JJDinomite
Banned
This explains Pop-GAF, it all makes sense now.
-
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.
Taylor Swift pulls music from Spotify because music shouldn't be free
- Thread starter jwk94
- Start date
- Status
This explains Pop-GAF, it all makes sense now.
Yeah. I posted a friend's monthly take earlier in the thread:
I wonder why they didn't use this niche indie record?
When was that taken?
According to 2013's rates (or estimates) he should've earned at least 115 bucks. Still not 3000 bucks but a more respectable amount.
But obviously the threshold to make decent money on Spotify is higher than itunes but it's also true that it's easy to convince someone to listen your album than paying 10 dollars for it.
Weird... Does that money correspond to those streams?
That conflicts with those Spotify reports. Of course it could've been a "slow" month for the service since money isn't paid per stream but since they just reached 10 million subscribers not long ago I doubt it.
Warm Machine
Member
Perhaps the concept of music having value is a bigger issue with wider implications than just Taylor Swift?
I don't think she wants anybody to feel sorry for her. She just doesn't want to put her music on spotify, which it is her right to do.
Music being art is not debatable. But it's also irrelevant as to why it has monetary value, and why production companies exist to produce it. Even the building that houses the Mona Lisa has a fee to enter the building, because viewing the art has entertainment value that can makes displaying and securing it worth the expense.
Denying music is a art form is just fucking crazy. The value of that art is another debate entirely but music is unquestionably an art form.
Edit: Quoted wrong post and Mobile-GAF is intuitive enough for me to deal with it.
See above. My issue is not that music is art but using that as reasoning as to why it should be free.
Fair enough.
voodoojohn
Banned
The freer music becomes, the less of a grip Taylor Swift's brand of commercial trash will have on the masses. Good riddance.
Spotify actually helps me get even more money to the artists I like, I suppose. I have a subscription to Spotify, but still end up buying pretty much everything that I love. I own pretty much all of my top 20 and a few more albums from just this year. I buy more albums than anyone I've ever met in life. Even though I buy everything, I end up doing probably 90% of my listening on Spotify anyway, mostly because of the ease of scrobbling (I have to listen on the go in my car a LOT). So they get the money from me buying the albums, money from every time I stream anything on the album I've already bought, and then concerts and merch. My big favorite artists I tend to buy their big deluxe editions that I know they get a good chunk of money from. Unfortunately I don't tend to go to a lot of concerts, but that's mostly because I live in an area almost no one I listen to seems to want to tour. Fucking Wisconsin...
Music is a strange thing, though, and a strange industry. The only time I've ever met anyone that spends money on music, it seems, is on the internet. Maybe it's my area, but no one buys cds.... ever. Music is a thing they experience on the radio or wherever they happen to be. It's something passing. It's something in the background. If they really want to hear a song they'll go to YouTube and hear it once, but listening to a song isn't something people I met really do.
That's part of the problem, and part of why people only want to spend on spotify. It's a passive for them. They use spotify because they don't really actually care too much. They want to have something on in the background while they do other shit. If it spotify didn't exist I don't think they'd pirate. Most of the people I know in real life wouldn't, anyway. The Pirates I see are actually the people that buy a good amount more. They care enough to actually pirate. The free spotify users don't.
Music is treated so differently culturally than everything else. I think about this often, but with my friends we have movie nights and we talk about movies and people will watch movies out of their comfort zone. Even though I'm not a big movie person I take part in this. There's no music equivalent to this. People don't really talk about music. People are very personal and less open about it but at the same time very casual about it. I think if you want people to care and to pay money for music, the culture needs to change around it. People are fine buying movies and books, for example, so they should be fine buying a cd.
I wonder if radio ruined things faaaaaar before spotify ever came to town. It made music free and passive before all this ever happened. It's something you hear in the background of other shit now.
More on the point of Taylor Swift, I don't really care what she does with her music, mostly because I don't listen to it, but also because an artist should get to decide that sort of thing. If it's not what she thinks it's worth, then that's on her. That sucks for some people, sure, but it's like when an artist puts out a super deluxe edition or a rare cd that's kind of expensive. That sucks, too, but that's what they get to do. What sucks even more about this argument, though, is that I get the picture the record companies are a large part of the problem and no one's really talking about that. It's artist vs spotify, when in reality it's artist vs record company vs spotify.
I don't know about this assertion. I feel like the free music via radio and spotify really caters a lot of times to the passive listener, which will then up the listener base for those acts that are more 'mainstream.' They'll pick up more fans this way. I feel like if there was legitimately no way to get free music (or at least very hard, much the same way as movies or something), there would definitely still be those sort of image based pop stars, but things would be evened out. People would want to buy soooome more crafted music.
I mean that the "free" experience pushes the mainstream to recognize these sorts of artists and then it's just a matter of numbers. If even a small percentage buy it, that's a lot of people. I'm including radio in this assumption, too, though.
Music is a strange thing, though, and a strange industry. The only time I've ever met anyone that spends money on music, it seems, is on the internet. Maybe it's my area, but no one buys cds.... ever. Music is a thing they experience on the radio or wherever they happen to be. It's something passing. It's something in the background. If they really want to hear a song they'll go to YouTube and hear it once, but listening to a song isn't something people I met really do.
That's part of the problem, and part of why people only want to spend on spotify. It's a passive for them. They use spotify because they don't really actually care too much. They want to have something on in the background while they do other shit. If it spotify didn't exist I don't think they'd pirate. Most of the people I know in real life wouldn't, anyway. The Pirates I see are actually the people that buy a good amount more. They care enough to actually pirate. The free spotify users don't.
Music is treated so differently culturally than everything else. I think about this often, but with my friends we have movie nights and we talk about movies and people will watch movies out of their comfort zone. Even though I'm not a big movie person I take part in this. There's no music equivalent to this. People don't really talk about music. People are very personal and less open about it but at the same time very casual about it. I think if you want people to care and to pay money for music, the culture needs to change around it. People are fine buying movies and books, for example, so they should be fine buying a cd.
I wonder if radio ruined things faaaaaar before spotify ever came to town. It made music free and passive before all this ever happened. It's something you hear in the background of other shit now.
More on the point of Taylor Swift, I don't really care what she does with her music, mostly because I don't listen to it, but also because an artist should get to decide that sort of thing. If it's not what she thinks it's worth, then that's on her. That sucks for some people, sure, but it's like when an artist puts out a super deluxe edition or a rare cd that's kind of expensive. That sucks, too, but that's what they get to do. What sucks even more about this argument, though, is that I get the picture the record companies are a large part of the problem and no one's really talking about that. It's artist vs spotify, when in reality it's artist vs record company vs spotify.
I don't know about this assertion. I feel like the free music via radio and spotify really caters a lot of times to the passive listener, which will then up the listener base for those acts that are more 'mainstream.' They'll pick up more fans this way. I feel like if there was legitimately no way to get free music (or at least very hard, much the same way as movies or something), there would definitely still be those sort of image based pop stars, but things would be evened out. People would want to buy soooome more crafted music.
I mean that the "free" experience pushes the mainstream to recognize these sorts of artists and then it's just a matter of numbers. If even a small percentage buy it, that's a lot of people. I'm including radio in this assumption, too, though.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
If Spotify needs to charge more or have more commercials for the free version, then so be it.
What I take issue with is the people who are entitled to thinking content should be free, and that it's perfectly justifiable to pirate it when I know those people have more than enough income to actually pay for the content.
What I take issue with is the people who are entitled to thinking content should be free, and that it's perfectly justifiable to pirate it when I know those people have more than enough income to actually pay for the content.
No thanks.
abstract alien
Member
Why do people complain so much when someone makes a decision on what to do with their own fucking work?
Freyjadour
Member
This is a nice discussion and all, but her record label is up for sale, wants to increase its valuation through sales and that's why her music was pulled from Spotify.
That doesn't make it intelligent or immune to criticism.
I would be fine with more commercials. They're surprisingly scarce as it is. I love the free version of Spotify, way less commcercials than radio and better music to boot.
Aeriscloud
Banned
I'm sure this has already been said but since I lol'd didnt read thread.
She needs to pay me to listen to her, how about that?
She needs to pay me to listen to her, how about that?
Honestly musicians that don't support streaming services won't be getting support from me. They're just not worth my time.
And now all artists should, because tech companies and labels are not making enough!
Jesus christ.
I think that the problem is economic though. Most people are generally not willing to pay for music recordings but they'll pay for live performances. Everybody hears the same song in a recording and in the present day, they can be listened to by homeless people due to advancements in technology. These artists have to figure out other ways to make money if that's an actual problem and they have a variety of ways to do so.
The days of making millions in record sales is over but the days of hearing more and more average joes and seeing them make some money rather than nothing at all is more worth it to me. The industry as a whole is strengthened by allowing more than just a few people become popular or even reachable.
Dude Abides
Banned
I wouldn't pay a dime for one of her songs but if she thinks Spotify compensates her inadequately, I don't see anything wrong with pulling her music from the service.
Ingueferroque
Banned
Okay
Well yeah. People who are more strict with their money are that way for a reason. Probably because you know, they don't have much.
One of the worst posts I've ever read on GAF. Nice work.
If you've really never listened to music that was made to advance an artistic statement then I truly feel sorry for you.
shacklesmcgee
Member
This whole notion of "art should be free" is one of the worst conversations I've ever seen on GAF.
purvispisgah
Member
It seems that you want art to be free, but are happy with government sponsored concerts. This seems contradictory. Can you explain?
CornBurrito
Member
Hey now how else am I supposed to justify never paying for music if I can't just mindlessly shout "shoodof had live toors!!!" as an excuse?
CornBurrito
Member
I don't think you can really use the free market argument since music is a product people can just actively steal and often openly admit to stealing with no ill effect.
As someone who has subbed to Spotify Premium since Summer 2011, I love the client and service it provides. The amount of money musicians receive is quite low, but definitely >0, so comparisons to piracy are borderline hyperbole.
Art, to me, is an expression, an outlet, a means to create. I don't believe one should create art with the sole purpose of getting paid... Kinda distorts my romantic view of art and the creative process. But being acknowledged for that service in some way by someone is a normal thing, and totally expected.
But will monetary gain always be a requirement/given? As long as capitalism is a thing, I guess it will. But I think the method of payment needs to change. Spotify's rates could be increased, labels could take lesser cuts, superstars could take lesser cuts to accomodate new acts on the label, etc. Some sort of transformation needs to occur in the music industry to accomodate 21st century content distribution.
I used to be a pirate, but since Spotify, I've never once felt inclined to pirate again. It's a success story for me, as it helped me evolve into a person that wants to reward artists - even in the small capacity that Spotify currently offers - for their work.
In short, art shouldn't be made for profit. But profit shouldn't be denied as a form of acknowledgement for said art.
Art, to me, is an expression, an outlet, a means to create. I don't believe one should create art with the sole purpose of getting paid... Kinda distorts my romantic view of art and the creative process. But being acknowledged for that service in some way by someone is a normal thing, and totally expected.
But will monetary gain always be a requirement/given? As long as capitalism is a thing, I guess it will. But I think the method of payment needs to change. Spotify's rates could be increased, labels could take lesser cuts, superstars could take lesser cuts to accomodate new acts on the label, etc. Some sort of transformation needs to occur in the music industry to accomodate 21st century content distribution.
I used to be a pirate, but since Spotify, I've never once felt inclined to pirate again. It's a success story for me, as it helped me evolve into a person that wants to reward artists - even in the small capacity that Spotify currently offers - for their work.
In short, art shouldn't be made for profit. But profit shouldn't be denied as a form of acknowledgement for said art.
Nappuccino
Member
I do wish that the artists would make more per-play, but I also find myself listening to music that I bought at a store on spotify too. I don't have an ipod any more, but streaming music to my phone? Yes please.
So they're basically making money on top of my original purchase.
So they're basically making money on top of my original purchase.
Radio pays a lower royalty than streaming for songwriters. Radio also doesn't pay a performance royalty (streaming does).
Radio pays the absolute lowest per listener.
You'd pay less than $14 to broadcast a song to 15,000 listeners on a low power radio station.
Interestingly enough only a small portion of those people get royalties. Most get paid a single fee for their work.
Just as a thought experiment, I wonder how much Swift would like it if her royalties were reduced because *everyone* who contributed to an album got royalties rather than a one time fee.
Warm Machine
Member
Taylor likely doesn't get paid as quickly as the contractors do. She probably only gets paid if the album is succesful. Everyone else is effectively out of her pocket. She and her brand takes all the risk when producting a new album. There will come a day when she can't move more than a few hundred thousand records. It happens to everyone.
Swift is popular enough that this doesn't really change anything for her, but the fact that I can go on YouTube, SoundCloud etc and get free plays of music is a big part of how I keep up with the industryand I spend about $40-50 per month on buying albums. But I guess I'm not her target customer, as I buy mostly indie stuff.
The production cost and the risk is typically borne by the publisher.
They also pay advances to artists so that the artists have income.
If Swift is not signed to a label and self-publishes everything, you would have a point.
Otherwise, why shouldn't everyone else who contributes also get a part of the royalty pie?
Warm Machine
Member
The artist has to pay all of those costs back to the label. That is why bands get into, and never get out of, debt.
serenewarfare
Banned
Swift is totally within her right to pull her music. If she wants to take a stand, that's totally fine. But let's not act like it's going to lead to some giant sea change. It won't. Streaming is just where media is going as a whole. And unless prices for these services rocket up, which isn't feasible for their growth, the compensation just can't change radically. It may suck, but it's just how it is. And Taylor Swift and Thom Yorke won't change that.
And_Gignac
Member
How? Concerts are free to the people that go see them. I am aware they are not "essentially" free since those concerts are paid with collected taxes, if thats what you are getting at.
I'm done buying albums based solely on the reason that I really dislike having my purchased music scattered across several different platforms. It's a total pain in the ass to 'own' music and move that music between devices.
I currently subscribe to Spotify, but I'd gladly pay $25/mo for their service if it meant that the industry was actually sustainable for the artists I like to listen to. Unfortunately, it's all about convenience for me and there's more than enough great music for me to listen on Spotify at the expense of missing some greats (Tool =( ).
Taylor Swift will be just without Spotify, of course, but she is definitely narrowing the amount of people that will listen to her music.
I currently subscribe to Spotify, but I'd gladly pay $25/mo for their service if it meant that the industry was actually sustainable for the artists I like to listen to. Unfortunately, it's all about convenience for me and there's more than enough great music for me to listen on Spotify at the expense of missing some greats (Tool =( ).
Taylor Swift will be just without Spotify, of course, but she is definitely narrowing the amount of people that will listen to her music.
shacklesmcgee
Member
I agree with all of this
I love how many dismissive posts there are here purely because it's Taylor Swift. Completely irrelevant and classic drive by shit posting.
As someone who still buys CDs/vinyls I have no problem with this. Spotify royalties are a joke and need to be changed. I'm not a fan of streaming in general so I'll be supporting physical discs for as long as they exist.
As someone who still buys CDs/vinyls I have no problem with this. Spotify royalties are a joke and need to be changed. I'm not a fan of streaming in general so I'll be supporting physical discs for as long as they exist.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
They're all very different delivery methods to Spotify though.
I don't think she's saying that she has an issue with it being free to the listeners, I think she has an issue with how Spotify pay her (abysmally, from what I gather).
If I want to make a living by bringing beauty into the world instead of sitting in some cubicle all day then that's what I'm gonna do. And anyone who tells me that I should be giving away my hard work (which took years of rigorous study to learn to make) for pennies can sincerely fuck off.
Like I said, I am all for art being rewarded. But I think that people tend to corrupt and mutate the main motivation for artistic creation into being profit-driven. No evidence on hand, just personal anecdotal experiences. Especially record labels and publishers that want to capitalize on current trends/fads/demographics/etc... Just seems like taking something beautiful - such as music - and mutating it into this well-oiled machine built for bringing in money... Well, that doesn't sit well with me, never has. But it's the way our economy works, it's the way capitalism functions, and I carry on.
Forgive my rambling. Content creators absolutely deserve compensation if that is their desire. But I just hope that artistic expression in this era can maintain a sort of.. creative dignity, if you will. I'm a firm believer in art being more relevant than its monetary value. Art purely for profit's sake is kind of counterintuitive, for me personally. Beyond that, it's up to each and every artist on how they want the world to receive their work. Taylor Swift included.
For a woman that made her money largely by appealing to a person's sense of pity (boo hoo, my boyfriends are all crap and I'm an innocent young angel), it doesn't surprise me that she did this.
edit: eh, that last bit I put in here was harsh, so I'm removing that.
Back to the topic though -- it's pretty clear that she's making her music as scarce as possible so people are *forced* to buy her CD if they want to know what her music will be about. I suppose generating intrigue is a good strategy for her new album.
edit: eh, that last bit I put in here was harsh, so I'm removing that.
Back to the topic though -- it's pretty clear that she's making her music as scarce as possible so people are *forced* to buy her CD if they want to know what her music will be about. I suppose generating intrigue is a good strategy for her new album.
- Status