Support NeoGAF

[A Fish Aficionado]

Didn't she sell over 1 million copies in the first week with her latest album, she doesn't need to put on streaming sites like this when her albums still sell like that. The sense of entitlement some people have feel they have over this is humorous.

When you are a multimillionaire and in the top elite in terms of income, she's the one coming off as entitled.

Many of the smaller groups have more to lose and they do pay as you want or are on streaming sites. They're the ones getting shafted by publishers not Swift.

 

[DizzyCaffeine]

When you are a multimillionaire and in the top elite in terms of income, she's the one coming off as entitled.

Many of the smaller groups have more to lose and they do pay as you want or are on streaming sites. They're the ones getting shafted by publishers not Swift.

Or maybe they're both getting shafted. Why are the rules different because one artist is rich?

 

[kess]

She's made a lot of calculated business moves that have panned out for her in the past. Maximum exposure isn't important for her at this point.

 

[Cloudy]

she's the one coming off as entitled.

The entitled ones are the streaming sites and folks wanting free music for nothing.

$10 is not too much to pay for an album. Shit, we can even buy individual songs for $1. If that's still too much, we can download it illegally. Folks wanting convenience on top of not paying anything are ridiculous IMO

 

[Syntsui]

When you are a multimillionaire and in the top elite in terms of income, she's the one coming off as entitled.

Many of the smaller groups have more to lose and they do pay as you want or are on streaming sites. They're the ones getting shafted by publishers not Swift.

She sure is entitled to do whatever the fuck she wants with HER MUSIC, yeah I agree with you on this.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Or maybe they're both getting shafted. Why are the rules different because one artist is rich?

Because if they have a bad month or a year, they still have millions. The poorer artist might have to get a job or do pay for play as a freelance musician.

I don't mind paying for Spotify Premium. I have been doing that for years.

 

[Coriolanus]

Artist blaming the consumers instead of the labels, who actually are to blame for shit royalties?

This is totally a new issue.

 

[fredrancour]

Or maybe they're both getting shafted. Why are the rules different because one artist is rich?

I would hope that Swift's agents can manage to negotiate a larger-than-average cut for her in the record deals, given her status as one of the few artists left that actually sells large numbers of albums. She's probably one of the few people who could actually get away with walking if she felt motivated to.

No idea what real numbers look like though.

 

[Slavik81]

she's not putting her entire catalog for free. she gets money from it. I would guess in the hundreds of thousands considering her popularity and number of songs.

She basically wanted to be paid at least $x per listen. $x was more than what she gets from the free stream. The paid stream gives her more than $x, but you can't only be on the paid steam. So she's on neither.

I can't blame her. Her work is in demand and Spotify wants to buy it for peanuts. Refusing to sell at their price is completely reasonable.

 

[Volimar]

If big name artists pull their catalogues and force streaming sites to adjust their payments in faovr of artists, it may serve to benefit all artists. It may mean more ads or premium services for consumers though. I'm okay with that.

 

[Currygan]

as much as I despise her, she don good

 

[Nostremitus]

Good for her. Big respect.

The expectation that artists are expected to give away their hard work is horrible. Fuck Spotify.

???

Artists get paid when their songs play on Spotify... Ad revenue and all. That's like saying "fuck radio" the stations just give away the artists' work.

 

[Syntsui]

???

Artists get paid when their songs play on Spotify... Ad revenue and all. That's like saying "fuck radio" the stations just give away the artists' work.

The problem is how horribly they are paid.

 

[jordan0386]

Doesn't she sell out every venue? The **** is her rich ass complaining about?

Everybody who worked on 1989 have long had their checks clear. Just stop being greedy.

 

[Owari]

Good. Her music is terribad anyway.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

And how much did the label make? I'll bet it was a lot more than $4,000.

Song made 12k in total and it was split between Aloe, Avicii, and Mike Einziger and their publishers.

 

[Maron]

By that logic, she should pull all of her music videos from YouTube.

That's ridiculous.

Spoiler

Just mute the audio track. Fans can then sync the video with their digital downloads.

 

[neoism]

that everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment

righhhhtttt

Spotify ...Founded in 2006


man you can really tell money has changed Taylor for the worse...
but MEH her music is really shitty so nothing of value was lost...

 

[kingocfs]

There's no doubt "indie" artists get the shaft with stuff like Spotify, but am I supposed to be impressed with her pulling her stuff? She's one of the biggest musicians in the world. The little guys won't follow her because they need every cent.

I use Spotify, no shame in it. I buy records, too. I used to pirate music all the time, but I honestly cannot tell you the last time I did because of Spotify.

 

[genjiZERO]

How so? She says it right there in the quote.

I was watching a movie and fell off...

Anyway, it's misleading because of the block of text she says before that. That's her real reasoning. The free bit is an afterthought.

 

[Suzaku]

Virtually every single show or concert I've been to this last year is due to first hearing the artist's music on Spotify. When you add in all the friends that I've brought along we've spent thousands of dollars on ticket sales alone. That's revenue those acts wouldn't be getting if their music wasn't on Spotify.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

By that logic, she should pull all of her music videos from YouTube.

VEVO is owned by the record labels and pays a decent percentage per stream. 192M plays on Vevo nets Aloe Blacc 140k versus Spotify's 4k.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

The entitled ones are the streaming sites and folks wanting free music for nothing.

$10 is not too much to pay for an album. Shit, we can even buy individual songs for $1. If that's still too much, we can download it illegally. Folks wanting convenience on top of not paying anything are ridiculous IMO

Hmmm, when the music industry basically put down heavy clamps on individuals and fans with CD DRM as well as trying their hardest for years to end illegal piracy, streaming sites were made to curb that situation.

Spotify is hardly free. It may be much better now, but no one was streaming music for free because they don't want to pay. Some folks really like the try before you buy method because it's not fair for them to buy and album that they could realistically like only 2 songs on but spent a whole $12-15 on one. It's not like we can rent it and bring it back. Streaming made that possible and easy for folks. Now the music industry that can't find away to stop bloating their budgets are once again taking their lack of forward thinking and taking it out on the fans again.

Taylor may think that this is about her artist integrity but this is really about the labels still holding on to old standards and not trying to embrace new ones because they simply don't want to give up their share. She looses more than they will. They will still get their huge cut. She will not.

 

[Volimar]

Virtually every single show or concert I've been to this last year is due to first hearing the artists' music on Spotify. When you add in all the friends that I've brought along we've spent thousands of dollars on ticket sales alone. That's revenue those acts wouldn't be getting if their music wasn't on Spotify.

Don't most artists make most of their money from touring?

 

[Infinite]

righhhhtttt

Spotify ...Founded in 2006


man you can really tell money has changed Taylor for the worse...
but MEH her music is really shitty so nothing of value was lost...

About as long as her career.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Don't most artists make most of their money from touring?

Individually yes


But even so, Spotify and streaming sites such as SoundCloud and the next opens up their fanbase to appeal to a broader brand. The radio is hardly reliable as most acts will die if they aren't rotated enough.

This does not apply to Taylor but as music is become more independent and self distributed, it's a reality they soon will have to face. Music labels are going to hate it. Music is the same as games and movies at this point.

Consumption is no longer the main hobby...

 

[Syntsui]

Doesn't she sell out every venue? The **** is her rich ass complaining about?

Everybody who worked on 1989 have long had their checks clear. Just stop being greedy.

Come the fuck on man. Just because you are rich you will started not giving a fuck and let everybody rip you off? What kind of logic is that?

Put yourself in her shoes, if she is in the position she is now it's because she makes good business decisions, quality music/stunning beauty aside.

 

[kess]

I would hope that Swift's agents can manage to negotiate a larger-than-average cut for her in the record deals, given her status as one of the few artists left that actually sells large numbers of albums. She's probably one of the few people who could actually get away with walking if she felt motivated to.

No idea what real numbers look like though.

No doubt she's getting one. She's had a well planned career, and her family has a long, long history in financials and banking. Bands wish they had that kind of backing.

 

[Koodo]

She didn't lie. So many people clinging to Spotify and thinking they are "contributing" to their starving faves. Buy the fucking music you cheap shits.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

VEVO is owned by the record labels and pays a decent percentage per stream. 192M plays on Vevo nets Aloe Blacc 140k versus Spotify's 4k.

Jesus, how does VEVO make so much more?

 

[Darryl]

I can't bring myself to pay for fad music. I'm going to hate the hell out of all her songs in another month. There's just so much good music out there to listen to. All of the smaller stuff is just as good as the big names nowadays, even with pop music. I actually liked a few of Taylor Swift's songs from her new album, but there's no way in hell I'm going to pay to listen to those songs individually. I'd have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to listen to music if I did that, judging by my Spotify library. She could hypothetically get money from me down the line if she had her music on Spotify, I listened to it a lot, grew attached to it, and stopped considering it fad music. Then I'd buy her albums when they launch, just like my favorite bands. Now, it's Taylor Swift, so I doubt that'll ever happen. That's my process, though.

 

[ryseing]

All artists in the "What to play while Taylor's away" playlist must be loving her decision.

That playlist is brilliant. GG Spotify.

 

[MindCollizion]

Her and every single artists' work is also a great experiment. There's no reason to get on that high horse. People and their idiotologies.

 

[i_am_ben]

hopefully spotify increases the amount they pay per stream

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

She didn't lie. So many people clinging to Spotify and thinking they are "contributing" to their starving faves. Buy the fucking music you cheap shits.

Preach, sis.

 

[Nuklear]

She didn't lie. So many people clinging to Spotify and thinking they are "contributing" to their starving faves. Buy the fucking music you cheap shits.

No.

I find it funny how people try to guilt others for using Spotify like they are doing something illegal.

 

[SecretMoblin]

koodo having HORrible opinions, big surprise











not spending actual money on your faves though

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Adele's manager is right



http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/06/adele-manager-jonathan-dickens-streaming-spotify

singles and maybe past material should be accessed to all users but new releases should at least be available to only paying subscribers
and of course there is also the on-going issue that labels still give a low percentage of their revenue to the songwriters, producers, etc

I was going to post exactly this suggestion, thinking I'd thought of some brilliant compromise that both parties should be happy with, and now I see that Spotify resists this common sense policy. That sucks. I love Spotify, been a premium subscriber for years, but I hope they see more pushback from artists and publishers on this.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

Hmm, just looked it up, my last album has had 6189 tracks played on Spotify, for which we have made $34.13.

Two vinyl sales at a show make more money lol.

Heaps of people say to me 'I just listened to you on Spotify', for each listen we get $0.00551442.

So they'd have to listen to 2720 tracks for us to make as much as we do on a $20 CD ($5 manufacturing cost, yes it's a very nice CD).

I think I'd prefer outright piracy, at least nobody else is getting rich from that.

What band and how much do you make on Google All Access? I'll add you to my library.

 

[Syriel]

Because a song being played on a radio station and it being available on Spotify are even close to the same thing.

I don't know that I can blame her, really.

For the on-demand bit no, but the free stream that's like Pandora?

That's pretty much just like a terrestrial radio station. The only difference is that Pandora pays more than terrestrial radio.

Aloe Black spoke on Pandora and Spotify's meager returns

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/aloe-blacc-pay-songwriters/

Pandora pays the compulsory rate (a higher percentage than what terrestrial radio pays) to song writers.

http://title17.net/archives/378

Pandora also has to pay performance royalties (which terrestrial radio does not).

That is about 1/10th of a cent per stream.

http://theseayfirm.com/i-read-ten-a...as-confused-demystifying-streaming-royalties/

how much did he make from radio spins? cd sales? concerts? appearances?

and that's one song, what about his other songs? I don't think he or other artists are hurting for cash at least the one's pulling songs and complaining.

No artist gets a performance royalty from terrestrial radio in the US. Only songwriters get paid there. And they get less than the compulsory license for non-interactive digital services like Pandora.

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.

Compulsory licenses for non-interactive streams (like Pandora) are set by a court under a consent decree due to the monopoly power of the rights organizations.

I think that artists have a legitimate axe to grind in regards to the absurdly low payout they get from the streaming services.

A lot of that has to do with prior legal agreements and the fact that terrestrial radio pays a WHOLE LOT LESS.

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?

Radio station pays -zero- to the performer. It only pays the songwriters.

So because Aloe Blacc theoretically makes a bunch of money he should just suck it up and take whatever royalty Pandora wants to pay him. Okay.

Pandora doesn't set its royalty rate.

The rate is set by a court for reasons stated above.

She basically wanted to be paid at least $x per listen. $x was more than what she gets from the free stream. The paid stream gives her more than $x, but you can't only be on the paid steam. So she's on neither.

I can't blame her. Her work is in demand and Spotify wants to buy it for peanuts. Refusing to sell at their price is completely reasonable.

Interactive services don't get to use the compulsory licenses which is why she can negotiate there. But really, this is no different than when a network fights with a cable or satellite provider.

AMC vs Dish, ESPN vs Comcast, Taylor vs Spotify, it's all the same and it's all about money.

 

[Nostremitus]

The problem is how horribly they are paid.

Because they get paid per listen? That's not getting paid horribly, that's getting paid to scale. Spotify pays more per listener than radio. Each play is one person or at most a room of people hearing it compared to the potential millions of listeners per radio play.

This guy breaks it down pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...be-awfully-high-despite-what-thom-yorke-says/

 

[Conkersbadfurday]

I don't disagree with her. Music shouldn't be free. At the same time, I really really prefer to sample before I purchase, and I love it when bands release full albums on things like Spotify, iTunes radio, or just on their own website.

But, I also don't disagree with her at all.

 

[Dead]

I see Spotify as essentially a glorified way to preview music. I see nothing wrong with an artist pulling their work from it at any time.

I still believe if you like an artist's work, you should buy the album, whether digitally or physically.

 

[Guevara]

She's right, but fighting against the tide. Music is well on the way to free.

 

[DizzyCaffeine]

She's right, but fighting against the tide. Music is well on the way to free.

It is hard to imagine music ever regaining the perceived value it had in the 20th century.

 

[Future]

LOL

Guys it's just Taylor Swift.

No one listens to that trash's trash anyways.

No one listens to that trash

Album goes platinum

thisisneogaf.gif

 

[DarkFlow]

Why does she even give a shit about album's? They make almost nothing after everyone takes there cut. I think they get less then a dollar when its all said and done. The real money is in concert and merc sales, and I would think you would want as many ears to hear it as possible so they come to your concert.

 

[And_Gignac]

Such a vapid rationalization, this will backfire hard on her.

Every art form should be free. Thankfully we are marching towards that, and music will be the first medium that will have to deal with it.

 

[SoundsOfScience]

lol if someone is looking for something similar to Taylor Swift, they're gonna get their head blown off by The Telescopes.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

No.

I find it funny how people try to guilt others for using Spotify like they are doing something illegal.

This. I don't even use Spotify for the top acts. My faves are granted a purchase, it's everybody else I don't know that I need Spotify for. Shoot, some of the people I listen to don't even hit a radio. That trying before a buy legally works and I pay if I like. Save that talk for pirates...