-
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
Um.. Not sure I understand why you're being so defensive and borderline hostile. By all means, take your salary. I'm just saying I disagree with making art solely for income because I don't associate the purpose of creative expression as monetary gain. To each their own man.
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
D.Lo
Member
That's pretty bullshit
The Record Company does all the production, distribution, and promotion. They also take the risks of over producing and over-promoting potential flops. In one sense they're like VC for music.
I don't want to defend them, but it's not like they're sitting on $0.66 income/profit for every dollar of a record sold. As opposed to the band/managers etc who get their full cut without any other costs apart from being paid for their work.
As someone who has released two albums, I'd sign any half decent record deal that got me money up front. The label is the one taking the risks, they deserve the profit. If you don't like it, self release, and see how far your own distribution and promotion go.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
No such thing as a decent record deal from my experience, even with supposedly more band friendly Indie labels. Contracts always favour the labels, the demand generally being from the band's end. Taking money from a label is - on the whole - a pretty sure fire way to compromising the integrity of your music, especially if it ends up being your sole revenue stream. If you have to make concessions so your music sells more so that you can survive day-to-day, I'd argue that it ends up not really being your music anymore, at least as far as I see it.
With so many people having easy access to the internet, labels are no longer the gatekeepers they once were.
My own personal experience with the recording industry is that if a record label decides to sign you on, your contract basically looks like this:
- you are obliged to record at least x albums, the label is under no obligation to actually publish those albums
- the cost of recording said albums and it's promotional activities falls on the band, the label loans the band the money which will have to be repaid in full, regardless of publication of the album
- in the event of public appearances for albumpromotion or touring, the label provides a stylist to decide who wears what, arrange hairstyles and makeup. The costs of this stylist falls on the band, provided in the form of a loan by the record label
- if a tour should occur, the dates and places for said tour will be arranged by the record label and without counseling the bandmembers
So yeah, I'm not too crazy about record labels in general.
Stephen_drewz
Member
I've always been curious how spotify manages to operate. Assuming all the artists get some kind of revenue. But with the insane amount of artists on spotify that seems almost impossible to manage.
Anyone found any good links that explain how it all works?
Anyone found any good links that explain how it all works?
bodyboarder
Member
Trust, and a lot of spot checks I'm sure.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
As I understand it, ad revenue and premium subscriptions. I think they take about 30% of everything and the rest goes to the rights holder.
D.Lo
Member
Hey I'm not a fan of them either. But it wasn't an accurate representation of costs.
But they're the shareholders basically. The band is the product/factory workers. Shareholders get profit.
Still, I'm happy to sell out if you know anyone
DOWN
Banned
I think she's saying you shouldn't get pretty much high quality file access (an iTunes like experience compared to radio or YouTube) like an album without supporting the costs and effort for the people and system to make it at a fair compensation rate.
People in this thread seem like they are intentionally being obtuse.
People in this thread seem like they are intentionally being obtuse.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Hey I'm not a fan of them either. But it wasn't an accurate representation of costs.
But they're the shareholders basically. The band is the product/factory workers. Shareholders get profit.
Still, I'm happy to sell out if you know anyone
I love your honesty, sir. However, that analogy is a truly stunningly awful and demeaning way of looking at yourself and your music. Labels arent shareholders, theyre a nest of parasites; ones that are really no longer needed in this day and age.
Misterinenja
Member
I really don't get why people are still using Spotify.
It was a nice novelty back in the first beta days and it quickly shat the bed after that. No reason to use the service past the people who wanna make their terrible party playlists carry over to other peoples houses.
Buy albums you like.
It was a nice novelty back in the first beta days and it quickly shat the bed after that. No reason to use the service past the people who wanna make their terrible party playlists carry over to other peoples houses.
Buy albums you like.
SecretMoblin
Member
There's a reason only two songs by unsigned artists have hit number one on the Billboard Hot 100 since 1994, and isn't because record labels have been remarkably lucky. The job of a label is to find an artist that will make them money and promote the shit out of them.
They are the exact opposite of hangers-on, and it's the reason you have countless artists in every major market (and some in this thread) begging for a deal. Their importance isn't negligible.
D.Lo
Member
Yep. Promotion is 99% of success.
How did Lorde become an overnight success? Did a 17 year old somehow create an international media bombardment strategy in a garage?
Just a joke dude. Also your avatar is terrifying.
Why not both?
CyclopsRock
Member
Well it's her prerogative. And whilst the OP's experience has clearly been one in which musicians have benefitted, mine hasn't I don't think. I got Spotify Premium about 5 years ago and in that time I guess I've given Spotify about £600 and not bought a single album or track from an actual pay service.
Misterinenja
Member
You either have your cool guy polished iTunes / Foobar library or your disgusting Spotify playlists.
Middle-ground is haram.
Never realized you had to hit number one to be a profitable musician :/
EricTheCleric
Member
because the compensation for the labels is pretty good considering the costs of putting it on Spotify?
so why are artists getting fucked from putting their stuff on there?
I use Spotify and buy CD's
feelsgoodman.jpg
Because artists are to a recordlabel what a symbian is to a woman.
Because I can conveniently listen to a ton of music for free, legally.
I sort of agree with her, but again, its a double edge sword. People who listen to Spotify would not very likely buy music and its good way to spread word of mouth, but on the other hand, music is business and is being produced on someone's wages and artists (and other people involved) would rather see the benifit of their work.
However, she should be the last person to say this, since she is actually earning a lot of money already.
Who the fuck is hating?
all the comments above yours have been quite fair and critically logical.
However, she should be the last person to say this, since she is actually earning a lot of money already.
Who the fuck is hating?
all the comments above yours have been quite fair and critically logical.
I've heard similar comments said by Billy Bragg about Spotify.
It makes me wonder why modern established artists don't just strike out on their own and abandon their record labels.
I'm glad you know what albums you like befofe hearing them, but I dont. Outside of my favorite consistent bands, I like to try and discover new things. Lots of new albums. I can't afford all albums I ever listen to, but I can afford the ones I like. So I need to hear them and see. I do that on spotify.
Did I misunderstand you, or is Bragg more lashing out to record labels and how they handle their income from streaming-revenue and channeling it through to the artist?
Misterinenja
Member
Last I checked, the free membership is really limited.
Yes the internet is severely lacking options to discover and sample new music.
Thank god for this monetized service that screws musicians over.
Bragg is basically agreeing with you that artists should fight for a fairer share of revenues in the digital age. This is unsurprising from a man who wrote this song but I think he makes an interesting point.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
If people are still begging for a deal in this day and age, Id argue that they are more interested in being famous than making music, because that is all labels can provide. They produce no product of their own. In many respects, they cannot exist or operate without an artist and their talent. They connect dots at best.
Nowadays, any musician has the world at their fingertips via the internet. They can connect their own dots. Labels are an outmoded and unnecessary leftover layer between musicians and their listeners (Solidarity, comrades!). That's all you need and it scares labels to death. Its the labels that are prattling on about how the music industry is on the decline, when it is in fact only their part in it that is dying.
Ah! I call Poe's Law. Also, Yes. Yes it is.
Pretty much this.
Bands producing classics that I'll be listening to for decades can get away with withholding their catalogs - Tool and AC/DC spring to mind when I think of bands not on Spotify that warrant an album purchase.
Swift makes throwaway pop music that will be forgotten this time next year.
The money she got from me listening to Shake It Off a few times on Spotify is more than she would have gotten from me otherwise.
Swift makes throwaway pop music that will be forgotten this time next year.
The money she got from me listening to Shake It Off a few times on Spotify is more than she would have gotten from me otherwise.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Precisely. Musicians have never had so much direct access to listeners than in the last 20 years, yet the Rock Star myth (and it works out for so few people that it may as well be a myth) is still being perpetrated.
I'm not sure I follow. Every play on Spotify the artist gets something. Regardless of whether it's enough, it's something. The other options of discovering an entire album the artists get nothing. The alternative is pretty much just piracy; either you download it on a torrent or something or listen to the whole album ripped onto youtube by some random dude.
IsntChrisL
Member
So what does she think about the traditional radio that helped make her popular?
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
It's not the same thing.
Good for her. She's right.
Radio is more promotional than anything else. You hear a song once in a while, can't repeat or replay it and any other consumption of it is out of your control forcing you to buy the album or single if you're interested. I don't know why people keep bringing it up like it's a good point.
Radio is more promotional than anything else. You hear a song once in a while, can't repeat or replay it and any other consumption of it is out of your control forcing you to buy the album or single if you're interested. I don't know why people keep bringing it up like it's a good point.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
No offense, but this kind of comes off as naive. Art for passions's sake and nothing else is fantastic when you're twenty. As the son of artists I can tell you though that when you're fifty with kids and a house you're making art because you're passionate about it and also because you need to pay the bills
She's probably quite thankful for it. But since we are talking about Spotify and not radio this seems like a moot point.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Personally, I think if you mix up your revenue stream with your artistic passion, you're gonna had a bad time.
So artists are supposed to have day jobs?
Streaming is also promotional. I'd argue that promo is streaming's biggest strength.
Over the last 10 years streaming has become the difference between a small band being able to tour the country versus only being able to tour the Tri-State area because that's the only area they can afford to get their songs played on the radio.
Can you name any artist who has been able to tour due to streaming revenue?
You seem to be saying 'art isn't valuable so do something valuable' where the argument is 'we have to make consumers understand that art is valuable'. It's backwards that someone can't make money putting in 100+ hours into a project that spans months because some people on the Internet want everything free. Give me a mandatory government check for $3000 a month and than we'll talk about that.
Yeah but the difference is how many people decide to buy an album after they know they can stream it all the time or whatever? Yeah I believe it's promotion, but it's promotionary power is truncated by the fact that users have a higher level of control and the payoff isn't as high.
- Status