teruterubozu
Member
Yeah I know. But I always lose track with multiple tabs open and always end up shutting down the music by mistake. Really frustrating.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Radiohead excludes new album from Spotify
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Yeah I know. But I always lose track with multiple tabs open and always end up shutting down the music by mistake. Really frustrating.
Modest Mauser
Member
Why is it artists are cool with Tidal and Apple but not Spotfy? The free tier?
I really like Spotify and have a premium sub, I honestly hope they drop the free tier if it means they can start getting all this stuff they are missing.
I really like Spotify and have a premium sub, I honestly hope they drop the free tier if it means they can start getting all this stuff they are missing.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
The idea of a modern, web based company with a thick desktop client is... just silly. At least they added the browser version.
I miss Rdio's webapp. Google Play does ok though.
Use a browser that supports tab locking?
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Chrome shows what tab is playing audio too, so it should be easy to avoid closing it.
Sounds like you need to listen to better music.
Don't think anyone is asking for your pity about the money issue either. Just because they have made a lot of money does that mean they are no longer entitled to what is theirs?
The Omega Man
Member
Cancelled my Spotify sub. switched to Apple music. never thought Radiohead would be the one that make me do this.
People paying for Spotify are paying $120 per year. That's probably more than the average music consumer spent on CDs or downloads.
People on the free tier of Spotify don't care enough about specific music to subscribe and are likely to listen more as a radio station. So arguably they won't miss the likes of radio head. But it seems unfair to restrict content from paying customers.
It's because the free tier of these services hardly pays the artist if someone plays a song where the paid tier pays much better. By Spotify offering their free tier, they gained the ire of some artists not making as much. Services like G.Music, A.Music pay the artists better due to forcing people to paid plans rather than offering a free option with ads.
It is great that streaming is an option we currently have. I just think that Spotify, due to the free tier and popularity, get more targets on them.
Hard means pay money for it right?
Netherscourge
Banned
So much for Radiohead being open and un-corporate.
I do understand his point, which is about new bands. Apparently, you can't make money anymore by selling records. Established can still earn loads by touring. But that's not an option for small new bands.
[shock]Lars Ulrich was right.[/shock] ;-)
[shock]Lars Ulrich was right.[/shock] ;-)
Ravensmash
Member
Well, we don't really know what's going on at the moment.
zer0blivion
Member
Looks like it is on Google Play.
https://play.google.com/music/m/B57cafi5cj2vwsy6a7e2a3ylyxm?t=A_Moon_Shaped_Pool_-_Radiohead
entremet
Member
Because Spotify's free tier would undercut possible sales.
That's the logic there.
When Adele breaks records it kinda proves that logic right. I wonder how many albums she would have sold if Spotify had her album at release.
I don't feel that way at all. I pay simply to be able to listen to the music offline so it is a tremendous value to me not to mention the Spotify experience is still way better than everything else out there imo.
Yes you can. I do it all the time.
Ravensmash
Member
Hold on, if the main barrier of entry is the free users...
Then why does it allow me to use a 3 month free trial on Google music to play it?
I wonder if there's something else at play.
Then why does it allow me to use a 3 month free trial on Google music to play it?
I wonder if there's something else at play.
It works perfectly fine for me. Could even sync the album to my phone.
Dead Prince
Banned
it was on google play since friday? or maybe saturday. or was it sunday. i know it was already there since i played the album (or just one song)
entremet
Member
Ravensmash
Member
That's true, important difference indeed - think I was just pleased I found a temporary workaround.
If free access in general is the issue, then at least they didn't block that off.
I switched to Google Music a few months back and still check out Discover Weekly every week, it's a monster feature. I know it's probably not as effective when I don't use Spotify during the week but it still introduces me to so many new bands.
MulderYuffie
Member
awww not too shocked though.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
I'm glad I learned rich people are not allowed to complain about money they earned and deserve.
That said they could have at least released the vinyl.
That said they could have at least released the vinyl.
whatevermort
Member
Well, no. It's not. Spotify aren't paying enough money out to the artists. Simple as that. And it's because of the free tier, which is what most Spotify users use. Without that, they'd be on an even level with tidal and apple (although they pay less share than those two even from the paid tier). We're going to see this more and more: as they pay less, so people restrict. It's unfair of Spotify to not pay more, not the band for wanting to, you know, give their music its actual worth.
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
Anyone know what the deal is with In Rainbows being pulled from Apple Music?
teruterubozu
Member
Shows up for me just fine (US).
infiniteloop
Member
Me too. Listened to it on saturday.
a very sorry and sad state of affairs.Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
It's important to remember that in the majority of cases, Spotify's deals will be with a artists' record label, not the artist themselves. The major record labels also own stakes in Spotify.
Yeah. I won't act like I'm fault-less in my non-support, but it is interesting to see where it goes.
It's not too surprising to see it happen. By the time I started getting interested in music, the way to get it was to fire up Limewire or a torrent site and just grab it. Starting off, I copied CDs from some friends of mine. For people growing up in that situation, it kinda follows that they would give less thought to paying for music unless it was a deliberate show of support.
And it's part of the digital format in general. We all know that it costs (essentially) nothing for anyone to make a copy of the data and keep it. That goes for music, games, movies, ebooks, anything. Paying per copy made sense back when we were buying physical items, that had to be created, shipped, that could be held in your hand. With digital it feels like you pay, but get nothing of value in return. And if I don't care enough about something to collect the physical knick-knacks, it feels like the cost of physical copies is an uncalled for burden. In reality, the artists need to be compensated for the countless hours spent creating though.
It gets hazier still when noted that there's more supply than demand... in the sense, that suppliers are willing to produce the content for less money, and consumers are willing to fork out less cash. Creating has some inherent satisfaction; we'll always have some folks that do it out of love. If it becomes (more) unprofitable to be a musician, people will still probably fill the gaps. Even at that, there's the success of the few who make it in a heavily hit-driven entertainment industry, dangling in front of new artists. The larger ones can keep going off of that success, making all the money back in shows, merch sales, and whatever other revenue streams fame can invite. This will still encourage smaller acts to make music in hopes of finding their success, even if it seems like the money's not there.
Solution? Idk, I don't have one. The idea of copyright is to act in the interest of the consumer, by making artists more likely to create, thus leading to more art. I don't think there's enough dearth of music to worry consumers. Given this, paying for it is more against the best interest of the consumer, and I don't think it's reliable to hope for large percentages to pay much out of good-will.
Sorry for the incoherent ramblings. I'm sort of an outsider on anything financial, especially with the music sphere...
eyeball_kid
Member
1) That $120 a year doesn't go the artists. A very small percentage does. Been a while since I looked at the rates, but if memory serves a song on Spotify has to be streamed like 40,000 times for the artist to reach the same revenue as someone buying it as a 99 cent single.
2) Radio still has to pay royalties when they play a song. That free tier is just straight-up lost revenue.
iirc they feel new artists don't get fairly compensated on spotify (ie atoms for peace, ultraista,etc.). the 'old farts of a dying corpse' was a reference to the old label that owned their albums up to HTTT just making a lot more than the band could off of new material.
radiohead's producer/fifth member nigel godrich talking about spotify in 2013
i mean this is coming from the band that released what was considered their magnum opus under a pay-what-you-want model which was completely unheard of at the time.
but they just got control over all their old material again so maybe they're just negotiating at this point?
radiohead's producer/fifth member nigel godrich talking about spotify in 2013
i mean this is coming from the band that released what was considered their magnum opus under a pay-what-you-want model which was completely unheard of at the time.
but they just got control over all their old material again so maybe they're just negotiating at this point?
The vinyl will be released next month. Unfortunately bands can not release physical versions at the same time as digital because if they do when they send the album to be manufactured it would get leaked to torrent sites.
Delusibeta
Banned
From what I hear, the payout models of all three services are practically the same: 70 to 75% of net revenue, split proportionally based on stream counts. Therefore, in practice, it would be whoever earns the most revenue which would be paying out the most actual dollars, which AFAIK remains Spotify. Of course, this assumes no back door shady deals with the major labels, which is a dumb assumption to have,but I would also expect all of the services to have made similarly shady deals for the major's catalogues, so whatever. It's also ignoring artists signing up with shitty deals with labels that take all the money, which is the actual problem with streaming payouts.
It's kinda ironic that the streaming service that would (in theory) pay out the highest is also the one that certain artists refuse to add their new stuff to in protest.
Goldenroad
Member
That's not how it works.
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/one-band-who-loves-spotify/
A lot of the negative information you see online are from the very music labels trying to hold on to their album sales by misinforming the public and/or their musicians.
Thread seems premature, there's no actual statement on this aside from they're working on getting the album on the service. Not the first time there's been exclusivity deals with other platforms and Spotify gets it eventually.
Should be clear that artists don't get compensated all that great with the Spotify model, it's convenient for us but worth resisting for them while there's competition out there.
Should be clear that artists don't get compensated all that great with the Spotify model, it's convenient for us but worth resisting for them while there's competition out there.
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
Huh, I swear when I looked on Thursday it wasn't there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/radiohead/comments/4gok6s/in_rainbows_no_longer_on_apple_music/
Apparently I'm not crazy, it must have just been a quick thing.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
eh i just got it direct from them, then spotify can add it from your files no problem. (premium)
vatstep
This poster pulses with an appeal so broad the typical restraints of our societies fall by the wayside.
Well, this is weird I can only play the files on the Spotify-playing device itself. I pretty much always play from my computer and stream to my Amazon Echo or other Bluetooth speakers, which simply does not work.
Deft Beck
Member
Ideally, artists shouldn't be relying on Spotify as a primary source of income for their music. It's a marketing tool for other revenue channels.
Not simply a marketing tool, it's the future of music consumption for a generation that has grown to accept the devaluation of creative works. They're not needed by huge bands like Radiohead that can reach their audience in a variety of ways, and they do no favors to smaller artists seeking to make a living through new distribution models and finding it impossible. Other streaming services understand this and build it into their business model, artists deserve to be compensated fairly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked