Spotify - anyone heard of it?

^ I was wondering about the economics of bandcamp too, not so much the streaming side of things but it seems to be the digital distribution method of choice for a lot of the non-major label Australian music I listen to

http://basca.org.uk/2014/11/13/basca-supports-taylor-swift-in-spotify-action/

Ivor Novello Awards Chairman Gary Osborne (whose songs include Elton John’s Blue Eyes) comments, “No matter how bad it is for the artists it’s a whole lot worse for the writers! People don’t understand the difference between the writer and the act, but artists receive a far higher income from streaming than the people who write the songs. This is because deals were done first with the record labels that represent the artists, after which a few scraps seem to have been tossed to the songwriters and their publishers as an afterthought.”

^^important point that i haven't seen noted too much

it should be noted, on the other hand, that terrestrial radio (at least in the u.s.) is really good for the writers and really bad for the artists, and that is unlikely to ever change because the radio lobby is still a lot more powerful than the streaming lobby.

Really enjoyed Albini's take here: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full

How to make Spotify fairer:

https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-to-make-streaming-royalties-fair-er-8b38cd862f66

(it's really easy)

The argument in that Medium piece has some aspects in common with David Lowery's argument here [http://www.salon.com/2014/08/31/david_lowery_heres_how_pandora_is_destroying_musicians/] that music people don't listen to very much should be more expensive than music people listen to a lot. I don't think "fairness" is really the justification for this.

In addition to the basic problem that all the numbers in the Medium piece are literally made up, it totally ignores the fact that about 75% of Spotify listeners are paying for their music by being advertised to, not through subscriptions, and thus generate more net revenue by listening more, not less.

i love it when glenn brings the knowledge

"that music people don't listen to very much should be more expensive"

Subscription is a flat rate - no music costs the consumer more than any other. Surely it's a fair point that me spending £120 a year without listening to Taylor Swift shouldn't result in her getting more of that money than anyone I do listen to?

Using spotify and other streaming services seems just as immoral as using torrents or soulseek. The difference is that I'm just paying a company to do the same thing legally. The artists still don't get shit. I can't figure out why the labels ever agreed to this.

If Spotify is as immoral as illegal downloading, then shopping at a store is as immoral as stealing.

Which you could argue, of course, on the same grounds: distributors taking too much of the money that "should" go to the original workers. But blaming Spotify for the artist inequities in the major-label music business misses pretty much every important point. In order to exist legally and have a plausible library in 2014, any music service has to deal with the major labels. But it's a pretty big collective victory that you can GET onto all major online music services without signing with a major label.

I was looking at the website of a "digital music distributor" today. It seems like a bit of a rip off. Can artists deal directly with streaming services, or do they need to use a distributor?

"But blaming Spotify for the artist inequities in the major-label music business misses pretty much every important point."

Huh? Spotify and the labels agree to a payout rate. How are they not implicated?

For Spotify, at least, you still currently need a distributor, but there are some pretty low-cost options. I don't have any experience with them personally, but I think I was leaning towards OneRPM.

calstars, I feel pretty comfortable at this point that Spotify is paying its way adequately, in overall rate terms. But whether that money gets from the labels to individual artists is another question. And whether streaming is better or worse than the old world for individual artists is another whole set of questions. And what Spotify, or any other service, could do differently in the future is yet another set.

But it's a pretty big collective victory that you can GET onto all major online music services without signing with a major label.

no it's not. the privilege of being on a digital distribution platform whose royalty accounting primarily rewards the biggest "rights holders," who also happen to be equity shareholders in the platform, is not a "big collective victory." It is a concession to the times and the economy that some independent artists have chosen to make.

this whole "if we ignore this issue, this issue, this issue and this issue, spotify is totally fair" stance is such a joke.

by the nature of the deals made, spotify and the major labels cannot be treated as independent agents

Go try to get your movie into theaters, or your show on TV. Or your song on commercial radio or your CD into Best Buy.

Yes, it's true that the most popular artists make more money. That's always been true. Were you hoping for streaming socialism?

dude do you really want to be the guy who tells everyone that the company your work for is superawesome and fair to small artists, and then when people point out how it isn't the advantageous system you claim, you just say it's not their fault that's the way it is go back to soviet russia?

to become a big guy, spotify set up an accounting and equity structure that primarily benefits the big guys (and by that we're talking LABELS, not ARTISTS - with the possible exception of a few powerful enough to negotiate with their label and/or spotify directly). you're right - it is what it is, how it's always been. but to then suggest everyone should ignore those aspects and focus on a purely theoretical construct so they can blindly backflip over the privilege of engaging with that system is some "shut up be happy" corporate lackey pr bullshit i don't understand bothering to push in your free time.

in cases like movie theaters, retail stores, tv, there are limitations in space. there's the desire to focus your attention. currently, as spotify is trying to become the be-all-end-all of streaming, they are being super-inclusive. you shouldn't be any more flattered spotify will put your album up than you should be honored that your name comes up on google. and thanks to the nature of the accounting and equity of spotify, the presence of random indie acts still BENEFITS the majors. if spotify succeeds in becoming be-all-end-all of streaming, the major labels (not artists, LABELS) will see an economic windfall completely separate from the royalty system, which is already staggered (and muddled with advances) to help them anyway. this is not a "victory" for independent artists. in this system, they're just fodder.

Doesn't seem likely that you and I are going to change each other's minds, whomever you are.

i'm not trying to change your mind. i'm pointing out how either blinkered or disingenuous your defense of your employer is.

i use spotify. i want you to continue to improve it and keep it running smooth. but i don't want you pushing pr in a critically-minded thread about any more than i'd want a mcdonalds employee telling us how if you ignore x y and z hamburgers are actually good for you and the world at large in a meat thread, despite the fact that i eat meat.

jack manfred says "no more bets"

sure hope they don't pull an uber and threaten to tell everyone how often i've listened to "boom clap" on private session

Ah, well, good to be clear that you're just insulting me instead of having a discussion.

croup insulting you is just part of having a discussion w/ croup <3

glenn mcdonald's

lol I wondered if that was on purpose

Wasn't actually! Pun unintended

Glenn do you honestly need to tell yourself this was all just "personal insults"?

Or that my indifference to "changing your mind" nullifies this as a "discussion"? I gotta wanna sway a middle manager to correct one?

by the nature of the deals made, spotify and the major labels cannot be treated as independent agents

― da croupier, Sunday, November 23, 2014 11:00 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is the only thing I really disagree with

The founders are still majority owners, and I'd imagine that spotify will fight for more sustainable deals for the artists as it becomes more powerful.

I'd imagine that while dressed in a little sailor's outfit and licking a giant lollipop btw

in terms of money, there is basically no reason for spotify to fight for artists as it becomes more powerful. can you give me an example of where a corporation has fought for the rights of workers of a 25% shareholder? hard enough to find one that fights for the rights of workers! the only possibility i could fathom is if it became a serious pr issue. and i don't see that happening, especially if more and more people accept spotify as the new normal.

should also note another reason it's not a "victory" for indies that they get to be on spotify - spotify could easily be sued if they didn't. back in the day, movie studios owned movie theaters, and that was broken up by the supreme court in an antitrust case. even with the labels as minority owners, if spotify made any effort to exclude competitors, that could be seen as a potential monopoly, especially considering the audience projection numbers spotify uses to argue that someday everyone will get mad loot.

on a practical level, this is why spotify hasn't blasted to hell "re-recordings" and karaoke versions of hit songs. the avoidance of the former would especially rankle, as while they suck ass, they're clearly artist-approved.

all they can do is promote the most "popular" versions of songs, with the occasional re-recordings still ranking higher. but if they could, it'd be so easy to send us straight to the Geffen/MCA greatest hits comp and past the k-tel one.

if anything, as implied by youtube's negotiation with indies, spotify could hold them to even shittier deals as they get more powerful. usually that's what powerful companies do.

I guess 'a serious pr issue' coupled with better competition is what I'm hoping for

ok then your issue is how on earth "as they become more powerful" and "better competition" co-exist

well I could see spotify growing along with another competitor, and that competitor switching to a 'we are the ethical music streaming service' strategy.

perhaps I am warped by california in seeing that as a winner, though

again please give an example of this utopian situation where pepsi appears next to coke and then says "we're the ethical one" and the other responds by trying to beat it at its own game at the expense of a minority shareholder

honestly vinyl making a mega-comeback seems more likely

a big reason i don't actually think glenn's being a pr shill (though he could try harder to avoid looking like one) is that clearly you don't have to get a check from spotify to find spotify worth crafting hilariously optimistic fantasies over. for the music nerd the current situation is fucking sweeeeeeet and now that we've tasted paradise why would we want to go without it.

xp that would be great. I could pay $10/month for spotify and then go to my local record store and actually pay $15 or less for any new record. yes, please.

and my new mac demarco record wouldn't be horribly decentered bc people would remember how to cut records correctly

said it before but my dream of avalon is that mp3s and cds go the way of the dodo, spotify (or some relatively unsoiled simulacrum) is given 2-3 songs from every artist who finds the promotion worthwhile, with the rest of the songs from an "album" behind a paywall and/or available on vinyl. for those only interested in the hits, they'd still have access to thousands and thousands of songs in a jukebox of the gods. and everyone who gets heavily invested in an artist would actually have cause beyond a patrician's guilt to give them more money for more music.

wouldn't swear it's gonna happen, though

2-3 songs per album, i mean. if we're still making "albums"

spotify has a hard enough time getting people to pay $5-10 a month for industry-wide access, so they've got no desire to install further paywalls if they aren't made to