We all are only in it for the money.
-
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
We all are only in it for the money.
The music industry is responsible for the devaluation of music by producing more and more of formulaic forgettable tunes and selling it at prime value. It was a system destined to fall, because the longevity of such formulas became ever shorter, without the help of Napster or CD burners. Piracy in all its forms were catalysts, not the cause.
We lived in an age where singers were judged by their looks, Cowell's initial response to Susan Boyle is a testament to that. Marketability and fitting a certain focus group were more important than the actual music. Nobody wanted to sign the Arctic monkeys until they blew up online.
For all intents and purposes, piracy leveled the playing field for artists to get exposure. Services like Spotify Rdio and Pandora took that premise and built a new business model around it.
Trent Reznor put a NIN album online for free and it netted him a higher revenue due to increased concert ticket sales.
Free music doesn't always equal zero income.
Wind's Howling
Member
Spotify's payment to artists is at the lowest of lows and their defense of having the most streamers (20+ million) to counter that low rate is irrelevant when Google Play has around 18 million streamers and their payment to artists is substantially more than Spotify while still leaning on the $9,99,- fee.
I am talking about an average of $0.04500 (Google Play) vs $0.00520 (Spotify) per song streamed.
I am talking about an average of $0.04500 (Google Play) vs $0.00520 (Spotify) per song streamed.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
She's going to sell albums regardless. The same reason people will always buy a Camry, Prius, or Accord.
Wow.
There is a problem with the absolute tiny amount that they get, and the way in which these funds are divvied up between publishers, spotify.... etc...
I dont think its silly to think that artists should get the lions share of the profits. They are the producers of the content.
You write it yourself.
Liamario
Banned
There's a difference between ownership of a song and listening to it.
She wants people to buy and own it. Her fans will do this without any issue. There are others who like to listen to streaming music like they listen to the radio. They will listen to the song, but the song or artist isn't good enough for them to buy the album/single.
And then there are people who like her songs, but just don't want to buy the album. They'll borrow her album and just copy the songs anyway.
All she is doing is driving people to piracy.
She wants people to buy and own it. Her fans will do this without any issue. There are others who like to listen to streaming music like they listen to the radio. They will listen to the song, but the song or artist isn't good enough for them to buy the album/single.
And then there are people who like her songs, but just don't want to buy the album. They'll borrow her album and just copy the songs anyway.
All she is doing is driving people to piracy.
Wind's Howling
Member
Pretty much.
Streaming is an exceptional way of hearing a few songs when you are never actually going to buy the CD.
It gives the opportunity to open up people's music taste and there is always a slight chance some will actually fall in love with said music and even buy a ticket to the concert of that artist he/she just discovered.
uncleniccius
Member
I'm with the op, if it weren't for Spotify I wouldn't like her music as much.
For reference, I bought premium tickets for her tour and have now had to buy all of the albums.
For reference, I bought premium tickets for her tour and have now had to buy all of the albums.
The movie you rent on Netflix had a theatrical run, the book at the library had a first pressing / retail price, and before the artist who painted the works in the museum died, they were either commissioned to create their works or sold them in galleries.
I'm speaking as a musician. Taylor Swift is correct. Listen to the musicians and stop drawing flimsy connections to other mediums. When the streaming services get their shit together, artists can support them then. Meanwhile, no artist should be releasing their music on streaming services unless it has already been commercially available for awhile and they are in "long tail" mode, for reasons that have been documented many, many times in this thread. Speaking of Netflix, ever notice how the movie selection sucks? That's because a lot of people are thinking like Tswift at movie studios.
GameGuru59 said:
a) Many artists own their own publishing rights - most indies do, in fact. b) Why do you look at that situation and decide "why should I pay?" c) You already do pay - subscriptions, duh? However, the point is, nobody is getting income from these systems except the tech companies and the labels/distributors who are netting payments for hundreds of artists. If you like content -- as in, all creative forms of media -- that's probably a good reason to make sure the people who actually create the brilliant works that enrich your life are able to fucking live.
Tech companies who have put themselves between consumers and artists because they created these multimedia devices have not set up a sustainable system. Everyone is just expected to go along with whatever bullshit these new players come up with, and they couldn't be worse stewards of the massive catalogs of creative works they have licensed.
Spotify, for example, doesn't even have basic guards against dilution and abuse. If a user only plays 7 tracks in one month and 7 bucks of their subscription fee is marked for royalty payments, that should net those 7 artists a buck a piece. But all plays are put into a service-wide bucket, so those artists get $0.004 apiece and Spotify spreads the remaining $6.972 of that 7 dollars among all these people that person never listened to. That completely uncalibrated model is the kiss of death for every medium it comes across.
What about the subscribers. I'm a google all access subscriber. And that's way more than I'd pay for music pre-streaming. I used to buy a couple of albums a year.
To be fair, the people who don't even bother to pay Spotify Premium would've just pirated the song if it weren't available for legal stream. So those $4000 are still something, compared to the $0 she would've gotten otherwise.
TheWarrior
Banned
How much did they make touring because of all that exposure?
I read a story about the band Iron Maiden and how they basically thought they'd fallen to obscurity or something. They found out that their music was being torrented like crazy in South America and so they booked a tour and made a shitload of cash.
Here's the article
http://www.theverge.com/web/2013/12/25/5244204/iron-maiden-responds-to-piracy-by-planning-tours
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Aren't her songs on youtube?
I'll just listen to her stuff there, for free.
I'll just listen to her stuff there, for free.
Zeouterlimits
Member
She's right in that there is no fundamental right to get people's creations be they video, music, literature or other wise for free.
That being said, it would take someone to come up with a better and more convenient model for people to stop using Spotify.
That being said, it would take someone to come up with a better and more convenient model for people to stop using Spotify.
Yeah pretty much,
You Know Nothing
Member
I haven't read the whole thread but I think this is relevant here
Guess how much Avicii earned from 168 million streams on Pandora?
http://www.supajam.com/news/story/Guess-how-much-Avicii-earned-from-168-million-streams-on-Pandora
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/aloe-blacc-pay-songwriters/
Sorry if it's already posted
.
Guess how much Avicii earned from 168 million streams on Pandora?
http://www.supajam.com/news/story/Guess-how-much-Avicii-earned-from-168-million-streams-on-Pandora
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/aloe-blacc-pay-songwriters/
Sorry if it's already posted
.
If you're not listening to it. And I'm not listening to it....who is
*wwooooooooooooooooo spooky noise*
My issue with spotify is that their payment system is a bit too "socialist" - for lack of a better term - to me.
From how i understand it: They take the entire amount of subscriber and ad money and distribute it among artists according to relative playcounts
Sum(subscription fees)*(1-Spotify's desired margin) = Royalty Money.
Each artist gets:
Royalty Money * (Playcount / Sum(TotalPlayCountsAcrossSpotify))
That does, however, mean, that if i pay 9,99 / month and listen to a single song, pretty much the entirety of my subscription fee goes to that One Direction song the kids are having on endless repeat.
I'd much more prefer a system like FLATTR, where my subscription fee gets distributed among the songs i have personally listened to.
to everyone saying "well, they should take the exposure and rake in the cash touring".
What if they don't want to? what if it's music that doesn't really work played live? How much does the SONGWRITER get if the band does a tour?
i don't think we can always point at the detour profitability when artists involved are pointing out that they make no money on people enjoying their works.
FloatingDivider
Member
I've been struggling with this for a while. I make music from a hobbyist perspective and I'm overjoyed when someone listens/likes/comments on it. So I make all of my music free and someone listening to it is all the compensation I want. Especially if they form some sort of opinion and comment on it somewhere. I do at some point, when I think my music is worth it, want to make some money with it. But I also feel like I don't ever want that payment to be upfront, I don't want you to pay for something you don't enjoy. So I'd rejoice in my music being streamed as long as some of the people feel inspired enough to purchase some music in a downloadable format. But I'm also not shooting for multimillionaire hollywood a-list type of sales, which I imagine Taylor Swift is. She(Her label) wants to fleece those teenagers, own their wallets, and wants to receive payment for every single time that music is played. She's also not lacking in exposure currently so this short sighted method of restricting access doesn't seem entirely illogical. It's probably a death sentence for career longevity though since the current popularity of streaming is unlikely to decline, and it's probably the primary driving force in music discovery currently.
I do feel like we will have to start thinking about different standards for calling music succesful since number of sales becomes increasingly unreliable. Currently, outside of magazines and webservices that cater to an audience of critical listeners, the main measure of success is the number of sales. It's undeniable streaming services are cutting into that number. I do think this situation is actually beneficial to the health of the music industry as a whole, I feel like the giant mega successes might be smaller, but the number of succesful artists is probably increasing overall.
I do feel like we will have to start thinking about different standards for calling music succesful since number of sales becomes increasingly unreliable. Currently, outside of magazines and webservices that cater to an audience of critical listeners, the main measure of success is the number of sales. It's undeniable streaming services are cutting into that number. I do think this situation is actually beneficial to the health of the music industry as a whole, I feel like the giant mega successes might be smaller, but the number of succesful artists is probably increasing overall.
I'm not willing to pay for individual songs anymore after experiencing Spotify. Sorry, the cat's out of the bag and you can't go back.
Why? That's what technology exists for!
POWERSPHERE
Member
Greed.
Even before I read this I was siding towards Taylor because on a surface level it is well known artists make the bulk of their money through shows which is very limiting. A lot of mom and pop stores survive in this day and age by using the internet to reach across state or country lines and they can comfortably makes hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.
Music artists with a sizable online audience still making less than minimum wage is pretty much garbage.
PaulKersey
Member
This trick thinks she is better than Led Zeppelin? COME ON!
I really dislike her music and I find this to be a ridiculous statement. I think she is a greedy person. She knows a bunch of people like terrible music and will buy her garbage albums.
I really dislike her music and I find this to be a ridiculous statement. I think she is a greedy person. She knows a bunch of people like terrible music and will buy her garbage albums.
What I've learned through this is that the music industry and Swift don't comprehend that demand curves slope downward. Compensating them "fairly" requires music streaming sites to reduce their margins (not happening) or raising prices and then watching demand drop. People who go to concerts have a much higher reservation price than streamers.....take advantage of it.
Good read on Google Play All Access
http://help.tunecore.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/kw/google play
Tunecore is a service that helps you sell your digital music.
http://help.tunecore.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/192/kw/google play
Tunecore is a service that helps you sell your digital music.
A delay until new releases go to streaming as with other media isn't unreasonable. That's one way of tackling the issue.
Removing entire back catalogue though is just swimming against the tide. As with mp3's how people consume and discover music is changing and the industry has to move with it and find a way to make it work.
Wouldn't be surprised for Apple to move in with an 'artist friendly' streaming service that leverages better compensation for artists as the incentive to get them onboard and therefore compete against Spotify and co.
Streaming is the future whether Taylor likes it or not, this is just posturing while companies battle for control of it.
Removing entire back catalogue though is just swimming against the tide. As with mp3's how people consume and discover music is changing and the industry has to move with it and find a way to make it work.
Wouldn't be surprised for Apple to move in with an 'artist friendly' streaming service that leverages better compensation for artists as the incentive to get them onboard and therefore compete against Spotify and co.
Streaming is the future whether Taylor likes it or not, this is just posturing while companies battle for control of it.
That's great and all, but she has a right to believe what she does, regardless of how much she makes.
This is literally the Metallica argument again. Yes, she's rich. Yes, it's immaterial to the argument at hand. No, it won't stop people from bringing it up over and over again.
on the basis that most music seems to be moving towards streaming, how would you structure it?
Radio pays more per play, but has vastly fewer plays per day, and a much smaller playlist (so not much longtail stuff). And because they are broadcasting, they have lots of people hearing a song that might not necessarily have chosen to - is that discovery or is that lack of choice?
I think even radio isn't enough though. Presumably artists and labels rely on radio for exposure and some income, and then sales of CDs/mp3s as additional income. If everything goes streaming, then most likely you are removing that income from purchases, and possibly displacing radio listening - so income from that area might also drop.
Radio pays more per play, but has vastly fewer plays per day, and a much smaller playlist (so not much longtail stuff). And because they are broadcasting, they have lots of people hearing a song that might not necessarily have chosen to - is that discovery or is that lack of choice?
I think even radio isn't enough though. Presumably artists and labels rely on radio for exposure and some income, and then sales of CDs/mp3s as additional income. If everything goes streaming, then most likely you are removing that income from purchases, and possibly displacing radio listening - so income from that area might also drop.
PaulKersey
Member
But having music on Spotify doesn't mean you get ZERO money. Metallica was getting literally NO money from Napster. People on Spotify get paid. Why else would artists be on it?
Liferebooted
Banned
Can't blame her, no one wants to work for free.
Eh. I pay £120 a year for Spotify (plus generally a ticket for a music festival), I don't feel I'm not paying enough for music. If artists aren't getting enough then maybe the problem is with Spotify or (more likely) the labels keeping too much of that money.
The song there called 'Your Amazing' is really bugging me, because it works in the context of the playlist but on it's own it makes no sense, it should be 'You're Amazing'.
The song there called 'Your Amazing' is really bugging me, because it works in the context of the playlist but on it's own it makes no sense, it should be 'You're Amazing'.
I'm not for sure what the definition of "paid" is but spotify effectively tossed people a few nickels and dimes. 168 million plays gets you around 15 grand. That is paltry.
Sir Abacus
Member
Wow. The RIAA are laughing all the way to the bank right now because the whole debate is artists vs Spotify and they're not even on the radar.
Spotify pays 70% of its revenue in royalties. Straight up. The the labels take their pound of flesh and only give the artist a paltry royalty rate on the Spotify revenues.
So your 168 million plays probably give you close to 125 grand from Spotify but by the time it gets down to the artist it gets down to 15.
Q
qizah
Unconfirmed Member
lol at trying to make people feel guilty.
I pay for Google Play Music every month, so I can listen to your music. If I like your music enough, I'll buy the CD too so I can have a local copy.
I pay for Google Play Music every month, so I can listen to your music. If I like your music enough, I'll buy the CD too so I can have a local copy.
Sir Abacus knows what's up!
How do you sleep at night?!
Sorcerer
Member
Great for up and coming bands where exposure is everything.
Not so great for established artists when the album first comes out, but I see it as better than nothing when the album is dead and dormant.
I don't see a problem for established artists to keep off Spotify for 3-6 months then when the album dies down put it on the service.
Its a little bit of extra life for older music and some discovery value afterwards.
By the way when is Taylor going to go into her Aladdin Sane Phase?
I am expecting the deep double album/alter ego thing pretty soon. jk
Not so great for established artists when the album first comes out, but I see it as better than nothing when the album is dead and dormant.
I don't see a problem for established artists to keep off Spotify for 3-6 months then when the album dies down put it on the service.
Its a little bit of extra life for older music and some discovery value afterwards.
By the way when is Taylor going to go into her Aladdin Sane Phase?
I am expecting the deep double album/alter ego thing pretty soon. jk
Spotify and Pandora stopped a LOT of piracy because of how useful it is. Take it away and people will just return to piracy. 10 years ago everyone pirated music, not everyone uses these services. If they get greedy and fuck it up then they won't end up winning.
?! Newsom has never been on a streaming service.
And she hasn't toured in years :/
User 479360
Banned
Now people can just torrent her music or listen to it on YouTube, as opposed to paying for her CDs. Her money-hungry attitude makes me dislike her more.
That's the worst part of this.
Acting like people paying for this services are doing the same as pirating their songs.
EricTheCleric
Member
most albums (unless they are conceptual) are mixtapes
It basically is the same in most cases. The money you pay to spotify doesn't affect how much money the artist makes per play. And considering that an artist only earns a few dollars for thousand of plays, you might as well just pirate.
- Status