Spotify - anyone heard of it?

just read his editorial, wow it's a lot of bullshit

I think you really have a weird sense of how much it means the first time you get anywhere near Actual Money for your music -- like, 900 bucks...is fucking 900 bucks, it's incredibly super-nice to get a check for that amount - the first time I made a grand in a night was '98, I still remember it really clearly because it was like holy shit. a thousand dollars. takes me three and a half weeks to earn that normally. I am still talking about it. but this dude used to be a publicist evidently? and people are seriously asking musicians right and left "wanna write a Spotify article?" pro or con because they're getting linked, so I'd guess this guy thought "I can write one and generate further publicity for myself"

Omg why are people acting like this guys some sweet noob getting lucky kisses from wired and spotify when he's a self described industry veteran with management label experience, who literally started a tumblr for his band just to post this article

Why the hell is my noting this is weird and suspsish causing people to half-read my posts and respond like I'm bob lefsetz screaming about the saucer people

lol no idea. My reaction was exactly same as yours (minus the investigation part because you've already done it).

Bless you sir was reaching frustration level mugatu

the author and co-founder of Moke Hill's motivation is pretty clear

"Imagine if Spotify were embraced by notable musicians and revenue grew to 10 times what it is today (and the streams per song along with it); the singles mentioned above could be generating $9 to $17 million dollars each—for one song."

it's easy if you try...

Different playlists on Spotify get done different ways. Some involve significant personal input, some are much more numbers-driven. I don't know the exact story behind Beards & Flannel, but it's an individual's list that has been featured in the Spotify editorial section, not an official Spotify company-produced list. It's got 28k followers, and the follower-count is usually a smallish fraction of the listeners, so that song might have reached ~100k people by appearing on that list. It's sort of like getting played on a college radio show, except that list doesn't change very often, and Moke Hill's song has been on there since January, so I guess it's like being put into long-term rotation on a very small station.

da croupier the thing that nags at me in your post is that you're implying that this guy is in bed with Spotify at this is some kind of cynical PR shill for Spotify, like he's so naive that he made $900 that he'll do anything for them.

I think this "industry vet"--by the way the phrase "industry vet" is nowhere in the article--used his contacts to get on a playlist on Spotify and also to land an article in Wired, and he's savvy enough to know that Wired will not publish an article about Mole Hill but will publish an article on Spotify. You seem baffled that this (sneer) "industry vet" is so bad at social media, get when it comes to the two huge PR scores he's achieved, it must have nothing to do with his connections and everything to do with Spotify exploiting a naive schmuck,

ffs you've spent the day researching everything there is to know about Mole Hill, so I think this guy is not a rube.

alright, last time i'm going to explain why someone's confused about what i'm saying. from here on out if i ignore you, that means you don't understand what i've said and i don't need to repeat myself again.

that this guy is in bed with Spotify at this is some kind of cynical PR shill for Spotify, like he's so naive that he made $900 that he'll do anything for them.

this is a really wrongheaded conflation of one possibility - that this article is not just some tenderhearted indie musician speaking up for the company that's gonna get him and everyone else through the rain - and another, which i've only shared tongue-in-cheek because it's so ridiculous - that he was legitimately moved to write a long-ass article full of industry-wide optimism and pie-charts (despite minimal web presence beforehand) because he got random love from spotify adding up to 900 bucks and less than 300 followers (admittedly more than he has on any other platform). if you think i'm saying he became a pr shill for spotify BECAUSE he got 900 bucks, you need to read slower.

I think this "industry vet"--by the way the phrase "industry vet" is nowhere in the article-

you're right. in the article he says Before switching over to the artist’s side of things, I spent several years on the business end of the industry, working at an indie label and management company. That experience gave me exposure to the process of how revenue flows from consumers to artists, and how that process is changing with new technology. If you feel the phrase "industry vet" is misleading shorthand to use in response to the repeated idea that he saw 900 bucks and went "woah, we're making it!" (again, an idea i've floated only as an alternative to him being a pr shill) I'm really surprised by this

-used his contacts to get on a playlist on Spotify and also to land an article in Wired, and he's savvy enough to know that Wired will not publish an article about Mole Hill but will publish an article on Spotify.

nowhere in the article does he acknowledge being benefited from a playlist on spotify - merely that spotify "exposed" his band's work. so you're basically admitting there's at least a modicum of deception involved in him saying what worked for moke hill will work for every indie artist. you're even taking it a step further. you're saying a guy who can't be bothered to post regularly on facebook, twitter, instagram to promote his band, started a tumblr with a long article about how spotify is the future, with the long game of slipping in promotion of his band in Wired. Cuz man, what a "huge pr score". Almost as big as the one that got him 200+ followers on spotify. (ps i have an old co-worker who makes no music and has 1,524).

I am soooooo not saying it has nothing to do with connections. AT ALL. i have to assume you missed the sarcasm of the "ok perhaps he's just some guy who rose like a phoenix when spotify gave him cash" for you to think i was.

this bit from the tumblr version of the article probably also influenced my decision to honor him with the handle "industry vet"

Today, I’m experiencing the industry from the side of the artist (although admittedly, miles from Taylor Swift and Aloe Blacc on the notoriety continuum). In 2013, I formed a band called Moke Hill with my close friend Andrew Phillips and we were later joined by several other friends from within the industry.

actually, to acknowledge that there sure has been plenty of clusterfuck, lemme just lay out what i've been saying in the simplest terms. hopefully then people can disagree with THAT.

a person who "worked for several years on the business end of the industry," in their own words, now has an indie band with a web presence that would hardly suggest they're engaging the new music economy as we know it. this person then started a tumblr for his band that has no information about their music, just a long article about how the arguments against spotify are really misleading, complete with charts and graphs, noting that while 300,000 streams have only gotten him $900, it's really helped them out in terms of outreach and publicity (again, this someone who has posted a collective five tweets, six facebook posts and 12 instagram photos over the last year, so you know how much he's into outreach and publicity). he trumpets that no pr or marketing went into their success, but fails to acknowledge that a spotify-promoted playlist is undoubtedly what got this track 300,000 streams when the rest of the songs only have about 10,000 (they also have a miniscule amount of followers on spotify, suggesting there really hasn't been a groundswell of interest from this playlist placement). despite zero history of any other writing on the net, this post got linked to in the kansas city star, and then turned into an article for wired within a month.

i deem this odd. very odd.

forgot: there's also no acknowledgement of bandcamp or any other popular indie band music distribution platform. part of why i'd even go as far to say the piece is "suspicious," though i know i'm asking for someone to say i'm accusing them of some grand conspiracy if i do.

I advise you to avoid all music premieres.

not sure i understand that cryptic dismissal (though it's a refreshing change of pace - no clear evidence what i've written has been ignored or misread), but i should note that part of why i'm hesitant to lay out any actual conspiracy is that it's possible this guy IS focused more on kissing industry ass than engaging with an audience at this point. He says himself We laid the foundation for Moke Hill with an EP that came out at the end of 2013, then worked on new material to complete a full-length release as a basis to secure label, management and booking partners. And while I think it's insane to think Wired is a way to the people, saying you think spotify is the bee's knees might be a way to get label, management and booking partners.

despite zero history of any other writing on the net, this post got linked to in the kansas city star, and then turned into an article for wired within a month.

i deem this odd. very odd.

totally odd. it's almost like the guy used to be a publicist and might know people at publications or something.

Can we move on to the next artist complaining about or praising Spotify?

ime people tend to follow playlists in spotify, rather than musicians. a low follower for an unknown indie band isn't necc. an indication that people aren't listening to or liking their music (correct me if i'm wrong, glenn)

Just got the family plan for 4 people. Nice for me to save money but man Spotify is just going to burn cash to get MAUs, huh?

MAUs?

Take That bail

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30223844

xp Monthly Active Users

xpost Google appear to have paid an undisclosed sum for a 1-month exclusive, which is not the same as Take That "bailing" on Spotify - it's like when iTunes paid for a 1-week exclusive of the Daft Punk record

i liked this piece, more nuanced than most http://oneofthosefaces.com/2014/12/02/the-incalculable-value-of-music/

apparently something like 90% of spotify listening is driven by the same 40,000 albums

as it becomes a more mainstream, mature service, i imagine that number dropping to 30 or even 20K

meaning it will become harder, not easier, for non-elite musicians to make any money from it

that's a lot of albums

it's really not

well it doesn't really matter if it is or not since the figure is meaningless without any reference

that's about 1,000 albums per year, assuming most spotify listening is oriented toward popular music of the past half-century or so (and i think it's safe to assume most spotify listening is more narrow than that if anything). so um, yeah, that's a lot of albums.

You cannot convert casual consumers into fans that are prepared to make a financial (and indeed, emotional) investment just by taking away your product. But you can convert casual consumers into fans by making a financial (and emotional) investment in your product look like the more desirable, value for money option.

this logic's pretty odd - taylor didn't "take away" her product from casual consumers, she just didn't allow it on spotify. casual consumers could still watch the videos on youtube, etc, and there are still plenty of avenues to get the album. in general i think that piece blurs cynicism about casual consumers (A free streaming service – whether that be Spotify, Beats, Pandora – serves the niche of people who like music but don’t value it) and the self-interest of a superconsumer (In 2015, I should be able to consume media like a buffet, not a set meal). it's the cheap superconsumer, who likes to hear a ton of music and pay as little as possible for it (i include myself in this lot) who suffers from swift not putting full albums on spotify.

xp there are 30 million songs on Spotify, I was commenting that 40,000 albums doesn't seem like a large percentage of that. sure, I wouldn't be able to listen to all of them before I died (of boredom, no doubt)

TH, not sure I understand the argument. If the number of albums that *drive* Spotify decreases as it becomes more mainstream, then non-elite musicians will make less money because Spotify will pay them less? Or because they will somehow end up with fewer streams?

apparently something like 90% of spotify listening is driven by the same 40,000 albums

as it becomes a more mainstream, mature service, i imagine that number dropping to 30 or even 20K

meaning it will become harder, not easier, for non-elite musicians to make any money from it

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:00 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We'd have to know how this distribution compares to the distribution of purchases back in the good old days (as well as a bunch of other things) - my guess would be that Spotify listening has a longer tail but idk really.

Ex-Easter Island Head only lose out from more people listening to Taylor Swift if the per-stream payments change, otherwise it won't affect them surely?

TH, not sure I understand the argument. If the number of albums that *drive* Spotify decreases as it becomes more mainstream, then non-elite musicians will make less money because Spotify will pay them less? Or because they will somehow end up with fewer streams?

if 90% of Spotify listening is to this very small slice of the catalog, then as Spotify becomes a mainstream service that slice will get smaller because mainstream listeners are less eclectic and adventurous in their listening. i.e. it will become more difficult for non-megastars to make any money at all on Spotify, not less difficult. and then those non-mega musicians and labels have to make a choice, either accept Spotify as a marketing tool or pull their music altogether. the majors don't give a shit because they own pretty much all of that little slice that makes up 90% of listening. plus they own a stake in spotify.

not really spotify's fault that people all listen to the same stuff

FWIW heard Kelefa Sanneh on a podcast make a very good case (and have others make similar cases) that it's really the labels screwing artists again here, not Spotify, although it might be a hair-splitting distinction given that the labels own big chunks of Spotify. Basically the labels earn revenue three different ways -- from lump sum payments, from royalty payments, and from their equity in Spotify. But they only share the royalty stream of income with artists, and they make sure to maximize the other two and minimize that one.

Personally, I appreciate Spotify because if there is bad news to be had regarding Spotify and music consumers' depressing habits, I'd rather have it right in front of me.

When I was growing up, there was no way of understanding music consumer behavior, short of taking notes when you visit houses or dorm rooms. Thanks to sites like last.fm or services like Spotify, we can get an idea.

actually, there were these things called magazines and "industry trades"...

i'll admit last.fm and spotify make it easier to cull information about the listening habits of individuals though. i just wouldn't qualify "jesus bob sure likes that ariana grande song" as "understanding music consumer behavior"

We get reports from Next Big Sound that shows us aggregate data on Spotify for our music. It's free, too. Not that our numbers are high enough to gain any big insight, but it's still interesting.

There's definitely something new about the ability to tell what people are actually listening to and how much, and not just what they buy.

I was given sting's lute album as a gift, and I never even opened it ;_;

i liked this piece, more nuanced than most http://oneofthosefaces.com/2014/12/02/the-incalculable-value-of-music/

― lex pretend,

Its better than most, but there's still an inference or implication that we our entitled in some way to media

I should be able to consume media like a buffet, not a set meal

Overall I think this is true, but i also dont think we're entitled to any one persons music or song, if they want to pull it, surely thats up to them. Theyre not obligated to put it on spotify, or even release it at all, and if they want to charge £400 for it, thats up to them.

I havent followed this taylor swift spotify thing particularly closely, but surely she can do whatever she wants with her music, why is anyone entitled to it - and also why should she have to justify herself to anyone

she was not strictly required to justify it. but people will just guess or fabricate your reasons for the public act of not releasing your music on spotify when you are as big as she is. so she decided that it was best to make a statement so that people can clearly know the thoughts behind her actions.

people would have guessed 'money' and her reason was 'money'

but what would the raccoons have guessed?

people would have guessed 'money' and her reason was 'money'

― iatee, Wednesday

and thats as valid a reason as any other, no?

raccoons aside, people aren't really attacking TS for her decision here.

people who make art for a living should do whatever they want to maximize their earnings

it's slightly disingenuous for her to pretend like her situation is comparable to anybody else's though

she is like a painter. a painter named Thomas Kinkade.

Seems like there are separate problems of whether Spotify hurts your sales vs whether you can fight the tide.