Support NeoGAF

[MrOogieBoogie]

After the huge push for Tidal by artists like Kanye, Jay-Z, Beyoncé, etc., it took Radiohead and my impatience to wait to listen to the new album on Spotify to download the free trial of Tidal. Lol

 

[mellz]

How can people use spotify, tidal etc. when you can just use vk.com

 

[Tactics18]

I'm a Spotify subscriber and this sucks.

 

[cwmartin]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

 

[Placktor]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

Daydreaming is an amazing song.

 

[hydruxo]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

 

[SamVimes]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

What the fuck are you talking about

 

[MrOogieBoogie]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

r u satan

 

[GameAddict411]

I think Google Music is great and better than spotify. It also has their latest album to stream or download.

 

[SecretDan]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

Damn.

This is a good point. I bet they never considered it.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

They only earned around $21,362 from the 'Daydreaming' single so far. After almost 3 million listens. It sucks.

I'm a Spotify subscriber and I was looking forward to this album.

 

[Fuu]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

lmao

 

[itwasTuesday]

Google All Access has "A Moon Shaped Pool" in new releases, but not yet on the band page.

 

[Awesome Animals]

That article in op seems to be pure conjecture. Most likely a delayed release of I had to guess. I bet we see it Friday.

 

[bebop242]

My only problem with their decision was releasing the first two songs like a tease, which served to do nothing than piss off the fans.
They shouldn't have released the two songs at all on Spotify.

This is my problem with the situation, don't put prerelease songs on Spotify only to negate posting the whole album (especially when its available on other streaming services).

 

[SCHUEY F1]

For once being on Groove aka Xbox Music pays off.

 

[Stoze]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

cwmartin
Member

c w martin

c martin

chris martin

Oh shit it all makes sense

 

[MWS Natural]

If a band decides to release their music on EVERY OTHER PLATFORM BUT MINE, well, that's too bad for you, I'll find it another way.

Fixed. Album is awesome.

 

[giga]

How can people use spotify, tidal etc. when you can just use vk.com

What is this? A social network?

 

[PapaJustify]

.

 

[LouisaFerre]

So if it's about devaluing music with a "free" tier, why can't I get the album on Google Play All-Access?

Also, really tired of all this shit regarding streaming services.

Apple Music was good when I had an iPhone, but Windows and Android support is lacking.

I like the idea of lossless streaming now that I'm getting a better audio setup with my Fostex TH-X00's, but the push from Jay-Z and the record labels for Tidal left a bad taste in my mouth.

Spotify was pleasant, but the arbitrary limit on songs that could be added to your library and lack of support for cloud storage of my own music pushed me to go with Google Play instead. That's the best option for me so far, but I still don't really like the UI on it and I miss out on the exclusive content.

Sad!

 

[nintendork666]

I don't buy digital music, I buy vinyl. As a Google Play subscriber, I will wait for the record release.

 

[mattiewheels]

A highly regarded band like Radiohead can get away with this

Not just get away with it, but doing good work using their position to make people pay attention to the difference in these music services. There's a reason people can listen to Spotify for free, It's a much worse deal for the bands themselves in the end.

 

[MonsterHunter]

I doubt these recent omissions have anything to do with the Ad supported 'free' tier.
Apple and Tidal are simply buying timed exclusives, that wonderful idea popular with the games industry, to boost subscribers.

 

[Modest Mauser]

I doubt these recent omissions have anything to do with the Ad supported 'free' tier.
Apple and Tidal are simply buying timed exclusives, that wonderful idea popular with the games industry, to boost subscribers.

If that's the case, they should spend that money improving their mobile apps instead

 

[Dan]

Buy music, people. It's the only way to ensure you have access to it and support the artist at the same time.

What is this? A social network?

VK is basically Russian Facebook. I have no idea why it's being mentioned.

 

[Delusibeta]

Other streaming services understand this and build it into their business model, artists deserve to be compensated fairly.

This is false. All the other streaming services use the same business model as Spotify.

 

[Protome]

I don't buy digital music, I buy vinyl. As a Google Play subscriber, I will wait for the record release.

It's on Google play music.

Has been since release. It's only Spotify it is missing from.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

What is this? A social network?

A social network (basically Russian facebook) with almost no moderation for anything that the Russian government doesn't hate. Lots of copyright infringement over there, so it's not a surprise if someone posted the album. Anyone mentioning it is pirating the album.

 

[Fallout-NL]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

Try listening to it again. I'm serious.

 

[RBH]

My suggestion is to not release two shit singles that put people to sleep, then people might value your artistic output enough to buy it.

Daydreaming is an embarrassing song for an artist with the pedigree of Radiohead.

What a shit post.

Both songs are awesome

 

[Deft Beck]

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.

Then, find new ways to make money as a musician. Innovate through music and cultivate an audience. Work with new distribution models instead of rejecting them.

Or, don't make a living as a musician if you are completely unknown. Make a sustainable fanbase first while having another source of income.

 

[bobawesome]

Thanks Pitchfork

Thom was probably like, "Thanks for reminding me"

Teacher, teacher, you forgot to take up our homework.

 

[Novocaine]

I'm really not sure why they would do this when the entire album will be put up on Youtube/Vimeo/etc by several people that don't own the music (that will probably put advertising on the vids on top of that).
You can't stop it, so you might as well make it official and get something back for it right?

 

[uncelestial]

Boo hoo, Thom Yorke doesn't think his band is making enough money, boo fucking hoo. Sorry for your meager ~$40 million. Let me pity him as well as all the other established millionaires who flock to whatever service pays the most whilst outputting sub-par (or quite honestly, terrible) product once a year (or longer) for their one or, maybe, two good singles.

Then let's all complain about Spotify, which gives artists enormous exposure, and arguably leads them to more money in the long run through that avenue then just direct streams. Does any artist really expect to make (or sustain) a career living from their music in streams? No? Okay then, go out and get money at a show or sell some merchandise, which is what you were going to do in the first place anyway. It's not, as if, you are only going to make your music available in one place, right?

"It's such a shame that music isn't valued"

Let's all clear something up here: a lot of "artists" produce shit. They release an album a year, with maybe two (if you're lucky) quality tracks that will even exist longer than the 6-8 month average staying period, and you expect me to pay for 80-90% trash you thought up in a boardroom while trying to appeal to "what's current"? Or pay the same amount (or sometimes more) for some no-name, badly produced, made-in-a-can sounding garbage you created in 48 hours on some software? The bar for quality music and media in general has gotten so abysmally low that it creates this false sense of "they're undervalued" -- hey, guess what, nobody has to listen or pay for your shit. If you create music to just get money, I guarantee your product is terrible. If you create music that you love and will do it regardless of who listens, because you actually love music, I guarantee you'll produce quality and will have fans and support. And of those fans who support and love your music because you're creating quality, guess what happens then?! People buy your shit because they value it.

But I guess it's okay to just expect people to prop you up for nothing more than ego.

The only thing that was "cleared up" by your post is your ignorance of the landscape of the music industry for struggling artists and ridiculous sense of entitlement to artists' work. They are free to find venues that treat them better, and pay them better. Spotify is not entitled to everyone's catalog and paying $0.0001 cent/stream is out of the question for any working artist, especially ones who have had to spend thousands producing a quality album (with an orchestra, a good producer/engineer, in a good studio, and given some time to focus and work).

An album can be a huge production that takes months. For movies and TV shows, this understood; "here are a couple bucks for an episode of that show, iTunes/Google. Thanks!" "Here is $4 to stream this movie, Amazon/Vudu, thanks!" For an album that involved the work of so many professionals, took a year of the artists' time to write and produce, has beautiful artwork, recorded in a properly engineered space? "Give them less than a cent." That is your attitude right now. It needs adjusting.

 

[megalowho]

This is false. All the other streaming services use the same business model as Spotify.

No, payouts per plays are not the same.

http://nextshark.com/tidal-pays-artists-spotify/

As shown by Information is Beautiful’s updated-for-2015 visualization of the subject, signed artists make .0019 cents per stream on Pandora and .0011 cents per Spotify stream. The worst payout of all for musicians, however, comes from Youtube, which pays out about .0003 per play. An artist signed to a record label would thus have to have their Youtube video played 4,200,000 times in order to earn the monthly U.S. minimum wage of $1,260.

So how much more does Tidal pay per stream, then? The service doles out .007 cents per — while it doesn’t sound like much of a difference to its competitors, a signed artist would only need to be streamed 180,000 times on the service to make the monthly minimum wage.

 

[Chinese Cartoons]

Who cares if the album follows their newly released song then fuck it.

 

[Chinese Cartoons]

What a shit post.

Both songs are awesome

Waa don't like your opinion so it must be shit post grow up.

 

[Deft Beck]

The only thing that was "cleared up" by your post is your ignorance of the landscape of the music industry for struggling artists and ridiculous sense of entitlement to artists' work. They are free to find venues that treat them better, and pay them better. Spotify is not entitled to everyone's catalog and paying $0.0001 cent/stream is out of the question for any working artist, especially ones who have had to spend thousands producing a quality album (with an orchestra, a good producer/engineer, in a good studio, and given some time to focus and work).

An album can be a huge production that takes months. For movies and TV shows, this understood; "here are a couple bucks for an episode of that show, iTunes/Google. Thanks!" "Here is $4 to stream this movie, Amazon/Vudu, thanks!" For an album that involved the work of so many professionals, took a year of the artists' time to write and produce, has beautiful artwork, recorded in a properly engineered space? "Give them less than a cent." That is your attitude right now. It needs adjusting.

You can release a masterfully produced album for $13.99 and an amateur one for $5 and have one barely break even and the other exceed the indie artist's expectations. It's all about positioning and understanding the market for your given genre.

Metal artists are on Spotify, as said earlier in the thread. That's one place where the genre has decided to promote their material. It provides a low barrier of entry into the content, which could lead to a casual listener becoming a consistently paying fan who goes to shows, buys merchandise, and keeps the genre afloat. Tidal might give slightly more per stream, but that's not the point.

You have to find other ways to fund yourself than just album/single sales nowadays. It's less about atomic sales of music products and more about sustaining the creator's whole body of work.

 

[RBH]

Waa don't like your opinion so it must be shit post grow up.

Follow your own advice.


And yeah, it actually was a shit post that derails the thread (as is currently being seen) and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Delusibeta]

No, payouts per plays are not the same.

http://nextshark.com/tidal-pays-artists-spotify/

Thanks for the link that demonstrates that I was correct. The business models of all the major streaming sites are the same.

 

[megalowho]

You have to find other ways to fund yourself than just album/single sales nowadays. It's less about atomic sales of music products and more about sustaining the creator's whole body of work.

So there's no money in record deals, no money in album sales and no money in streaming plays, and signed artists should get a day job to fund their "career." I wouldn't want you as my A&R rep.

Thanks for the link that demonstrates that I was correct. The business models of all the major streaming sites are the same.

You're just talking semantics now, there's clearly different approaches that directly affect the artists paychecks.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

What a shit post.

Both songs are awesome

Trouble is, they're the best songs on the album. I've listened a few times through now, and nothing else really grabs me.

 

[RoKKeR]

No, payouts per plays are not the same.

http://nextshark.com/tidal-pays-artists-spotify/

Damn, I did not know how much variation there was. Thanks for sharing... happy to continue using Google Play Music if this is the case. Also glad to have seen the new Radiohead show up today.

 

[Deft Beck]

So there's no money in record deals, no money in album sales and no money in streaming plays, and signed artists should get a day job to fund their "career." I wouldn't want you as my A&R rep.

I was talking about independent artists without record deals.

Streaming services aren't some money black hole. Piracy was the old scapegoat, and the industry had to adapt. The time of ad-hoc transactions for recorded music is over. It's time to foster a more direct, consistent relationship with listeners to create loyal fanbases who will sustain careers. Patreon is one way that independent musicians can fund their new music, for example. Freezepop is doing a very successful crowdfunding campaign right now.

It's possible to make a living as an artist, but not in the traditional ways.

 

[stuminus3]

It's possible to make a living as an artist, but not in the traditional ways.

You, I like you. Fan of Ginger Wildheart by any chance? He's been pretty instrumental in driving the crowdfunding model for independent artists in the UK since it turned his career around after the "traditional" ways failed him for literally decades. A perfect example of the sort of thing you're talking about.

 

[neorej]

Oh no the horror please come to Spotify.

 

[kiguel182]

I switched to Apple Music but I maintain that the aversion to the free tier on Spotify is ridiculous as long as Spotify keeps turning those costumers into payed subscribers. The free tier is just a gateway to transition people from pirating to paying for music and it's better than having those people just pirate stuff.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Actually artists are pretty screwed when it comes to deals. I won't sit here and say that it is not their fault as a lot of them just sign and have their labels/management do all the massive contract crap.

Fun fact time:

The best way to make money for an musician is actually touring. The band Phish pretty much perfected the tour and those guys get the best of all worlds. They make a ton of money and are not dependent on album sales to pay the bills.

I am a massive consumer of music as it is my number one hobby even over video games. With that said there are not a lot of people in the world like me who are willing to pay for albums. Streaming is the future. Musicians should embrace streaming as a way to expose themselves and then tour hard.

I don't understand how the new album is on almost every version of streaming in the world but not Spotify. I checked and it is actually on Rhapsody of all things.

 

[Deft Beck]

You, I like you. Fan of Ginger Wildheart by any chance? He's been pretty instrumental in driving the crowdfunding model for independent artists in the UK since it turned his career around after the "traditional" ways failed him for literally decades. A perfect example of the sort of thing you're talking about.

Yeah, that's a great example. It's less begging and more "Fund me directly".

Actually artists are pretty screwed when it comes to deals. I won't sit here and say that it is not their fault as a lot of them just sign and have their labels/management do all the massive contract crap.

Fun fact time:

The best way to make money for an musician is actually touring. The band Phish pretty much perfected the tour and those guys get the best of all worlds. They make a ton of money and are not dependent on album sales to pay the bills.

I am a massive consumer of music as it is my number one hobby even over video games. With that said there are not a lot of people in the world like me who are willing to pay for albums. Streaming is the future. Musicians should embrace streaming as a way to expose themselves and then tour hard.

I don't understand how the new album is on almost every version of streaming in the world but not Spotify. I checked and it is actually on Rhapsody of all things.

Which is why a lot of major artists have 360-deals, where the label has their hand in the concerts/touring, too.

It'll be on Spotify in a few months.