Warm Machine
Member
New page. Go watch "Artifact" on Netflix and then try to complain about album sales and an artist trying to control their destiny.
-
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
The artist gets paid for what the service is worth and what the label gives them.
Concert ticket sale(highest): The customer gets a unique version of the song, gets to see the artist in person, and gets to share the experience with others. You pay a premium for a premium experience.
Direct sale: The user gets to keep the song, and play it as many times as they want. It is worth the money they pay for it.
You make more off radio plays because radio plays reach more people. Those plays are worth more to the station to play to attract ad buyers. There are a finite number of radio stations that can fit on the spectrum without interference, so not only is it reaching a bunch of people, there's few other songs you can listen to on the radio simultaneously. Depending on local conditions, the track will have static or other anomalies. The song is guaranteed to play in it's entirety. Since users can't keep the song easily, these 'sales' of the song are objectively worth less. Radio stations also have more fixed costs. It doesn't cost them more when more people turn on their radios.
With streaming, the user doesn't get to keep the song. It's in lower quality. The streaming service must pay the full fee whether I listen to the entire song or not by cancelling. The streaming costs are not fixed unlike radio, the more people that listen, the more it costs the streamer to send the music out. If I fall asleep while listening, the streamer is losing money.. the radio station does not. And not only that, you're not the only song being played that second-millions of other songs are being played at the same time, with the same ads. Why should an artist get paid more when their song is objectively worth less?
Concert ticket sale(highest): The customer gets a unique version of the song, gets to see the artist in person, and gets to share the experience with others. You pay a premium for a premium experience.
Direct sale: The user gets to keep the song, and play it as many times as they want. It is worth the money they pay for it.
You make more off radio plays because radio plays reach more people. Those plays are worth more to the station to play to attract ad buyers. There are a finite number of radio stations that can fit on the spectrum without interference, so not only is it reaching a bunch of people, there's few other songs you can listen to on the radio simultaneously. Depending on local conditions, the track will have static or other anomalies. The song is guaranteed to play in it's entirety. Since users can't keep the song easily, these 'sales' of the song are objectively worth less. Radio stations also have more fixed costs. It doesn't cost them more when more people turn on their radios.
With streaming, the user doesn't get to keep the song. It's in lower quality. The streaming service must pay the full fee whether I listen to the entire song or not by cancelling. The streaming costs are not fixed unlike radio, the more people that listen, the more it costs the streamer to send the music out. If I fall asleep while listening, the streamer is losing money.. the radio station does not. And not only that, you're not the only song being played that second-millions of other songs are being played at the same time, with the same ads. Why should an artist get paid more when their song is objectively worth less?
Anthony2035
Member
I find it to be a win for those that stuck with physical media. But seems kinda bleh for the fans. Not all of us want to spend a month worth of Spotify for just one album.
Mercury Fred
Banned
I'm not sure I'd call what Taylor Swift makes "music."
...and artists.
Dreams-Visions
Member
okay yea that's bullshit. (the artists getting ripped, that is)
Gotdatmoney
Member
I dunno honestly, I feel like music hasn't been able to find a way to make good profit margins in general for the actual artists themselves and so it's still in that period of trying to find a way to find a good monetization method. I don't blame Taylor for her stance (even though her music does nothing for me personally) as it's her right. I don't really know how they are ever going to come up with a way to monetize music honestly.
GameGuru59
Banned
Who says you're entitled to be an artist fulltime? Moreover, you don't actually HAVE to use Spotify. As a prior post put it, you can use it for exposure (though I agree, as I previously stated, that Spotify gives away too much for free). And people will donate money to support artists. Bandcamp has a "name your price" function that allows users to pay what they want for music (or for the artist to set a base price that they user may exceed).
When I was in undergrad, I participated in a choir that was world famous, and the college had no music program. We practiced 5 nights a week after classes, and went on tour across the country every spring break. We often competed with schools that had music programs (we didn't). Today, many of my fellow alums are producing music on their own while holding fulltime jobs. It is VERY possible to be an artist with a fulltime job. Look at videogames. Plenty of indie games are produced by people that make games on the side.
Just because the model for the industry is different now, doesn't mean its wrong. It's just different. As I said, I'm anticipating a number of societal changes that will facilitate an economy that takes proper advantage of the digital distribution of information. Capitalism (at least as we know it in America), doesn't do that right now.
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
I bought several albums from artists I discovered on Spotify and Pandora. Flyeaf, Unsun, Audiomachine and others.
That's money for artists that wouldn't have gotten it without spotify.
And from the radio.
Is this a larger trend though? I would be really surprised if there is data that states a lot of people do what you are doing. Obscure artists may benefit from Spotify but I dont think the major big names benefit nearly as much.
Anyone dogging Tswift for being correct looks like a fool. Listen to what the musicians are saying on this one. The streaming services pay shit and it absolutely creates the sense of entitlement that people have that they just shouldn't have to pay for professionally-created music that enriches their lives the way they do for books, movies, games, or other media.
You mean like how I rent a movie from Netflix or a game from redbox or check out a book from the library or enjoy a painting at the museum?
Why hasn't Taylor pulled her music from FM Radio? She doesn't make any money at all from her music from being played there. Spotify/Music streaming is the new radio.
Someone else posted this link here and I will post it again.. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...be-awfully-high-despite-what-thom-yorke-says/
The best way to support your favorite artist is to go to their concerts instead of buying their album. The majority of album sales goes directly to their label and barely any money goes to them unless you're a very high profile artist.
Someone else posted this link here and I will post it again.. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...be-awfully-high-despite-what-thom-yorke-says/
The best way to support your favorite artist is to go to their concerts instead of buying their album. The majority of album sales goes directly to their label and barely any money goes to them unless you're a very high profile artist.
rokkerkory
Member
She is hot so cool
GameGuru59
Banned
Why should we? In the way the structure is currently set up, publishers make more of the cut than the actual individuals producing the art do anyway. The emerging paradigm is much more democratic that the feudalistic entertainment system we have now. The internet allows everyone to participate, while everyone makes less money.
I'm torn on this. On one side I feel like ad supported streaming is the future. It's just an evolution of the radio. On the other side, she isn't completely wrong. Its similar to what has happened to video games. Because of Steam sales, PS+ and GWG peoples opinion of value has changed. Now It's pretty common to here someone say, "Oh, I'm not going to buy that because it looks like something that would be on PS+" or "I'll wait for a Steam sale because you know it will be on sale in a couple of weeks". Now if PS+ or GWG give away a non AAA title people say it's garbage. A tip I was given in college was when doing Graphic/web design, don't undersale your services because it devalues your work and others. People start to think that that low price is normal and anything else above it is high. Then the next person comes in and lowers the medium range again and your low price is now considered high.
Did you know Amazon Prime has a large list of books you can rent for no money other than having a prime subscription which probably 'pays shit' to the authors/publishers?
Yep.
The second PS Now has a subscription, I'm subbing. I'm also subbed to Amazon Prime which gives me some movies and TV shows. This is the future.
Taylor writes most if not all of her songs.
Uh, people will listen to your music for free on the internet. Maybe it'll be Spotify, maybe it'll be Youtube. Better to just chill out about it and expect nothing from it. It's low commitment from all parties. The real question to ask is whether or not music being up on Spotify cuts into the band's overall revenue. Probably not from the charts posted in this thread about music industry earnings. There are lots of benefits to exposure and accessibility, but getting bent out of shape over someone not paying to listen to your music seems...out of touch.
So what are your thoughts on Libraries?
What does that have to do with being played on the radio?
A 5 course meal at Red Lobster.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
I'm very sad for her. She barely has enough for food in this industry.
I'd imagine Taylor would be thrilled if sites bought millions of digital copies of her albums and only let one person per copy listen to it at a time.
Eariler in the thread it was posted that songwriters get paid for their songs' radio play.
Warm Machine
Member
A traditional library allows a single user to borrow a single copy for their enjoyment and then return that asset for the benefit of someone else. Once it is returned the original borrower has to wait for others to be done with it before that are able to borrow it again.
Well they do have music cd's and likely have some of her's. I doubt she saw much for that copy.
Yeah like pennys on the dollar, Again they don't put music on the radio to make money there, they put it to expose it to you. They want you to hear it, and then go buy stuff.
I heard they upgraded their menu
I need to check it out
Warm Machine
Member
Taylor or the label can set up their own YouTube channel and make money from forced ads or click throughs. The money made there is better.
In so far as Netflix, they actually pay studios for the rights to stream films on a film by film basis. The more popular or better the movie the more leverage the studios have for revenue.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
It's not though. It's much more than that. I've completely stopped buying mp3 albums now because I can listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, as many times as I want on Spotify. FM radio is an entirely different thing, which is why that forbes article is so misguided.
Warm Machine
Member
Talking about an industry where an artist can sell millions of copies of an album and still end up owing their label money.
Also an industry which still charges a vinyl record "breakage" fee on digital downloads.
And an industry which is more and more pushing for 360 deals which allow them to make money on live performances of an artist. Let alone published photos or appearances in tangential media by them.
Also an industry which still charges a vinyl record "breakage" fee on digital downloads.
And an industry which is more and more pushing for 360 deals which allow them to make money on live performances of an artist. Let alone published photos or appearances in tangential media by them.
Radio pays song writers (at a rate that is lower than streaming), but it does not pay performers anything.
Studios license films in collections.
BravesCountry
Banned
Wow...this really hits me. I couldn't care less about Taylor Swift but Grizzly Bear is one of the larger indie acts out there, and fucking amazing too. They deserve better.
I am more than okay with this.
One could say the same about pirated music, except pirated music doesn't require a monthly fee to get rid of ads.
One could say the same about pirated music, except pirated music doesn't require a monthly fee to get rid of ads.
It's her music and her right to distribute it how she wants. I suspect she will make more money from this as well since even if the majority of former Spotify users decide to pirate she will still make more money from the remaining listeners.
Don't get me wrong I love Spotify, but musicians don't have any obligation to put their stuff on there.
Don't get me wrong I love Spotify, but musicians don't have any obligation to put their stuff on there.
Plenty of music requires a full time commitment. Taylor's last album would not be possible by having her chained to a desk job eight hours per day; neither would Beyoncé's last 14-song/17-video opus. Forget about touring outside your city of residence for months on end.
That's the emphasis on music career. These people you speak of do not have a music career, but a hobby. Which is perfectly fine and commendable, and even enviable that they can dedicate their spare time to something they love.
Someone who wants to dedicate their life to music, as they should have the option to do so, and as is necessary for a wide variety of music to exist, is required to be paid. I shouldn't even have brought forward the concept of donations to maintain starving artists in a hypothetical scenario where their art is free - in that case, donations are just a different way of spelling payment, and their art would no longer be categorized as free.
The above are points against the notion of "art should be free" - which is naive, if not selfishly entitled.
The concept of Spotify and related acting as a gateway drug for other forms of music consumption that will lead to a wider variety of artists getting paid is a different matter altogether. It seems like the argument for this scenario is that (a) artists cut the majority of their income from live shows - which has been shown to be true, and that (b) Spotify is convincing more people than before to funnel more money into live shows for a wider variety of artists.
We know income derived from the sale of music is going into the pits. Less digital and physical music are being sold in lieu of streaming services that pay dogshit. The onus would then be to show that income from live music has actually increased, with emphasis on a more egalitarian distribution rather than the big acts just getting a bigger share of the market (which could actually be the case looking at the monstrously bigger grosses the likes of Madonna and U2 have started pulling). I haven't seen evidence that live music is now pulling in better numbers than it has before, accounting for inflation.
Why would you pirate music from an artist/group you've never heard of?
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I agree. Video games are art. Video games are art. Video games are art.
Why wouldn't you?
It's her right to pull those tracks of she feels they do more harm than good being on Spotify.
The music industry as a whole is a mess, streaming services like Pandora and Spotify are not the answer to untangle that shit ball, they're just an alternative to the being gatekeepers to the audience.
She claims the compensation from Spotify is to low, last I checked the artist's returns on physical media weren't too hot either, but I couldn't find hard data on that.
The music industry as a whole is a mess, streaming services like Pandora and Spotify are not the answer to untangle that shit ball, they're just an alternative to the being gatekeepers to the audience.
She claims the compensation from Spotify is to low, last I checked the artist's returns on physical media weren't too hot either, but I couldn't find hard data on that.
- Status