on July 15, 2013


Actually it's been a profession for a coupla thousand years at least.

Live music yes. Recorded music not so much.
posted by PenDevil at 8:52 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Live performances in smaller venues give us at least a bit of interactivity.

Indeed. You can take pictures of the show with your cell phone.
posted by themanwho at 9:03 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


"one of the things I would like from the service is to be able to integrate music I own with the randomized music on my custom stations (and the ability to weight those songs so they pop up more frequently.)

I don't think this would work with Spotify's playlist model,
"

It does, you just can't share those as full playlists — I've got plenty of playlists that I've made that are half spotify and half "local streaming" from the iTunes library, because it's stuff that's not on Spotify.
posted by klangklangston at 9:06 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Bandcamp is by far the best option

Tell you what Rory, you get every new band to put stuff on BC, and let me make playlists of songs on it, and let me follow my hippest music listening friends to see what great shit they are peeping this week and I'll quit Spotify forever except to use it to listen to every Calypso song ever.

Do you think Spotify would have given us Pet Sounds?

Why not? And if Spotify was around back then maybe Smile wouldn't have disappeared.

Why is more fair to get one giant Beach Boys while 30 Big Stars break up without anyone hearing their music?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:10 AM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


Wait a minute. I've spent years making sure I don't get caught watching the paint dry on the picket fence and now I have to watch the back door too?! No thank you.

I guess, deep down, I know Spotify is on borrowed time.

Yes, this is what we all know. (Netflix too!) I'm surprised the catalog has lasted this long.

If an album is on Bandcamp, I don't bother torrenting it, because why should I?

Because you want to listen to it in your car? I don't "torrent" albums regardless, but there are definitely times when I want an encumbered digital copy to move from place to place or share with some one. A digital MP3 mix (or even CD) is more intimate than a URL.

How many times do I have to play a small, indie band's tracks on Spotify for them to get the same amount of money as if I bought the album on iTunes?

That's a great question that I would love to become common knowledge, like everyone knows. Now, it's a huge mystery. In reality, it depends a lot on how many songs are on the album (which is why you don't see many mainstream commercial acts with 10-song albums).

Going by these classic (2010) numbers, an artist gets $.94 from the sale of a $9.99 album on iTunes.

Per the (again, probably outdated) Spotify rates, those artists get $.00029 per song stream (which seems low and probably wrong.)

By those numbers, for a 10-song album, you would have to listen to it ... ~324 times on Spotify to give the artist the royalties they would get from iTunes. 15 songs = 216 times; 20 songs = 162 times.

Again, that stream rate seems really low. If I understand how it works, the very low stream rates are only for artists with huge volumes (Gaga, Beyonce, Nickelback, Todd Rundgren, etc.)

The best explanation of how Spotify pays artists is here: How Does Spotify Pay Artists: An Answer That Makes Sense.

...

Typically I buy the LP which comes with a download code, so I have the physical and digital versions. I still mostly do my music listening at work which means Spotify, though.

It's funny. I still have unopened vinyl albums with the digital download codes stuck inside because I already downloaded them before I bought them and I only listen to them via those original MP3s. In a way, I suppose digital music has perhaps made my (new) records more valuable b/c they will never be played. (However, it has also made the concept of physical media rather obsolete, which hurts resale value for sher.)

But wait, wait, wait ... if you're focused on pennies today, you're missing out on all those dollars tomorrow.

Anyway, seems like a great day for bandcamp. Good enough.

A few more links, apologies for doubles

If Spotify and Pandora Are the Future, Do Artists Have One? (Spin)

As Music Streaming Grows, Royalties Slow to a Trickle (NYT)

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale! (David Lowery is not going away) (and if he is correct, that is only $0.00001457 per stream, even smaller than the alleged $0.00029. Oh wait, that's Pandora. Is Radiohead on Pandora?)

One more on Pandora: How Pandora became "music's big villain"

posted by mrgrimm at 9:12 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


And yeah, Radiohead's entire catalog (the main stuff) is still on Spotify and will remain on Spotify I am sure. We'll see.

Relevant: "New AccuStream Research data on Internet radio and streaming music reveals "a 2013 growth rate of 47.5%, backed by monetization initiatives channeling $1.22 billion into the digital music ecosystem," the company says."

Just PR, no actual stats available, but ... "Ad-supported streaming, the company projects, will account for nearly 62% of the sector's revenue this year. About half will come from in-stream audio ad paired with a display component. AccuStream also predicts total listening hours for ad-supported sterams [sic] will grow almost 80% this year to 28.6 billion."

emphases mine.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:16 AM on July 15, 2013


"A number of Irish artists have come out in support of Thom Yorke pulling Atoms For Peace’s Amok and his solo album, The Eraser, from Spotify amidst claims that the streaming service does little to financially support emerging talent."

The Eraser is a good album, fwiw. (If you want to listen to it, search google for "the eraser" thom yorke 320/ ;) Actually, more realistically and maybe (?!) less evil, just listen to it on YouTube, like everything else.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:21 AM on July 15, 2013


I'm serious about a world-wide music production union by the way. That's the only way to ensure fairness in the fully democratized world of creation and distribution that we are headed for. It would especially help if you radicalized the producers for ad music houses.

Commercials and fictional creations need music. Not brilliant music necessarily, just tasteful stuff. Much of it now is produced in-house by out-of-work former indie band members for Boutique Ad Agencies in NY and LA rather than purchased from real bands. Some of it is pretty listenable, some of it is even good! Anyway, if they walked off the job and bands refused to sell their tracks unless certain basic union protections were met--then you've have some leverage to make demands about how creators "should" be compensated. But as long as music is approaching infinitely easy to make, find, and pass around, and there's always another dreaming 25 year old who thinks s/he is the next pop star, as a product it's worth essentially minimum wage.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2013


Live music yes. Recorded music not so much.

Yeah, figured that was a given.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2013


Recorded music killed the oral history star.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:26 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


I guess, deep down, I know Spotify is on borrowed time.

I think what you mean here is that Spotify is so cheap that you must be getting something you don't deserve -- maybe artists or recording studios are forced into an unsustainable deal because it's better than piracy or the like. And others are implying here that if you like an album on Spotify, you're essentially getting something for nothing and ought to support the artist some other way.

I don't think subscription services are inherently an unfair deal, though, at least for people with a paid subscription. Check out this chart of US Recorded Music Revenue - 2011 Dollars Per Capita. The precise numbers are probably open to debate, but it's fair to say that per capita recorded music spending over the last ~40 years has averaged less than $60 per year. I pay $120 a year for Spotify alone.

Is that a lower contribution than someone in my position (youngish, no kids) would have made to the per capita total 30 years ago? Maybe. Is Spotify distributing money to artists in a less fair way than the recording industry did 30 years ago? I suppose it's possible. But nitpicks aside, Spotify is broadly in line with what Americans have paid for music over the last four decades. The general concept of a subscription service costing roughly this much is valid and sustainable, even if it turns out that this particular implementation doesn't quite get it right.
posted by jhc at 9:27 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


No Led Zeppelin on Spotify, either. And they rule.

Try searching under "Z".
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:37 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I want musicians to get paid. I want a lot of easy access to music. How do those competing desires get rectified?

I should think some equivalent to United Artists + Certified Organic labeling: the biggest acts teaming up to start their own distribution network, labeled as being artist-friendly.
posted by davejay at 9:38 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


"If the record company get it wrong and it just doesn't sell for whatever reason, they pick up the slack on it - it's their risk. They don't come knocking on the door saying, 'give me your money back'." (...)
"The IFPI estimates that between one in five and one in 10 new acts are successful."


No one is paying attention to what you’re saying, it goes against their narrative.

These discussion here are always jam packed with statements that have no relation to the real world, by people who have no idea what they’re talking about, about how the music business works, how it’s working fine, and/or how easy it is to fix. It’s amazingly similar to listening to Republicans talk politics.
posted by bongo_x at 9:39 AM on July 15, 2013


The fact is jhc, nobody wants a fair system where everyone gets paid a living wage to create art. People want an UNFAIR system full of luck so that some people can become Beyonce and others can be Rodriguez except without the comeback. That seems cool to most artists because we overvalue our own luck and skill.

I know that's not what people here are saying, but I think that's partly behind some problems Thom brings up about Spotify--the idea that a music industry needs big hits. But it doesn't really.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:39 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


And so, after 70 years, playing music returned to largely being a hobby.

Goodness, how short are people's memories? Music as a viable vocation died, not started, somewhere in the mid-1920s to early 1930s, with the advent of radio and the phonograph. Thousands and thousands of musicians made a viable living before that, playing music in theaters, movie/opera houses, throughout vaudeville and circuses, dance bands, etc. etc. In fact, we have music education throughout public schools in the U.S. in large part because there was such a huge population of unemployed musicians at the time, who needed some way to meaningfully apply their skills, so they changed from performers to teachers; that's where our first generation of music educators came from.

Then there was an ~70 year bubble where companies and then corporations were able to commodify music as a thing printed on plastic (vinyl, etc.) and make a bunch of money from that commodity, especially by commercializing vernacular musics. But then the internet and digital technology came roaring through and decommodified that. But the musicians left to complain that their corporate livelihood has ended are a small fraction of the number of musicians who were driven out of their careers starting around a century ago, because machines could do their jobs cheaper and easier. This is not new, and in fact is not even as bad as it has been.

The death blow to music as a vocation happened a century ago, and was among the earliest casualties of technological advancement. I'm just surprised that musicians today don't realize that they all were born into this struggle. As a musician whose chosen style demands live performance as central, my reaction is much more 'welcome to the party. We've been expecting you.'
posted by LooseFilter at 9:44 AM on July 15, 2013 [23 favorites]


Netflix is creating content now for the same low, low monthly fee.

What if Spotify (or whoever) started their own A&R search team looking for new talent, maybe with some listener feedback on certain channels, and then Spotify would fork over some dough. Kind of like Strip Search or something. Even the losers would benefit from publicity. And they could launch kickstarters.

I dunno. I just find it interesting that Netflix seems to be able to pay people to make cool shit now.

Can that work for music, too?
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:48 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Going by these classic (2010) numbers, an artist gets $.94 from the sale of a $9.99 album on iTunes.

Per the (again, probably outdated) Spotify rates, those artists get $.00029 per song stream (which seems low and probably wrong.)

By those numbers, for a 10-song album, you would have to listen to it ... ~324 times on Spotify to give the artist the royalties they would get from iTunes. 15 songs = 216 times; 20 songs = 162 times.


What this misses is that I listen to artist and music on Spotify that I wouldn't have listened to or spent money on without it. Today I got to work and though "hey, I'd like to listen to something 80s sounding". Without Spotify, I would have put on some 80s hits or something from Internet or terrestrial radio, but with Spotify I noticed that Depeche Mode had a new album out. Now, I maybe want to hear Depeche Mode a few times a year, and would pretty much never buy their new album as I'm just not that much of a fan. But with a barrier of 0, I put on their new album, liked a couple songs enough to stick on a playlist, and as a result Depeche Mode gets some money from me they would never had gotten otherwise.
posted by Benjy at 10:02 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


How about a service where all the music in the world is free, but once you hit about 200 plays of any song, it starts to charge you.
posted by cell divide at 10:12 AM on July 15, 2013


"one of the things I would like from the service is to be able to integrate music I own with the randomized music on my custom stations (and the ability to weight those songs so they pop up more frequently.)


This is a bit of a tangent but we were just discussing this yesterday and its fresh in my mind. You know what I would love? A radio streaming service that can target by MONTH and not just decade. Because, and I may be the only one that wants this, sometimes when I want to listen to say 80's music, what I really want is to hear what was on the radio in summer of 1985. I dont want to hear The Go-Gos or Paula Abdul at that moment. I want to hear like Madonna's "Dress you Up" followed by The Power Station and maybe one of Tina Turner's songs from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
I wish there was a station that allowed that level of specificity.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 10:20 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Screw it. I have taken the law into my own hands and compiled a Spotify playlist of songs that were on the charts July 13, 1985

Enjoy
posted by Senor Cardgage at 10:30 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Being an older person (nearly 50), I heard back in the day time and time again how the music business was run by the labels, and the artist never had a chance. It was a fucked system for the artist, but there wasn't really any other way. Even the indie labels mostly would distribute through the majors. If someone signed with a label, they got some distribution, and if they were lucky, a bit of promotion. The labels were then, and are now, all about the massive, least common denominator pop stars, and that's where their money goes. I read recently how David Lindley still owes money on recording his first album, and it gets deducted from his monthly royalties from that album. While it's not much money any more, he lets it languish as a point.

The other side of the labels was that they would wield their influence over the music, where an artist wouldn't have the freedom to record what they wanted because the label that owned them wanted something with more commercial potential, but with the production costs, the artist would need 10 times the sales than if they would have recorded independently in order to break even.

Then MTV came out, when they still played music videos, an artist would also now have to look good in order to be marketable to the big labels. Ugly bands (for the most part) need not apply.

It seems to me now that musicians have many more outlets, with fewer barriers to distribute themselves. I don't know how the system is in order to be that new breakout star, I imagine it's still the same as the old days with labels running the show with a slight edge of being discovered without a label now, but I had lots of friends in bands back in college and after. They tried to make it by performing. At first locally playing at parties and clubs, but if they did OK, trying to roll out on the road city to city living in the van. Making shit for money with the dream of making it some day.

How does a band get paid now? I have no clue. How did a band trying to make it get paid back in the day? Not very well. I think it's easier now to get your music out on the market to be heard, but it's just as hard as ever to make a living at it.
posted by Eekacat at 10:34 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


What we'll be really craving in the "future" is bespoke art rather than factory reproduced art. Live performances in smaller venues give us at least a bit of interactivity.

I'm just an amateur, but one of the most fun things I ever did in music was improvised live electronica. I'd get a DJ slot at a party, but instead of spinning records, I'd bring in a keyboard and a box of hardware, and I'd play live, nonstop, for 60-90 minutes. It was intense and exhausting and deeply satisfying: music nobody had ever heard before and would never hear again, composed on the spot for those people in that place at that time. I had plenty of opportunities to fuck up and of course I managed to take advantage of a good number of them, but when it worked, it was magic, it was like I had my thumb on the collective spine of the entire room and could just push back and forth and everyone moved... And they were all moving back. The whole game was this non-verbal back and forth between me and the Vibe of the Room, constantly checking out the body language and energy level, seeing what people responded to and teasing them with it, twisting it around, pushing it somewhere else and seeing if I could get them to go with me...

I gave it up after a while because I'd have had to put in a lot more time to take it to the next level, and I like my software career too much. It was a neat glimpse of a possible future, though.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:38 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale! (David Lowery is not going away)

This seems like an argument for the artist paying Pandora then, how many t-shirts would he have sold without those million plays?

And I'm getting super tired of musicians/record companies/basically everyone involved constantly complaining about every new distribution technology.
posted by Keith Talent at 10:41 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The fact is jhc, nobody wants a fair system where everyone gets paid a living wage to create art. People want an UNFAIR system full of luck so that some people can become Beyonce and others can be Rodriguez except without the comeback. That seems cool to most artists because we overvalue our own luck and skill.

An interesting comparison would be the professional sports industry. For every A-Rod making $100,000/game, there is an A-ball player making $6,000/season.

I've known some incredibly good (relative to your average punter) soccer/football player who have played professionally in Europe and the U.S. It's *hard* to make a decent living doing it.

Especially in U.S. football, there's always some mechanic or other profession who decides to tryout ,makes the team, and becomes a star. What I'm saying is the difference between $$$$ top star and $ has-been is very, very small.

Anyway, just a thought. I'll keep watching the cheap games--high school and minor league--but I almost wish I paid more per ticket.

I have taken the law into my own hands and compiled a Spotify playlist of songs that were on the charts July 13, 1985

Enjoy


He says "Enjoy" ... ironically? I thought summer of 1990 (Madonna's Hanky Panky, Jude Cole's Baby It's Tonight, Mariah Carey's Vision of Love and Phil Collin's Another Day in Paradise) was horrible, but you got a thing there in 1985. Smuggler's Blues, Glory Days, Money for Nothing ... some shoot-me-in-the-head songs right there. Thank goodness for Debarge.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:53 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The kickstarter-equivalent to get money up front and then a streaming long tail seems the sanest future, plus concert tours for those up to it. I'm in on the Toad the Wet Sprocket ks, which is at $180K with 20 days to go. Not crazy money, sure, but likely a decent chunk of money per member assuming they don't go crazy with recording costs, for a band which wasn't exactly huge even in the 90s.
posted by tavella at 11:01 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm in on the Toad the Wet Sprocket ks, which is at $180K with 20 days to go.

Aight let's pack it up everyone it's been fun, but rock and roll is cancelled from now on.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:32 AM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


I'm serious about a world-wide music production union by the way.

How are you going to unionize work that people will do for free? Not only do it for free, but drop thousands of dollars on it, with no expectation that they will ever be paid?
posted by empath at 11:54 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


And yes -- getting the money up front seems to be the sanest model for people who want to go the full-time music-making route, but that pretty much requires already having a fan-base, and you are never going to get a fan-base without giving your music away for free, for the most part. Actually worse than that, you actually have to spend money on marketing and promoting yourself, essentially paying money to get people to listen to you.
posted by empath at 11:58 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


"If the record company get it wrong and it just doesn't sell for whatever reason, they pick up the slack on it - it's their risk. They don't come knocking on the door saying, 'give me your money back'."

I thought that was exactly what they did - if your band doesn't sell, you needed to pay the managers and studio out of your own pocket.
posted by ymgve at 12:05 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]




How are you going to unionize work that people will do for free? Not only do it for free, but drop thousands of dollars on it, with no expectation that they will ever be paid?

You mean auto mechanics, furniture makers and machinists? Because they're all in a similar boat... what separates them from the hobbyists?

You couldn't possibly mean musicians...

Organize or die. The agents, labels and rights-enforcement groups are not working in your interest.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:18 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Is Thom Yorke predicting some sort of issue with Spotify in the future and is simply taking a precautionary action? He seems convinced that it's being run by the major industry people that he is trying to avoid so often, and if it is I can definitely see that informing his decision significantly.

Earlier someone said that making music is so easy now that the only reason someone doesn't make music is out of laziness. I can understand that perspective 100%, but not for everyone. I have an incredibly cheap recording setup that basically cost me about $1500 in 2010. This setup includes two microphones ($100 total) and a tiny interface ($100) and a laptop (I think $1200). I have used it so many times to primarily record myself but to also record my friends. Not all of them have the ability to learn recording software and music recording fundamentals, but one of them ended up learning and he has an EP out on iTunes now. Good for him, but it's not for everyone. Likewise, my computer is now old and is literally falling apart. I can't record anymore! I now have to shell out a lot of money for a new or refurbished computer. This is better than a multi-thousand dollar Neve exploding in my studio, or some intern improperly using a ribbon microphone. So while it is cheaper overall to make music, it's not always like that from situation to situation.

On the other hand, due to the fact that technology is everywhere now and it is cheaper to record music, there is a TON of new music coming out all the time. It's gotten to the point where keeping up with everything is overwhelming, especially in the rap world, where rappers can go and post their newest mixtape on datpiff.com and then go and release another new song on soundcloud right afterward. There have been so many great rappers and beat producers coming out via these avenues! Clams Casino, off the top of my head, is one of the biggest up-and-coming beat producers right now and it has a lot to do with his collaborations with ASAP Rocky, who released his mixtape on datpiff. Lil Ugly Mane, who has his own album and does beats for a few other closely related people such as Antwon, Cities Aviv, etc. Antwon keeps releasing cassettes through different smaller labels but has his songs up on bandcamp, where you can grab them or just stream them. A lot of these guys use bandcamp. In my opinion bandcamp is a better avenue for these people to release and promote their music. It's a simple, easy-to-use website with easy-to-remember URLs to pass on to people.

It is easier to self-promote these days. A lot of rappers, underground or not, have some sort of social media presence. If they're playing a show they will go on their facebook and tell you about it. They'll talk back to you when you tell them you love their album. I just had a rapper I like add me on facebook. Likewise, if you are starting to make a name for yourself, much like Yung Lean is, you can generate a lot of hype through clothing/art/culture blogs. The artist at this point has no need for Spotify, or simply doesn't feel like using it. A lot of these rappers and producers are part of their own communities via the internet so not only is there self-promotion and blog promotion, but they're promoting each other. This isn't just for rappers either. There are tons of new "emo"/punk bands using Facebook and Bandcamp to promote themselves, their friends, their other projects, the tours they're going on, etc. One band I am particularly in love with recently, Julia Brown, always is posting other peoples' songs and promoting shows. Following this band on Facebook has allowed me to find new music consistently. Most of the artists I follow on Facebook and constantly promoting other artists' work, which means I am always in a stream of new music. Why should you pay someone money to promote you when you can just promote yourself and then your friends promote you too? Not even that, but if you are making beats and a big music blog posts your Soundcloud on their website, then other people are going to promote you. If you are 17-years-old then this is really the only avenue you have, unless you're rich and you can hire someone to do all this stuff for you. And honestly, if I were 17-years-old and making beats or #based raps or both and a huge streetwear blog interviewed and promoted me multiple times, I would be so excited.

With all of that said, I don't personally use Spotify. My friend does and he loves it. He has very specific music tastes and the majority of bands he wants to listen to are on there. If they aren't then he puts them on his phone to listen to. I personally have a Soundcloud and Bandcamp app on my iPhone because I figure if I am at a friend's house listening to music on a stereo then I can get internet service and play whatever I want without much of an issue, or at the very least find it on youtube. Sometimes there is a song that is only streaming on Soundcloud that I can't download.

I can ultimately see the point in using Spotify for established musicians, but I usually have them on my phone already. For underground music of any genre I don't think it's a very big option for most people.
posted by gucci mane at 12:20 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Senor Cardage: Screw it. I have taken the law into my own hands and compiled a Spotify playlist of songs that were on the charts July 13, 1985

May I take it your point is that popular music has always been awful? And that the music of these (mostly) hugely popular artists just isn't important?

That playlist is what most of us would be listening to 30 years ago, before the web, etc. Now that is a culture with no shape or significance. A lot of people may have known those songs (and a few of them are good) but sharing the experience of mediocrity shouldn't be nostalgia fuel.

I made an alt-July 1985 playlist. These songs could have been on the charts on July 13, 1985 but they weren't. I like this playlist a whole lot better but I didn't know these songs in 1985 (when I was 9) even though I knew most of the songs on the chart playlist.

Not all of these albums were out yet but they could have had singles. Not all of these were even released as singles. This list could have been a lot broader. And not everyone is going to like this list. Which is my point. I think everyone should have their own list of stuff they love, fuck collective mediocrity.
posted by mountmccabe at 12:48 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think Senor's point was to show that Spotify could be used to assemble just such a playlist as requested.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah I just pulled from Billboards Hot 100 July 13, 1985
posted by Senor Cardgage at 1:02 PM on July 15, 2013


The future is in wandering minstrels.
posted by Pathos Bill at 1:05 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


'welcome to the party. We've been expecting you.'

"Yep, this is the last refuge of the performing arts. Come on in and make yourself comfortable. It's been a while since we've had many visitors from pop music, but you'll find a few jazz legends, an opera company, some avant-garde pioneers and a few formerly beloved, recently defunded philharmonics over by the day-old bread buffet. Me? No, I don't play an instrument. I'm over at the playwrights' table. We'll be heading up a panel of how to beg for money from rich, elderly patrons without appearing to actively pander to the largely conservative sensibilities of said patrons (so as to maintain that last shred of pesky dignity) later on this evening. You might also want to jump in on the grant-writing workshop. There isn't much money there, but sometimes you get lucky. A dance company recently won a whole $200 from a very generous arts foundation. That means they won't have to recycle their band-aids next year. Oh, sweetie, don't look so overwhelmed. You'll get the hang of it. We're all very friendly here. Especially if you brought your own booze. Oh god, please tell me you remembered to bring your own booze."
posted by thivaia at 1:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


There's a couple of things here.

The first is that this is an asymmetrical disruption, with the payments for the songs going to rights-holders not artists. That artists see so little of the revenue is the same problem as exists in the music industry at large. Spotify has not changed the nature of the problem, it has atomised distribution, so now the problem exists in much smaller fragments – but it's still present.

The second is one inherent to music, and that is technology re-pricing the market. One's head shakes when the profits of digital music are compared with that of analogue music. It's the different between sending a letter through the post versus an email. Digital music has drastically reduced the costs of distributing music, and therefore there has been a proliferation of entities in the value chain. More artists, more labels, more radio stations, more distribution networks, more consumers.

Because the economic winners have shifted doesn't mean that there is a problem with technology or the service, only that value creation has shifted. Thom Yorke's problem seems to be with the music business – even in atomised form – and the music business' problem is the reassignment of value creation.

What's probably the most interesting is that industry players – from the labels to the artists – keep thinking we've arrived at a steady state in the disruptive power of new technology. As if Spotify was the end of a chain that started with Napster – that we will settle on a dominant format and business model that mimic the path from records > 8 tracks > cassettes > CDs.

This is just the beginning of the disruption.
posted by nickrussell at 1:34 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


Re Billboard July 13, 1985: The number one song on the "black" chart on that date was "Hangin' on a String" by Loose Ends. Three of the top ten dance "tracks" were "Angel/Into the Groove" (Madonna), assorted tracks from Around the World in a Day, and "Dancin' in the Key of Life" by Steve Arrington. That's the only playlist I need for an instant summer 1985 flashback.
posted by blucevalo at 1:53 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Live streams. Gamers make money off live streams of them fucking around playing Starcraft. Steam your rehearsals.

Skype with fans. I'd pay like $20 bucks for Thom Yorke to Skye me to ask how my day was.


Musicians in Second Life already do all of this, by the way. They actually do live performances w/audio. The audience can watch the avatar in-world or the livestream of the musician in his or her location.

There are even several who manage to do duets while in different locations, though the technical issues get harder.

And SL of course lets you tip (so does Livestream I think) during the performance as well as send/receive personal messages, make requests, etc.

It's still not really a living, though SL does have the advantage of letting you play shows in the afternoon for people in other countries who are watching at night, and musicians who work at it/build a following/go to real world meetups can make a modest revenue stream.

It's an odd little scene. Not many musicians are willing to get to know the technology/virtual thing to do it, so they just schlep back down to the open mic night because it's more "real."
posted by emjaybee at 1:56 PM on July 15, 2013


Just to throw some more articles into the mix:

Spotify Responds to Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich's Protest of Service (& Nigel Godrich responds to Spotify's response)

And, from a while ago, Damon (of Galaxie 500 and Damon & Naomi) describes the limited royalties he gets from streaming & why they've made streaming free: Making Cents. (Not coincidentally, you can stream most of his bands' albums on bandcamp.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:27 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Because you want to listen to it in your car?

That's what the Bandcamper app and an FM transmitter is for.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 3:19 PM on July 15, 2013


Interesting viewpoint; I hope the karma police don't put out an APB on Thom...
posted by Renoroc at 3:46 PM on July 15, 2013


Nigel Godrich responds to Spotify's response

OK, I sort of on board but this shows Godrich is WAAAAAAY out there on this issue.

"The massive amount of catalogue being streamed guarantees that they get the big massive slice of the pie (that $500 million) and the smaller producers and labels get pittance for their comparatively few streams."

That is to say he is upset that the major labels get paid more just because their songs are streamed more. He is upset that the back catalog is being made available to us and that we are streaming it.

What does he want, equal distribution by label no matter what the content, no matter how popular it is?
posted by mountmccabe at 3:49 PM on July 15, 2013


Alot of the discussion seems to center around consumers of music wanting to use their purchasing *morally* which as Nick Russell makes clear in this complicated value-chain of producers and middle-men is actually impossible to discern. Its akin to wanting the farmer of your Starbucks venti to be making the most moral possible amount possible, but that's NOT what starbucks is selling you...

Spotify, and iTunes provide services built-onto the customers based on their ability to negotiate (their market power) with rights-holders - labels NOT artists.

So, yeah some of your spotify subscription money filters down to an artist, but probably just as much as the farmer from your coffee... Artists seem to be directing their ire at pandora, or spotify, or consumers, because they've already signed away their rights to their labels...

What does he want, equal distribution by label no matter what the content, no matter how popular it is?
Well, he probably wants those consumers with the most ability to pay, and the most niche tastes to pay the most for those niche markets... but... nah, we played that game with exclusives, and Japanese cds with 2 extra tracks. The current services offered are a much better deal...

Also, great first FPP!!!
posted by stratastar at 3:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


What does he want, equal distribution by label no matter what the content, no matter how popular it is?

Haven't read all of this thread, so it may have been covered, but it seems like you could slant streaming prices so new stuff costs more while old material is available for a pittance. Or, yeah, make new artists so cheap to stream that everyone spends time digging around for new material that's awesome. It doesn't have to be one-size-fits-all here.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:04 PM on July 15, 2013


I feel kinda horrible about using Spotify... but on the other hand it just introduced me (like, 30 minutes ago) to a new band, and if they tour I'll buy tickets, and merch, and all that.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 4:38 PM on July 15, 2013


The 10 most streamed albums right now (for the USA) are all from 2012 or 2013. Going to the top 20 adds one album from 2011 and everything else from 2012 or 2013. It isn't until #33, Tim McGraw's Number One Hits to get an album from as far back as 2010 (this is also the highest ranked compilation). Nothing in the top 50 is from earlier than 2010. The only albums that stick out from the next 50 are a few more greatest hits compilations and Oracular Spectacular from 2007 and The Eminem Show from 2002.

The top tracks lists look very similar. Spotify users ARE listening to new music. Just mostly new music from the major labels. Which is why the major labels are making more money.
posted by mountmccabe at 4:41 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Charge more to stream new stuff. Say $1/week/each new release. So a base price for back catalog plus a la carte pricing.
posted by professor plum with a rope at 5:16 PM on July 15, 2013



Charge more to stream new stuff. Say $1/week/each new release. So a base price for back catalog plus a la carte pricing.


sweet, another reason to ignore new music
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:19 PM on July 15, 2013


He's still on Mog...
posted by professor plum with a rope at 5:36 PM on July 15, 2013


For the past week, Pandora has been streaming the new Pet Shop Boys album in its entirety for free. I listened to it, oh, a dozen times or so.

Now I'm already a PSB fan, and had been planning on buying the album already, but at least two people I know who are only passingly acquainted with PSB listened to the stream and placed orders for the album, which is being released on PSB's own brand new label x2 with some distribution help from some other company.

So that is TWO sales which would not have happened without free preview streaming of an upcoming album, just within the circle of people I know.

Really, I think the route for music sales is to have it streaming for free up until it becomes available for sale, and then withdraw it for a while, while people receive their preorder purchases, get some word-of-mouth "You have to hear this" trapped-in-a-car listens, and then after one or two months, put it on sites such as Spotify or whatnot.

But seriously, if you like modern dance music at all, and have EVER liked PSB in the past, this new album "Electric" is jaw-droppingly good. I can't wait to get my CD copy so I can have true low-frequency making my crappy subwoofer dance all over my floor.
posted by hippybear at 5:40 PM on July 15, 2013


Don't most bands still make most of their money from live shows and merch? Spotify encourages that.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:47 PM on July 15, 2013


this new album "Electric" is jaw-droppingly good

That's good news. I loved Yes (and Yes Etc) but really couldn't get into Elysium at all, so I've been dithering somewhat on pre-ordering this one.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 6:36 PM on July 15, 2013


Yeah, Elysium grew on me, but it took... jeez.. two dozen listens before it finally clicked? And it really is not a strong album compared to many PSB albums.

Electric, on the other hand... holy cow. Entirely classic PSB, but at the same time right on the front edge of Now. You will NOT be disappointed.
posted by hippybear at 8:38 PM on July 15, 2013


If we're talking about bands we've discovered on Spotify, I just found out about Hostage Calm, who have a kinda low key pop punk vibe.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hippybear, you got fall tour tix?
We do. First time seeing em and sooooooo psyched for it.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 11:58 PM on July 15, 2013


But seriously, if you like modern dance music at all, and have EVER liked PSB in the past, this new album "Electric" is jaw-droppingly good.

The production quality is probably due to Stuart Price (Jacques du Conte), who also produced Madonna and the Killers and has done a slew of amazing remixes and singles.
posted by empath at 12:37 AM on July 16, 2013


Most pop/rock/(insert-current-hipster-genre) music just isn't good enough to deserve being paid for.

The bar is set high and always has been: you have to make music that people really, really need in their lives. Not just something that occupies their ears for a few minutes. Then they'll pay for it. Ask Bowie, Elton John, Adele, etc.
posted by colie at 12:50 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]



Most pop/rock/(insert-current-hipster-genre) music just isn't good enough to deserve being paid for.

The bar is set high and always has been: you have to make music that people really, really need in their lives. Not just something that occupies their ears for a few minutes. Then they'll pay for it. Ask Bowie, Elton John, Adele, etc.


I guess... but the problem is that the music that just 'occupies their ears' is what makes the most money. Though the acts with devoted fans do make money with live shows and merchendise.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 1:05 AM on July 16, 2013



The future is in wandering minstrels.


You say that sarcastically, but between buskers, singer songwriters making money, and the Mumford & Sons/Bon Iver aesthetic its about as accurate as anything.

If people like a band, they'll buy stuff from them. My drummer is making us release tapes (?) because apparently that's a thing people buy now. I'll still buy EPs and CDs. And if your music is on Spotify, it isn't in my playlists, so i'm not noticing it.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 1:13 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hippybear, you got fall tour tix?

Yup, Portland in early Oct. Should be great!
posted by hippybear at 6:47 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


"The production quality is probably due to Stuart Price (Jacques du Conte), who also produced Madonna and the Killers and has done a slew of amazing remixes and singles."

Yeah, it was kinda sad to realize that current Madonna is so bad that Jacque lu Conte couldn't save her.
posted by klangklangston at 9:11 AM on July 16, 2013


More artists, more labels, more radio stations, more distribution networks, more consumers.

and more bands wanting/needing to play live, with the concurrent value shift. The take from the door or the merch table is not going to be going up.
posted by bonefish at 12:44 PM on July 16, 2013


Yeah, it was kinda sad to realize that current Madonna is so bad that Jacque lu Conte couldn't save her.

Well, yeah, but he didn't work on the current Madonna. He worked on 2005's rather excellent Confessions On A Dance Floor. (One of her three best albums, IMO -- Like A Prayer and Ray Of Light being the other two.) He's worked with a lot of people, including Scissor Sisters, Kylie, Seal, New Order...

He also produced this cover previously for Pet Shop Boys, one of my favorites from their Yes era.
posted by hippybear at 4:53 PM on July 16, 2013


Forbes has a cynical take on Atoms for Peace supporting the launch of soundhalo, an audio/video concert streaming service.
posted by mountmccabe at 8:00 AM on July 19, 2013


Damon Krukowski has another op-ed on streaming in Pitchfork that largely doubles down on his argument that streaming should be free: Free Music.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:05 PM on July 27, 2013


« Older Who Ruined the Humanities?   |   Soviet Futurism Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments