Wow, that's really smart.
-
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
Wow, that's really smart.
How did Pandora and Spotify even get through with that? I guess they make more sense for bands who need a breakthrough hit and are not for well established stars.
ElMexiMerican
Member
I don't think that's them saying they're definitely going to be streaming 1989, but it seems like they're going to try and get her to let them stream it. It might work better for Beats Music since iirc there's no free option and they're part of Apple now.
Also, I find it odd that she's apparently only removed her songs from Spotify, and not from other streaming services.
I just posted that for people who kinda don't get why this happened.
I'm split on this, on one hand, there needs to be a better way for artists to get some income on these sites, on the other, you're alienating a group of people who likely wouldn't have heard you otherwise.
Buddha Beam
Banned
Fine, it doesn't justify putting your album on there for whatever pittance you'll get from Spotify, especially for artists and bands who are decidedly not of Taylor Swift's megastar status.
Come on, Shake it Off is pretty catchy.
outunderthestars
Banned
I think that artists have a legitimate axe to grind in regards to the absurdly low payout they get from the streaming services.
UltimaPooh
Member
NYCmetsfan
Banned
they're free to take the music off. they then lose even more money.
people listen to music on spotify and pandora other places not so much, at least with easy access.
spotify can't pay much because they're still trying to build a audience and revenue, they're rates are going to go up.
Deft Beck
Member
Services like these are better for music discovery. It's the first point of contact for engaging with the artist by buying their album or other merchandise outside of Spotify.
systematic
Unconfirmed Member
70% of the revenue Spotify earns from subscriptions and advertisements go towards paying music royalties. How much higher could they go?
It's the labels that receive the royalty payments and then hand over a small fraction to the artists. That's where the problem lies, which is The Black Keys point.
The issue is that people use spotify as a substitute for buying the actual thing. I think I heard on the news the other day that an 'artist' gets £0.4p per song played on Spotify. If we go by album prices being £10 on average, then someone would need to listen to a 12 track album 2,500 times for them to make that £10. It's clearly a bullshit deal for artists.
Some figures in the below.
http://business.time.com/2013/12/03/heres-how-much-money-top-musicians-are-making-on-spotify/
He can afford a Taylor Swift CD!A friend of mine is making bank on Spotify:
People do it with YT too though. It's hard to believe, because it's an awful experience, and the quality is gash, but I know lots of people that basically only consume music through YT.
How not,either way you didn't buy the album
shacklesmcgee
Member
what does she think this will do?
She takes her music off Spotify because she wants more money.
Spotify doesn't just "have" more money, so they charge users more
Users no longer use Spotify
Spotify makes less money, can't afford certain artists
More artists leave Spotify
etc.
She takes her music off Spotify because she wants more money.
Spotify doesn't just "have" more money, so they charge users more
Users no longer use Spotify
Spotify makes less money, can't afford certain artists
More artists leave Spotify
etc.
Orbis Tabula
Member
She's got some good music, this will probably bum out some listeners. Honestly, I don't blame her. I love Spotify as a consumer, but it sounds like the artists kind of get a raw deal from the whole thing.
Rushersauce
Banned
And then she complains that no one loves her.
jamesinclair
Banned
And yet they're ok with radio?
ONE MILLION SPINS sounds astronomical....
But Spotify is usually one play = one listener.
Meanwhile, a popular station plays the same song ten times in one day, and it's the equivalent one million listens.
How much did the radio station play per spin?
She'll make a song about them anyways.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
fine, they can set up their own streaming service and pay all the costs.
spotify and pandora aren't some giant apple type profit centers.
they're losing and fighting the wrong battle, they should help spotify push their premium services, those people are spending $120 or $60 bucks a year, more than most consumers.
What's the alternative model? Her whole attitude in the quote is I want to dictate how much the value of my music, consumers be damned. That might work for a successful artist but its not changing the industry.
Do you think she cares what it will do? She wants to be compensated fairly for her work, no one has the right to criticize that.
Spotify has to rethink their practices towards artists so this won't be a problem in the future.
Buddha Beam
Banned
She will probably make more money due to people now having to shell out $12 bucks or whatever for her album. That's her plan.
I don't think Spotify is totally worthless. It's potentially good for music discovery (although I myself have much better luck with Pandora for that). However, consumers mainly use it to not have to pay for albums since they're now free with a commercial thrown in here and there. You know it, I know it. I personally wouldn't go so far as removing my entire catalog if I was a musician, but I'd remove a significant portion of it. If you like what you hear, throw some sheckles my way and get the rest of the damn album. Amazon, iTunes and Google will still let you stream it if drive space is a concern.
Yes, the future is streaming, but everybody but the most popular of the popular gets fucked under the Spotify model.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Pandora (no pun intended) box has opened though. I don't think consumer's habits are going to change now that they are used to the various streaming services, I think the music industry is going to have to change to one where creating music is no longer done as a money-making endeavor. The industry is going to have to figure out another way of monetizing music.
outunderthestars
Banned
Doesn't Spotify allow you to keep entire albums offline to listen to at any time? Last time I checked radio stations didn't work that way.
Zeyphersan
Banned
I will say that I stopped buying albums altogether once I started paying for Spotify premium
And I even use the student discount, so I pay even less
#partoftheproblem
(And yes, if Spotify didn't exist, I probably would still be buying single songs and albums)
And I even use the student discount, so I pay even less
#partoftheproblem
(And yes, if Spotify didn't exist, I probably would still be buying single songs and albums)
NYCmetsfan
Banned
that successful artist loses money but how many cds are the average consumers buying? I doubt most people buy more than 12 a year anymore and those indie artists aren't getting many people buying their albums.
spotify subscriptions and pandora subscriptions are capturing more money for the industry, the issue is the labels and the compensation to the artists vs. the suits.
victreeb3l
Member
Shes on the losing end. Get with the times.
shacklesmcgee
Member
I'm saying that if artists want more money from Spotify, Spotify is probably gonna shut down, so she still gets no money and users get fucked.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
she's being fairly compensated. I damn well have the right to criticize a women making millions saying she's not being fairly compensated.
SteveWinwood
Member
no users just go back to pirating
The hell does any of that matter? If he is making money from his live shows he doesn't have a right to make money from HIS work on streams?
Bullshit, and you know it. If you like Spotify like I do, then fine. But don't pretend to be bewildered why artists who aren't making much of anything from it are offended. I don't give a shit if his spins of cd made him billions, he is still entitled to fair compensation for his work being consumed.
There's no magical 'thresh hold' of personal wealth where an artist is remanded to giving their music away at a lower price than they feel fair.
Looking at what Aloe said he made off of 100m streams, they artists couldn't care less in this case. Piracy is an empty threat because they are making a pittance if any on the streams as is. To them its probably damn near the same; so in this case they will side with principle over the 40k for 100 million streams. The threat of piracy reaches a level of diminishing returns, and this is clearly it. If you would rather steal it instead, go on ahead, thats clearly not going to change their minds.
Infernostew
Member
I can't even imagine how much she charges venues for shows and how much her merch goes for.
Khaos_Knight
Banned
LOL
Guys it's just Taylor Swift.
No one listens to that trash's trash anyways.
Guys it's just Taylor Swift.
No one listens to that trash's trash anyways.
That's not the issue. The link I posted earlier wasn't just money going out to artists, the labels were inclusive of that. There's plenty of artists out there only selling a few thousand records, compared to Swifts millions. It would be completely impossible for them to continue if everyone was using streaming services. Even if the record company gave them 100%. The royalties paid are just utterly pathetic and doesn't even come close to representing the worth of the product.
Here's an older 2013 article about someone from the band Cracker.
Pandora $.000015 per play
Sirius XM $1 per play
Radio $.07 per play
Buddha Beam
Banned
And what about people for whom touring or live shows are impractical? People who do more computer based, electronic music or on the opposite end of the spectrum people who might need a full orchestra and the costs of touring are potentially significantly higher than they'd otherwise be? The live tour model works nice for some but not others.
Selling music for some monetary value is a glove that fits all hands.
And this helps emerging artists how exactly? How are they supposed to make enough money in the first instance to even get a foothold on a potential career? Not everyone is manufactured and bankrolled by a record company from the start.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The big names like Kanye are popular, but people wouldn't give them a dime if they could, because they don't actually have much of an attachment to the person, they are big commercial products often mainly used as advertisement billboards.
So to me it's all good. The bigger you are, the less people really feel for you, so the money goes to the smaller bands/musicians/artists that people feel closer to. Should be how it works with spent money in most circumstances where it can work. It's more democratic.
Deft Beck
Member
That's hyperbole.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
what are the libraries of each and the profit of each? Radio has like a library of what? 500 songs at anyone time? and plays one song to all listeners
sirius is much broader but less than pandora and charges 14 bucks or so a month and more for internet access. and at the same 1 song for every listener model
pandora has millions of songs and has millions of simultaneous listeners. if more people paid they'd raise rates but instead of promoting that taylor is insinuating nobody is paying and that's not going to change.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Even if he's making bank from touring he can still voice displeasure for being paid chump change from the streaming services.
Considering that 1989 is selling millions of copies, I'd say there are people who listen to it.
- Status