Spotify - anyone heard of it?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (12392 of them)

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.

da croupier, Thursday, 27 November 2014 06:15 (nine years ago) link

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.

da croupier, Thursday, 27 November 2014 06:45 (nine years ago) link

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.

da croupier, Thursday, 27 November 2014 06:53 (nine years ago) link

I advise you to avoid all music premieres.

katherine, Thursday, 27 November 2014 06:56 (nine years ago) link

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.

da croupier, Thursday, 27 November 2014 07:19 (nine years ago) link

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.

The Complainte of Ray Tabano, Thursday, 27 November 2014 12:54 (nine years ago) link

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

Jeff, Thursday, 27 November 2014 13:00 (nine years ago) link

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)

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 27 November 2014 17:35 (nine years ago) link

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?

schwantz, Thursday, 27 November 2014 18:11 (nine years ago) link

MAUs?

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 27 November 2014 21:32 (nine years ago) link

Take That bail

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

piscesx, Thursday, 27 November 2014 22:04 (nine years ago) link

xp Monthly Active Users

One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Thursday, 27 November 2014 22:45 (nine years ago) link

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

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 28 November 2014 00:53 (nine years ago) link

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

lex pretend, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 16:56 (nine years ago) link

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, 2 December 2014 17:00 (nine years ago) link

that's a lot of albums

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Tuesday, 2 December 2014 17:04 (nine years ago) link

it's really not

sleeve, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 17:14 (nine years ago) link

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

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Tuesday, 2 December 2014 17:47 (nine years ago) link

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.

fact checking cuz, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 19:45 (nine years ago) link

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.

da croupier, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 20:07 (nine years ago) link

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)

sleeve, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 21:07 (nine years ago) link

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?

timellison, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 23:31 (nine years ago) link

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.

death in Skegness (seandalai), Tuesday, 2 December 2014 23:31 (nine years ago) link

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?

death in Skegness (seandalai), Tuesday, 2 December 2014 23:33 (nine years ago) link

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.

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 12:46 (nine years ago) link

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

iatee, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 14:32 (nine years ago) link

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.

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 14:40 (nine years ago) link

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.

Threat Assessment Division (I M Losted), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 14:56 (nine years ago) link

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

da croupier, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 15:46 (nine years ago) link

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"

da croupier, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 15:54 (nine years ago) link

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.

schwantz, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 17:12 (nine years ago) link

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.

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 17:15 (nine years ago) link

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

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 17:18 (nine years ago) link

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

saer, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 17:30 (nine years ago) link

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.

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 17:58 (nine years ago) link

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

iatee, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 18:51 (nine years ago) link

but what would the raccoons have guessed?

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 18:56 (nine years ago) link

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

― iatee, Wednesday

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

saer, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 18:58 (nine years ago) link

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

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 19:01 (nine years ago) link

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

iatee, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 19:10 (nine years ago) link

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

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 19:12 (nine years ago) link

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

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 19:13 (nine years ago) link

you can break that down even more when you consider the option of not putting everything on spotify. there's not "fighting the tide" and there's putting your kids in the backseat and driving into the ocean.

da croupier, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 19:31 (nine years ago) link

you still don't actually have much leverage when you do that unless you are taylor swift and can hold back the single most in demand album of the year. when consumers have a sea of hundreds of thousands of things to choose from, everything is devalued. how many individual books could disappear from the NYPL without anyone noticing?

iatee, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 19:44 (nine years ago) link

I kind of dont agree with that, the strength of the library is the library itself not any one book, and priviledging any one book or song or artist is ossifying for me, taking the tree out of the forest and saying look at this one tree. It doesnt devalue a tree that there are other trees.

Anyway for me its not so much about what taylor swift does or doesnt do, thats her own business, its the entitlement of those that feel they are somehow owed the music they want in the format they want

saer, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 19:54 (nine years ago) link

This thing is up now: https://www.spotify-yearinmusic.com/index.html

glenn mcdonald, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 21:42 (nine years ago) link

Top artists: 1) Steely Dan 2) Future Islands 3) Paramore 4) Owen Pallett 5) Beck. Lots of ILX thread influence there...

$0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 22:09 (nine years ago) link

more like whitify amiwite?

18th Century Celebrity WS of Shame (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 22:13 (nine years ago) link

curious what the metric was for the personal top 5 albums - was it number of tracks from an album? times you played the whole thing? the five albums i got suggested there might not have been five albums i played all the way through this year

da croupier, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 22:17 (nine years ago) link

hey glenn can you tell me how off my numbers are? i.e. 40K albums = 90% of streams?

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 3 December 2014 22:24 (nine years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.