• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Head of Swift's label said she got a little under $500k this year, well under Spotify's $6m number.
http://time.com/3581487/taylor-swift-spotify-borchetta/
Domestic versus worldwide. Taylor received 500k. What was paid out to all labels worldwide that hold rights and stuff? It was expected revenue with taking growth and the new album into account.

Sure, it might not have been 6 million, but it could have been several million at least.
 

CoolOff

Member
And the 500k (again, domestic as in only US streams) is for a period before her new album was out. 6 million globally the year she drops a well-received album is easily within the realms of possibility.

This Borchetta-dude is really taking the piss right now.
 

Faddy

Banned
She's so stupid. Spotify is not a new concept. Rhapsody has existed way longer. She's actually going to lose money, good thing her music sucks

I don't think you should call her stupid, the facts are that she knows how to sell music.

I don't think Spotify is targeting her main demographic. Spotify is generally aimed at people who have large music collections that are in multiple formats and too complex to be truly portable. I could be wrong but I would say Spotify is aimed at people in their twenties, Taylor's audience skews a lot younger so she isn't alienating her most vocal fanbase

That aside this is an Apple Pay moment. Spotify is the first mainstream popular on demand music service. They have tens of millions of users, Rhapsody was insignificant to her. Spotify is a threat to her business model of selling a whole bunch of albums.

We will see how she reacts to the new Google Music/Youtube service since Youtube has always been "free" but they have a more robust advertising model. Her argument is mostly correct, valuing music at nothing has significant impact on the ability of new music and bands to flourish. When you can listen to music you like it takes a special kind of person to go out and find something new. The biggest new band around is 5SoS which is basically One Direction with guitars, aimed at people who have no real history with music.

Streaming services are great for listening to good music now but I can see how they are harmful to the continuation of the creation of good new music by new people with new ideas.
 
You must be one of those people who thinks lowering taxes for higher income brackets is the right way to do things!

No, I am actually fine with paying higher taxes, I'm just not one of those "she's rich already and I'm only making $9 and hour, she should totally make all her music for free you know what I mean dude like fight the corporate pigs man" type of people.
 

-griffy-

Banned
Head of Swift's label said she got a little under $500k this year, well under Spotify's $6m number.
http://time.com/3581487/taylor-swift-spotify-borchetta/

Pretty sure that $6 million number was the combined payouts to top artists, not to an individual artist.

In any case I find it hard to sympathize with Swift only getting $500k from one source of income, when she has CD sales, iTunes, Vevo, concerts, etc etc etc. Oh no, ANOTHER $500k to throw on top of the pile!
 

Frith

Member
dunno if this has been said but spotify is the solution to the problem the music industry made up through there bluster and histrionics and because of that its hurting them.

they didn't know how to stop piracy so they pirated their own music so it feels legal when it's fucking over artists worse.

what they should have done is made there peace with the idea that some are going to steal, work against it without turning in to comic villain bad guys and sell to the people willing to buy. they can't do this though because they said piracy was killing them (at the same time as sales were going up) and they can't back down now.

they should have lowered music prices into the 10-5 dollar an album range and just made it more convenient than piracy. giving it away through spotify without a way to realistically replace revenue was fucking stupid and did the thing they said piracy was doing but with customers who weren't pirates in the first place.
 

Van Owen

Banned
Didn't her album just launch? I think it's pretty obvious that "on track to make" means if her numbers from the launch continue.

She had her whole back catalog on there too.

Pretty sure that $6 million number was the combined payouts to top artists, not to an individual artist.

In any case I find it hard to sympathize with Swift only getting $500k from one source of income, when she has CD sales, iTunes, Vevo, concerts, etc etc etc. Oh no, ANOTHER $500k to throw on top of the pile!

yeah, but that $500k has to be split up between labels, produces, writers, etc.
 
"And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music."





Here is an idea. Write your own fucking songs. There are people out there that make .0001% of what you make, and they do all the writing, producing, editing and distribution.

And they would be glad to let people listen to their "lives work" on spotify.

This is the problem with pop music. So much of it is just created by producers that are just on the look out for someone that can sing and look good. Swift might be able to do the lyrics, and she might put some input into how it will sound, but over all she is hardly a musician.
 

Stet

Banned
Of the new album, yes. She'd be better off if people were actually paying for it though.

You mean she'd be better off if people paid for it directly. Other artists, not so much. But she would still sell, so as long as she got her due that's all that matters.
 

Kill3r7

Member
"And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music."





Here is an idea. Write your own fucking songs. There are people out there that make .0001% of what you make, and they do all the writing, producing, editing and are distribution.

And they would be glad to let people listen to their "lives work".

The difference is that the general public doesn't care to listen to their "lives work" as compared to Taylor Swift's. Brand recognition matters.

P. S. I don't have a dog in this fight and do not listen to Ms. Swifts music.
 

antipode

Member
I pay for Spotify, and I don't think paid subscriber Spotify streams are the problem.

But most of the growth in Spotify has been ad-supported streaming, and free streaming isn't making enough to compensate for artists' loss of album sales. Compare to YouTube/Vevo where there are 5-15 seconds of mandatory video ads per 3 minute song, and a free Spotify stream has almost no advertising.
 

BajiBoxer

Banned
It's her music, so whatever. She can charge whatever she wants and sell it in any format. I'd think not taking what you can get from streaming services would be like throwing money out the window considering how easy it is to pirate music though.
 

Einbroch

Banned
Spotify runs way, way, way few ads. I can go 30+ minutes without hearing an ad, and then when I do, it's a 20-30 second ad.

That's a lot better than radio AND I can pick my songs. They should seriously bump up the number of ads. It's a great service that seems too good.
 
Spotify runs way, way, way few ads. I can go 30+ minutes without hearing an ad, and then when I do, it's a 20-30 second ad.

That's a lot better than radio AND I can pick my songs. They should seriously bump up the number of ads. It's a great service that seems too good.

Since you brought up radio, the reason radio isn't bashed on by the huge pop artists is because the radio stations are basically there are a promotion. I'd assume most people that go to spotify are looking for more than one song to listen to from an artist, while radio system highlights the hell out of one song.
 
Domestic? Come the fuck on Borchetta.



As in what exactly?

As in they weren't saying how much she was earning just what their projections were saying. Projections which obviously were expecting their company to massively grow in size whilst keeping the demographics roughly the same.
 
I do think listeners should pay for albums, but in truth the best one can hope for is a business model that favours both parties and which can fund new work. Taylor is in the very lucky position oh having a lot more width of movement in this, and she is free to act on how she believes her work is best given due value.

That said, i don't use Spotify and doubt i ever will.
 

Einbroch

Banned
Since you brought up radio, the reason radio isn't bashed on by the huge pop artists is because the radio stations are basically there are a promotion. I'd assume most people that go to spotify are looking for more than one song to listen to from an artist, while radio system highlights the hell out of one song.

Oh, I know, but I mean from a user perspective we're used to either buying an album and listening to the entire thing for a flat cost or listening to a radio station with 2+ minute commercials every 10-20 minutes.

Spotify is an incredibly good value for the consumer compared to the above. Maybe too good, and artists are slowly realizing this. Throw more ads in there.
 

Pavaloo

Member
thom was right it's just a platform for execs to continue to make bank off of the back catalogue of their old and biggest acts

"the last desperate fart of a dying corpse" lol

it's not so great for new artists at all
 
Legendary producer Steve Albini has some good words on the state of the music industry: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full

Through the internet, which more than anything else creates access to things, limitless music eventually became available for free. The big record companies didn’t see how to make money from online distribution so they effectively ignored it, leaving it to the hackers and the audience to populate a new landscape of downloading. People who prefer the convenience of CDs over LPs naturally prefer downloaded music even more. You could download it or stream it or listen from YouTube or have your friends on message boards or acquaintances send you zip files. In the blink of an eye music went from being rare, expensive and only available through physical media in controlled outlets to being ubiquitous and free worldwide. What a fantastic development.

There’s a lot of shade thrown by people in the music industry about how terrible the free sharing of music is, how it’s the equivalent of theft, etc. That’s all bullshit and we’ll deal with that in a minute. But for a minute I want you to look at the experience of music from a fan’s perspective, post-internet. Music that is hard to find was now easy to find. Music to suit my specific tastes, as fucked up as they might be, was now accessible by a few clicks or maybe posting a query on a message board. In response I had more access to music than I had ever imagined. Curated by other enthusiasts, keen to turn me on to the good stuff; people, like me, who want other people to hear the best music ever.

This audience-driven music distribution has other benefits. Long-forgotten music has been given a second life. And bands whose music that was ahead of its time has been allowed to reach a niche audience that the old mass distribution failed to find for them, as one enthusiast turns on the next and this forgotten music finally gets it due. There’s a terrific documentary about one such case, the Detroit band Death whose sole album was released in a perfunctory edition in, I believe, 1975 and disappeared until a copy of it was digitised and made public on the internet. Gradually the band found an audience, their music got lovingly reissued, and the band has resurrected, complete with tours playing to packed houses. And the band are now being allowed the career that the old star system had denied them. There are hundreds of such stories and there are speciality labels that do nothing but reissue lost classics like that once they surface.

I disagree that the old way is better. And I do not believe this sentence to be true: “We need to figure out how to make this digital distribution work for everyone.” I disagree with it because within its mundane language are tacit assumptions: the framework of an exploitative system that I have been at odds with my whole creative life. Inside that trite sentence, “We need to figure out how to make this work for everyone,” hides the skeleton of a monster.

Let’s start at the beginning. “We need to figure out”: the subject of that sentence, the first-person plural, sounds inclusive but the context defeats that presumption. Who would have the power to implement a new distribution paradigm? Who would be in the room when we discuss our plans for it? Who would do the out figuring we need to do? Industry and consumers? Consumers is a likely response, but did the consumers get a vote about how their music would be compressed or tagged or copy protected or made volatile? Did anybody? Did the consumers get a choice about whether or not Apple stuck a U2 album on their iTunes library? Of course not. These things were just done and we had to deal with them as a state of being. Consumers rebelling or complaining about things – “market pushback” – isn’t the same thing as being involved in the decision to do something. Clearly the “we” of this sentence doesn’t include the listener. I believe any attempt to organise the music scene that ignores the listener is doomed.

How about the bands? Do the bands get a seat at the “we” table, while our figuring-out needs are met? Of course not. If you ask bands what they want – and I know this because I’m in a band and I deal with bands every day – what they want is a chance to expose their music and to have a shot at getting paid by their audience. I believe the current operating status satisfies the first of these conditions exquisitely and the latter at least as well as the old record label paradigm.

So who is this “we”? The administrative parts of the old record business, that’s who. The vertical labels who hold copyright on a lot of music. They want to do the figuring. They want to set the agenda. And they want to do all the structural tinkering. The bands, the audience, the people who make music and who pay for it – they are conspicuously not in the discussion.
From my part, I believe the very concept of exclusive intellectual property with respect to recorded music has come to a natural end, or something like an end. Technology has brought to a head a need to embrace the meaning of the word “release”, as in bird or fart. It is no longer possible to maintain control over digitised material and I don’t believe the public good is served by trying to.

There is great public good by letting creative material lapse into the public ownership. The copyright law has been modified so extensively in the past decades that now this essentially never happens, creating absurdities whenever copyright is invoked. There’s a huge body of work that is not legally in the public domain, though its rights holder, authors and creators have died or disappeared as businesses. And this material, from a legal standpoint now removed from our culture – nobody may copy it or re-release it because it’s still subject to copyright.

Other absurdities abound: innocuous usage of music in the background of home videos or student projects is technically an infringement and official obstacles are set up to prevent it. If you want a video of your wedding reception – your father’s first dance with a new bride – it’s off limits unless it is silent. If your little daughter does a kooky dance to a Prince song don’t bother putting it on YouTube for her grandparents to see or a purple dwarf in assless chaps will put an injunction on you. Did I offend the little guy? Fuck it. His music is poison.

Music has entered the environment as an atmospheric element, like the wind, and in that capacity should not be subject to control and compensation. Well, not unless the rights holders are willing to let me turn the tables on it. If you think my listening is worth something, OK then, so do I. Play a Phil Collins song while I’m grocery shopping? Pay me $20. Def Leppard? Make it $100. Miley Cyrus? They don’t print money big enough.

It's a really fascinating speech and well worth reading or listening to.

Also, if you're not watching Dave Grohl's Sonic Highways series on HBO, you're really missing out.
 
Steve Albini said:
If your little daughter does a kooky dance to a Prince song don’t bother putting it on YouTube for her grandparents to see or a purple dwarf in assless chaps will put an injunction on you. Did I offend the little guy? Fuck it. His music is poison.

lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom