Continuing with Spotify?

I see what you did there.

RH's post was a lot.

Had an email from Kristin Hersh's mailing list which seemed like a lot of hemming and hawing which I found pretty disappointing:

From Kristin re: Spotify and taking sides
For what it’s worth, I have never administered or controlled any of “my” Spotify accounts, Throwing Muses, 50 Foot Wave or solo. I have tried to alter them, as I found some material not representative and some catalogue missing, as well as misinformation in bios, etc. Also, Spotify’s algorithmic recommended listening often puts us squarely in the damaging fashion/product/pop star category that I fought so hard to escape. I am not allowed access to any of these accounts, though, so I let that go.

And I have been intrigued by the possibility of removing the dollar sign from music for a long time, to see if we could create a more musically literate populace via the curiosity of exploring sound through genre and era: listeners moved by music, not marketing. 50 Foot Wave was a cooperative for this reason, maintaining a distance from the recording industry. An industry I never made money from, having been held personally accountable for Throwing Muses’ recording debt and having traded my first solo album for my freedom from a corporate label. So while it’s true that I’ve made nothing from Spotify, I’ve also made nothing from record sales. I play music because I love music and I work with people in all facets of this field who feel the same way. The reason a shy feminist musician like me is working at all is because I am listener-supported by Strange Angels, who keep me humble, grateful and recording.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the free music experiment worked and we could begin to shift the paradigm yet again. This time away from shallow and toward sustainability of actual songwriters and musicians, instead of the pop star facsimile. Toward great radio, record companies and journalism; great photographers, engineers and videographers; taking “music” out of the fashion industry and putting music back in the hands of people. Where it was always meant to be, where it always was.

I have never been safe and I have at times been very angry, but with all my heart, I believe that dehumanizing others is not the way. This is just to say that nuance is real, choice is personal and respectful discourse is necessary in every sphere, in every endeavor.

“We have to transcend the tendency to take sides"
— Thich Nhat Hanh

i.e. seemed like her beef was primarily with the financial model and not with platforming dicks.

It kind of speaks to my disappointment in watching this develop over the last week. It seems to me there are two very legitimate reasons to hate Spotify - (reductively) the artist exploitative payment model and their platforming of racists and misinformation. But rather than people pissed about both working together as a united front to take on Spotify, it’s turned into somewhat of a pissing match of each anti-Spotify group sneering at the other for being anti-Spotify for the “wrong” reasons. It’s like, we have a common enemy! Stop belittling each other!

I don't think any artist should be expected to pull their music off Spotify because of the Rogan association - if they want to do so, great, but I don't know where we're supposed to draw the line on that expectation. Amazon, Google, Youtube, Facebook are all more harmful than Rogan, should I expect them to end their involvement with all of those?

Is she… saying that ppl are “dehumanizing” Rogan(?)

(I sure can’t relate to the quote she posted, either, in the context of the covid misinformation debate)

It’s one thing to not care about the Rogan issue, no one has to; but it’s another to say “you guys are being mean to him, let’s be more respectful”

I'm trying out Tidal, which offered me 60 days for $3. I'm currently listening to a track from one of the releases on my own label and it sounds really good. If I can embed tracks for my Stereogum column as easily as I can with Spotify, I'll switch.

I would guess that Hirsh is seeing the kind of inter-civilian argument that jvc cites and wishing that her fans don’t fight each other*, not that they be nicer to Rogan


*or that they’re yelling at her to pull her catalogue, or to take a Donnellyesque stand, or s/t

Hmm, ok. I guess folks really have lost the plot

(the “fans,” if they’re doing that)

can't wait for this topic to...fade away

Did not have Failure on my Fuck Spotify Bingo card. Good on them.

Makes me even more glad to have ordered their new album straight from them!

It's too long to paste, but one Rachel Hurley wrote an epic essay about Spotify etc. that is worth seeking out and reading and will probably get you all a-further talkin'.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, February 1, 2022 6:05 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Took me a while to find this, since I didn't know it was a Facebook post. I agree with some of the things she says, though it's not really about Joe Rogan/Neil Young. Apart from the brief nod at the beginning to the current controversy, she could've written the same post 5 years ago.

(Also, she set up a show for my band in Memphis 15 years ago, so it's funny to come across her again in this context.)

pic.twitter.com/yyhHTQi7fm

— David Crosby (@thedavidcrosby) February 2, 2022

go Crusty, Snooze, Hash & Yawn!

Thanks for linking the facebook post. I agree with almost all of it except the end; I think she's a bit blasé about possible solutions. There is immense power on the part of the creators that isn't being leveraged.

Essentially, very successful artists, larger labels and tech platforms have a sort of shared interest that is currently being served barely adequately by the status quo, but less successful artists and smaller labels should stop trying to give away their product for almost-free in order to play the algorithmic lottery or get exposure of dubious value. Instead, they should create a viable independent marketplace. Do you like weird less-popular music? Join a streaming service for that. Do you like classical music and want a service that actually properly curates that kind of thing? Crucially... these services could be integrated with the big streamers, just like how big box stores started selling independent records of a large enough distribution, just like how my Amazon streaming account has a "Britbox" addon I pay extra for and can seamlessly switch from one content library to another within the app.

I think this hasn't happened yet in audio streaming in part because there wasn't enough proper competition on the platforms until now. When Spotify appeared it wasn't embraced by the big artists, just like when Netflix appeared it had only pitiful crap content; the problem was the alternatives like iTunes and Youtube were not interested in cutting deals for exclusive rights with the Beatles, Eagles, Led Zeppelin, etc. who felt that Spotify wasn't remunerative/fair enough. Or the labels bungled the kind of negotiations necessary.

I do think the most successful artists of today are making far less from streaming than the previous generation made from cd royalties and they should be upset about that and doing something to fix that too, but I don't think they deserve to be making more and I'm happy that tech platforms are reducing their hegemony and global consumers are getting so many more choices now. Anyway...

I think ideal future would be those music lovers who really love music happily paying $30, $60 or $100 a month for a really incredible library that aggregates maybe 2-10 content libraries they are really like, just like we do now for various video services, just like we did 20 years ago for television services. There should be a "best of bandcamp" addon that costs $20/month and you can add to your Spotify account and add that awesome weird stuff to your Spotify playlists. Matador and Numero Group could have $8 services marketed direct to Gen Exers, and the Beatles could gate off 50% of their catalog and make the rest including mono and extra tracks available to $5 monthly subscribers or those who pay a $50 one-time fee.

The idea that Spotify could sell it all for $10/month is absurd to me. There's no earthly reason that the technological solution for video content shouldn't also work for audio. If the ultimate problem here is "too many artists are sharing a $10/month revenue stream" the solution is to limit the number of artists getting streaming dollars at that price and offer additional price tiers for more content, either monthly or one-time purchases. Basically: it works for video.

Tiktok and youtube aren't causing movie studios and Netflix to go bankrupt and the fact that millions of songs are uploaded to Spotify each day shouldn't impoverish musicians in itself because most of that music just isn't quality enough to demand anyone's attention. On the contrary, Spotify should have pushed way harder in the pandemic to innovate around delivering live music to people stuck at home. It left that to Youtube and that was really dumb.

I do wish there would be a big name, current pop star joining this crusade. I've seen an increasing number of "lol boomers are mad about streaming" takes that I could do without.

xp the good news is that something like what youre describing seems to be among the most likely outcomes. I believe ShariVari said this upthread too - as Spotify's unsustainable model catches up with it, catalogs disperse and the streaming landscape becomes balkanized into smaller more specialized offerings, similar to whats happened with video streaming over the last 5 years.

I can see that happening too, I'm just not sure the average streaming consumer is going to be as willing to sign up for eight different audio streamers as they have been with video streamers, though time will tell. I think multiple video streamers, could still be sold as a "savings" when compared to regular old cable, but signing up for multiple audio sites will be seen as added cost that isn't replacing something else.

Yeah I agree

Yeah, you have to remember there's already been a generation or two that came up not getting conditioned to pay $$ for music.

Do you like classical music and want a service that actually properly curates that kind of thing? Crucially... these services could be integrated with the big streamers, just like how big box stores started selling independent records of a large enough distribution, just like how my Amazon streaming account has a "Britbox" addon I pay extra for and can seamlessly switch from one content library to another within the app.

i agree with this, but the problem is that these companies just get bought. here's an example:

https://www.primephonic.com

they actually editorialized around composers, performers etc, giving you insight and context, nice big images, and they had worked out the metadata really well. and well, boom apple bought them. feels like straight up anticompetitive behavior.

xpost I saw yet another 'big name' on FB saying streaming music wasn't hurting the music industry, but that 'oversaturation of inventory' is, the canard that many of us fell for back in 2002 but has long been debunked.

Tiktok and youtube aren't causing movie studios and Netflix to go bankrupt

Netflix is $18,000,000,000 in debt

home fucking is killing prostitution

-bickel

> Netflix is $18,000,000,000 in debt

Its revenue was 25 billion with 4.5 billion profit last year, guess we'll see if this little upstart can prove the naysayers wrong

Guilty lol.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/273022657_1868110773387734_1640899053630540663_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=hK4a7GaCAWEAX8Rl9G8&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9Dd5cCmZPJU0Kz65kqRr8wy7YHbv3C8gfrLFTMs0R7zg&oe=61FF55A8

call me when taylor or adele or post malone or drake pull the trigger

ED SHEERAN THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE ME SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT YOU

I can see that happening too, I'm just not sure the average streaming consumer is going to be as willing to sign up for eight different audio streamers as they have been with video streamers, though time will tell. I think multiple video streamers, could still be sold as a "savings" when compared to regular old cable, but signing up for multiple audio sites will be seen as added cost that isn't replacing something else.

― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:03 PM (seven hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Especially since one of the big value propositions of an audio streaming service that has (almost) everything is that you can make or listen to playlists with all of your favorite artists mixed together. If, for instance, Sony, Warner, and Universal each have their own services with their own artists, that's no longer possible.

they tried that about 5-10 years ago, not so much the content providers as the people supplying the network - sony playstation had its own subscription music service, and several phone companies tried it, samsung Milk for instance, but they couldn't compete with spotify. (maybe the fact they weren't content providers is key, there was nothing really exclusive to these services and anyone who cared about streaming already had a spotify subscription)

mig's making a more nuanced case than that, though. like the way you can add britbox to your amazon prime subscription. you could add, say, bluenote to your spotify subscription, or, some specialized techno aggregator that represented dance labels.

I can see that happening too, I'm just not sure the average streaming consumer is going to be as willing to sign up for eight different audio streamers as they have been with video streamers, though time will tell. I think multiple video streamers, could still be sold as a "savings" when compared to regular old cable, but signing up for multiple audio sites will be seen as added cost that isn't replacing something else.

I do think that if there was a balkanization taking in the real big names - if you simply couldn't stream Taylor Swift, Kanye and Ed Sheeran through the same service* - most ppl would suck it up and pay, especially since the latest generation brought up not to pay for music has also been brought up without the knowledge of how to pirate it

* no idea if these are on the same label, replace names as necessary

the answer is don't be so fucking greedy and obsessed with constantly expanding market share
if spotify offered a sub that doubled the cost and funneled all the new money to artist payment and then incentivized "premium" the problem would be largely solved but they won't do that because CAPITALISM

and yeah i know that sounds crazy but what if spotify invested in its own future and not AI helmed death robots? which option sounds less crazy there?

Tidal just did that, fwiw. You pay $20 and the royalty $$ goes specifically to the artists you listen to (isn’t “pooled”)

they should really get rid of the free option. i mean i use it and wouldn't switch to paying but presumably a fair few people would. at the moment the free option has p much no downside for me as i don't listen to music out and about so don't need an offline fix and the adverts don't bother me that much, it's not like they come in mid song.

My kid the Apple fanboy used the current kerfuffle as an excuse to do what he wanted to do anyway, switch the whole family from Spotify to Apple Music, and I gotta say it's completely seamless and painless (though note I didn't have 6000 ultra-customized playlists on Spotify, I basically just stream from it.)

if you simply couldn't stream Taylor Swift, Kanye and Ed Sheeran through the same service* - most ppl would suck it up and pay, especially since the latest generation brought up not to pay for music has also been brought up without the knowledge of how to pirate it

Totally agree with this. I used to laugh at people who paid $50/mo. for cable and occasionally watch movies I wanted to see on shady Russian sites, now I play $50/mo. to have four different streaming services, that's where the shows are and I accept it.

don't think most people would do that for music but a lot of them might.

I just don't agree that "most people" would suck it up and pay, because there has been, as noted, multiple generations raised on the idea that they shouldn't have to pay for music. I already know people who "just use youtube" to listen to music because they don't want to pay for streaming. Cable and video streaming works because people have been, in essence, trained for decades to know they have to pay for premium content.

What if the users boycotted? I mean— what if there was a date named and on that day, we all cancel our premium accounts and delete the Spotify app?

Instead of waiting for "the big names" to "step up", what if the users took a stand?

I guess it's the same answer as why a general work strike isn't very realistic either.

this is probably yet another dumb solution for fixing the music industry but:

wouldn't it make sense for artists to not immediately release their new albums to streaming services so that the people who immediately want to hear the new releases will pay for them, while more casual fans wait 3 or 6 months until these releases show up on streaming services. Similarly to movies who first show up in movie theatres or VOD and then eventually show up for "free" on Netflix or wherever.

I've thought about that before, but I'm guessing people who rely on highly charting singles aren't going to want to give up the buzz they get by the first week streaming numbers being factored into chart placings.

I'm guessing this kind of approach would work more for niche artists or genres rather than chart topping artists

not immediately release their new albums to streaming services so that the people who immediately want to hear the new releases will pay for them, while more casual fans wait 3 or 6 months until these releases show up on streaming services.

Unfortunately with pressing plant delays and the decline of the CD, this works in reverse lately. You preorder an album a month before release date, you get the downloads on release and the vinyl the following year.