| |
Celeb News: Thom Yorke slams Spotify
Member Since: 4/29/2012
Posts: 15,977
|
Quote:
Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has pulled his solo songs and those with his group Atoms For Peace from music streaming service Spotify, complaining that "new artists get paid **** all with this model".
"The numbers don't even add up for Spotify yet. But it's not about that. It's about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable," Godrich, whose production credits include albums for Radiohead and Paul McCartney, tweeted. "Meanwhile small labels and new artists can't even keep their lights on. It's just not right."
He continued: "Streaming suits [back] catalogue. But [it] cannot work as a way of supporting new artists' work. Spotify and the like either have to address that fact and change the model for new releases or else all new music producers should be bold and vote with their feet. [Streaming services] have no power without new music."
Spotify offers a limited free streaming service, and an unlimited service at tiers of £5 and £10 a month. But some artists have complained that it is less effective for them to make music available there than to sells CDs and digital downloads because the per-stream payments are comparatively tiny.
The industry average offers slightly less than 0.4p a stream – meaning that 1m streams of a song would generate about £3,800. Most songs receive far fewer streams.
In a statement, Spotify said:
"Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid $500m (£332m) to rights holders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach $1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music.
"We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers."
A Spotify spokesperson also pointed out that Yorke's music is still available for streaming on the Google-owned YouTube video service – whose chief executive Eric Schmidt said last week about film piracy that "Our position is that somebody's making money on this pirated content and it should be possible to identify those people and bring them to justice."
The row highlights the collision between new models of listening to music created by streaming as the industry tries to find methods of dissuading fans from using illicit services to download songs for free without repaying artists.
Godrich insisted that the point was not about gaining more money for himself or Yorke, whose work with Radiohead sold millions of CDs in the past two decades. "The music industry is being taken over by the back door. And if we don't try and make it fair for new music producers and artists, then the art will suffer. Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system."
Yorke pitched in to the debate. "Make no mistake, new artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly be rolling in it. Simples," he tweeted, and added as a riposte to critics that the suggestion his move was pointless missed its purpose: "'Your small meaningless rebellion is only hurting your fans ... a drop in the bucket really.' No, we're standing up for our fellow musicians."
Spotify has been having notable success getting some established bands to make their music available on its service: Daft Punk's Get Lucky rapidly became one of the most-streamed songs ever.
Last month, Pink Floyd made its back catalogue available on Spotify after fans streamed the song Wish You Were Here more than 1m times.
But Godrich said: "Making new recorded music needs funding. Some records can be made in a laptop, but some need musician[s] and skilled technicians. Pink Floyd's catalogue has already generated billions of dollars for someone (not necessarily the band) so now putting it on a streaming site makes total sense. But if people had been listening to Spotify instead of buying records in 1973 I doubt very much if Dark Side [of the Moon, Pink Floyd's record-breaking album released that year which sold hundreds of millions of copies] would have been made. It would just be too expensive."
The move has won support on Twitter from a number of artists, including Four Tet's Kieran Hebden, who tweeted: "I had everything on my label taken off [Spotify]. Don't want to be part of this crap." He added "I don't get why [it's] such a big deal to not do Spotify. My music [is] easy to get elsewhere. I'm just not into it."
|
THOUGHTS?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/27/2011
Posts: 20,704
|
I kind of agree with him. People need to buy music. These songs are all property of these artists and it's completely unfair to just illegally download it. Spotify should definitely not have new releases available to stream for free users if it isn't making as much money.
But in order to get people to buy music again, we need to do something about these album prices. I never buy digital albums because there's no way in hell that I'm paying over $10 for something I can't touch or feel. Album prices in general need to be reduced. Maybe $3-5 for digital album and $5-7 for physical albums, or something along the lines.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/12/2012
Posts: 13,665
|
He is right, most of the money makes Daniel Ek + Martin Lorentzon.
Sure Thom is a millionaire and needn't to complain but I think he is more concerned about the new acts, only the really big ones get much money from the streaming provider.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/5/2012
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rivington Reject
I kind of agree with him. People need to buy music. These songs are all property of these artists and it's completely unfair to just illegally download it. Spotify should definitely not have new releases available to stream for free users if it isn't making as much money.
But in order to get people to buy music again, we need to do something about these album prices. I never buy digital albums because there's no way in hell that I'm paying over $10 for something I can't touch or feel. Album prices in general need to be reduced. Maybe $3-5 for digital album and $5-7 for physical albums, or something along the lines.
Just my opinion.
|
This. People have to understand that the music industry isn't the same as it was 10 years ago. The landscape has been changing at an extremely fast rate, and lower prices could be an incentive for people to actually buy music instead of pirating it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/29/2012
Posts: 15,977
|
I don't use streaming services either.
I prefer to buy physcial albums and download sons or half an album from Itunes or Amazon.
And I agree that the prices for albums have to be reduced or a feature needs to be added that only comes with a physical version.Something you can't copy or just post on the Internet.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/13/2011
Posts: 2,463
|
It's all because of music piracy tbh. They need to shut down all those websites where people download free music. That's why the music industry is suffering.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/25/2012
Posts: 30,317
|
Reducing album prices would solve a lot I think.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
He's not wrong. And don't be fooled by Billboard reporting 10 million streams a week for its top tracks - the vast majority of that is YouTube, which is even less profitable.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arturdork
It's all because of music piracy tbh. They need to shut down all those websites where people download free music. That's why the music industry is suffering.
|
They've been trying for over a decade to do just that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 32,106
|
You know, I had that drama on my head (you can see it on my Blogs  ) about using Spotify or not... I used to buy CDs and DVDs, but I can't do it no more, or at least I can't buy as much as I used to, the prices are too high and most of the times I won't like half of the songs on the album, and furthermore, there is music that is so hard to find here in my country ( rap or country for instance). Also, at last but not least, the economical situation doesn't help either  Whether they like it or not, musicians have to get into their heads that now the deal is on live music
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BobBertran1992
You know, I had that drama on my head (you can see it on my Blogs ) about using Spotify or not... I used to buy CDs and DVDs, but I can't do it no more, or at least I can't buy as much as I used to, the prices are too high and most of the times I won't like half of the songs on the album, and furthermore, there is music that is so hard to find here in my country ( rap or country for instance). Also, at last but not least, the economical situation doesn't help either Whether they like it or not, musicians have to get into their heads that now the deal is on live music |
The problem is that while live music is incredibly profitable these days, far less consumers actually enjoy live music. 16 million people could buy your album, and then only 2.5 million might buy a tour ticket.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 50,276
|
No one cares Thom. 1 three minute song is not worth 1.99, and you will stay fuming.
No one is going to buy your new music anyway, so it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/13/2009
Posts: 22,181
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/3/2011
Posts: 22,014
|
Then how about he rings up Apple and complains to them. Until we can get a decently priced album on iTunes, i.e. not the same price/more than a physical copy, this is how the music industry is gonna go 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2011
Posts: 7,281
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TheGeoKing
No one cares Thom. 1 three minute song is not worth 1.99, and you will stay fuming.
No one is going to buy your new music anyway, so it doesn't matter. |
!!!
Sportify actually offers the best model of digital music.
New artists just need to work their ass off to be known by public. No one is buying music because it's too expensive.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/22/2011
Posts: 9,178
|
He's right. If these streaming services are "the future" (or want to be), they need to do more for new artists rather than be a cash sink for the back catalog of already established artists.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 32,106
|
I was in a hurry so I couldn't finish my statement
Spotify or streaming services are very helpful for people like me who can't find music they like in stores, and it helps new artists to get fans, and if they're lucky, those fans will attend some of your shows; nowadays people save their pennies for the live shows
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FreeBitch
!!!
Sportify actually offers the best model of digital music.
New artists just need to work their ass off to be known by public. No one is buying music because it's too expensive. |
It's only the "best model" for the consumer. It's currently disastrous to the industry and those offering their music on the site, in comparison to actual sales.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
Thom Yorke needs to just stfu and die somewhere.
Its not like anyone is streaming 'Atoms For Peace' anyway so.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/16/2011
Posts: 2,785
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Apollō
It's only the "best model" for the consumer. It's currently disastrous to the industry and those offering their music on the site, in comparison to actual sales.
|
The best model for consumers is the model that will succeed in the end. I honestly do not see any incentives for buying music (ESPECIALLY ON ITUNES) if you have access to spotify. As a consumer, I would never go back to Itunes again, even if they reduced all songs to 99 cents. That ish too expensive.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/25/2012
Posts: 10,673
|
Quote:
Originally posted by aloirt
The best model for consumers is the model that will succeed in the end. I honestly do not see any incentives for buying music (ESPECIALLY ON ITUNES) if you have access to spotify. As a consumer, I would never go back to Itunes again, even if they reduced all songs to 99 cents. That ish too expensive.
|
This is exactly the problem he's talking about. Spotify lacking any need for a consumer to actually pay for an artist's artwork is fostering a culture of people that believe that an artist's work is worthless (or at least not worth paying for). Why should someone work their ass off to produce a work of art and just be forced to give it away for pennies?  It's easy for a consumer to look at "big artists" and assume that they all don't need anymore money because they get cash up the ass for being "big and famous", but that's not at all the reality. Artists really don't make much, even when signed to a major label. The LABELS and big music execs make all the money and the artists and producers and songwriters get the leftover scraps. With the Spotify model, artists are getting paid even less than they did before. Especially smaller artists (read: the non-Rihanna's, non-Biebers, non-Gagas of the world) who don't get millions and millions of streams per week. 
I'm not sure what the solution is, but he's right. Something has to be done, otherwise the music will suffer in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
