Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'ProgPower USA' started by AeonicSlumber, Dec 5, 2013.
Exactly. Ten years ago, I don't think too many people foresaw that Apple would be acting as a primary distributor of music. Which is essence means, they've assumed some of the roles of the label already. What's to say they won't take that a step further?
It does indeed work the same way it always has. It's just taking it one step further. However, that kind of argument is about as valid, and sways me just as much, as saying "Everybody else gets to [insert suitable or in-suitable activity here]" does.
Quite frankly, it wouldn't matter to me if the number of people listening to my music on Spotify was so large that I would see substantial amounts from there. If it's up to me (and only me*) my music won't be on Spotify. *It isn't and that makes for a really angry Urban. I'd rather give it away for free. So a great big thank you to everyone that ever paid for my music!
Fair enough. I wish more bands offered their music digitally directly. But now that Spotify pays artists, and it's by far more convenient for me, this is now how I get most of my music. For $120 a year I have unlimited access to nearly everything, which is why I use it. I have said in the past I wish they'd integrate with Amazon/Google Play and have a right click/buy it now option.
Spotify has been paying artists since like, 2007?
Huh, that's actually a really cool idea. I wonder if that might happen in the future considering nobody gives a shit about Amazon or Google music streaming services.
Seriously though, I know a lot of people who use Google Play Music.
Seriously, thinking no one subscribes to google play is unbelievably lolzy.
Nobody subscribes to Google Play.
Nobody subscribes to AS.
thank goodness, I don't know if I'd be able to handle that kind of responsibility.
I don't like bumping old threads, but this is relevant,
apparently music is an extremely minuscule piece in GP's pie: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/06...s-98-of-that-revenue-is-from-freemium-titles/
What does this say about streaming music services? Does Spotify have some sort of special sauce when it comes to streaming music or is it just a first to market thing?
Not a new article, but a good one...
You're very welcome. The Project Arcadia disc is one of my favorites for 2014.
How about a much more-recent article, showing that in the quarter two years after the one Galaxie 500 was whining about, Katy Perry('s record label) made ~$500K from a single song of hers on Spotify: http://time.com/3590670/spotify-calculator/
The reason all these indie bands complain about making no money on Spotify is not because Spotify's payout rate is too low; it's because no one listens to their music!
I'm a total Google whore, and already had all my music uploaded to Google Play Music, so when they introduced All-Access, I immediately signed up for the free trial. But I canceled after the trial, and stuck with Spotify. Why? Because of Spotify's secret sauce: the peer-to-peer technology that results in zero lag-time when skipping tracks and seeking within tracks. Google doesn't have that, and those not-imperceptible lags were annoying enough to keep me away. That's probably not a big enough deal to keep away most people (the first-mover effect is surely more important) but it was enough for me.
I don't think the issue artists have is what the record labels are making from Spotify, but rather what they're making.
This comment seems to suggest that if more people listened to the music of these indie bands, than they wouldn't be "whining" about the Spotify model. However, given that best selling artist in the country also feels she's being ripped off by Spotify and pulled her music from their service, the discontent doesn't seem to be limited to niche artists.
So do these people have problems with their labels or Spotify?
I do It's the same as Spotify.
Some of you have stated that paying for a suscription, you could spend more in a year that just buying the cd you want.
I honestly like more that I can have any album that I what, make my playlists, and if someone says "have you heard this band?", I just can search for it, download its album and have it in my devices. That's the real value for me.
Well, she isn't the only one. For example, you won't find King Crimson on Spotify (Or, on any streaming service), for example.
But, given how the numbers work out, you almost have to be huge to have the number work for you in any signifigant manner. Lets be honest, most of the bands we listen to are far from huge.
Certainly, you can make the point that an artist perhaps shouldn't make the bulk of their money on such things, but then how should they make their money if people pass on buying albums for listening on Spotify instead?
As an aside, a lot of this makes me think of the recent brew-ha-ha over internet sensation Pomplamoose posting what they spent on their last tour and having the internet pick it apart, arguing about what they should and shouldn't have spent money on. People want what they want the way they want it, and they have a tough time hearing why they can't sometimes.
I only mentioned the record label because independent Galaxie 500 gets 100% of Spotify's payout, while Katy Perry (the person) presumably only gets a small fraction of Spotify's payout. And it's Spotify's payout that's relevant to the discussion, not the money that the artist ends up receiving.
Taylor Swift is just making a smart business decision, and essentially "ripping off" her fans in the process. I'm sure she was quite happy with the $6M/year she was on-track to receive from Spotify, but just realized should could (temporarily) make even MORE money by forcing her fans to make purchases instead.
Streaming and sales essentially provide the same amount of revenue over the long run. The difference is that with sales, all the revenue is recognized up-front, at the point of sale, while with streaming, it trickles in slowly over many years. Obviously money "now" is more exciting for artists, so by keeping a new release off Spotify, it pushes people to buy the music instead and deliver all the money up-front.
But making that up-front investment is a gamble for fans. If a fan listens to a purchased song more than 150 times in their life, then the fan "wins", and buying was the right decision. But for every fan who listens less than 150 times, Taylor Swift wins. So keeping an album off Spotify is a way for an artist to push more-casual fans into making the "purchase" gamble, most of whom will "lose", while the artist cashes the check.
So delaying a Spotify release has become a bit of a trend. Eric Church's 'The Outsiders' (a pretty kick-ass country/almost-metal album) is one I'm aware of. They knew it was highly-anticipated (it ended up hitting #1 on the Billboard 200), so they chose to collect as many sales as they could, and then, after a few months (presumably after the sales volume began drying up) they released it on Spotify so that they could collect the long-term revenue there as well.
Taylor Swift's case is a bit different, as she removed her back-catalog in addition to her new release, but I think that's easily explained: 1) She's so huge, and like 'Dark Side of the Moon' still selling tons of copies every year, she figured her back-catalog still had good sales-potential. And she was correct: her albums had remained in the Top 200 for years after their release, and in the week of '1989's release, her 3 previous albums re-entered the Top 200. And 2) removing all her albums allowed her to present a more-principled and wholesome-seeming "it's all about the value of music" rationalization to her fans vs. an "it's all about more money for me".
So I wouldn't be at all shocked if in a few months to a year, we see a "deal" whereby her albums return to Spotify, because as the new-release sales start drying up, that extra $6M/year will start looking awful sweet again.
Funny, but you seem to be making Swift's argument. You seem to be suggesting that Swift's music isn't worth that much and that most people who buy her album "lose". (I'm not sure where you are pulling the 150 listens from.) Also interesting that you use the term "forced". While we as the consumer may be annoyed at when and where they can get their music, it is not an entitlement. If Swift feels like her music isn't being valued on Spotify and doesn't like their business model, it is her right not to participate in it. As I said above, she isn't exactly alone in this.
Note, Swift doesn't see a good percentage of that potential $6m/year (an estimate based on a month payout). It has also been reported that 70% of what Spotify pays out are to record labels (Which you apply to Katy Perry, but not to Swift).
While I don't give a rats ass about Swift's music, I do agree that music seems to be valued a lot less than it used to be. People want their cheap music, then complain about how an artist tries to make money on their work. It seems like we expect artists to bleed and suffer for us. I also don't begrudge an artist trying to get all they can out of their art, because fame is fleeting.