AbsolutePunk.net
   Username
Password
 
All Posts by User
Displaying user's 6 posts
10:55 AM on 07/15/13
#1
ParkwayTom
Forgive me, Nashville
Offline
User Info.
ParkwayTom's Avatar
What seems to be the controversy behind this? I must not be familiar with it.

It's not necessarily a controversy... They just see the reality that up and coming bands that release their first full lengths need to make sales of it to pay back the label. This is also a way of proving to their label that they're a financially viable investment. Spotify makes that more difficult by cutting into the sales.
11:37 AM on 07/15/13
#2
ParkwayTom
Forgive me, Nashville
Offline
User Info.
ParkwayTom's Avatar
This might be the first Thom Yorke move I STRONGLY disagree with. I read his and Nigel's spiels on the situation and I don't believe they are being fan-friendly or realistic about the state of music.

People steal music. That's a fact. Artists must accept that. Spotify is just a way to make it easier for a listener to try hearing a band--if not Spotify, Grooveshark--if not Grooveshark, YouTube. It's all about exposure so that band can sell merch, get people to shows, and, yes, even sell more albums! If a band isn't on Spotify, that's just a vessel to expose themselves that they aren't using.

I truly hope this is the only time that Nigel and Thom act this naive.



Artists and their works deserve respect. Saying that artists need to accept the fact that their works have (against their will) been turned into free promotional material for a tour that the person that stole it might not even show up to is part of a larger, self-entitled attitude that has kept people from realizing what a detriment illegal downloading is. I applaud these guys for taking a stand and I hope more artists follow suit.
12:02 PM on 07/15/13
#3
ParkwayTom
Forgive me, Nashville
Offline
User Info.
ParkwayTom's Avatar
I was making the point that this is the world we are living in and you cannot undo the fact that pirating and streaming are a part of the music industry. And just because you have an infographic does not mean you are correct....sure, applaud the gesture but also realize that nothing will change as a result. Even when you are as huge and as influential as Thom is.

I understand that having a graphic doesn't make me right, but it illustrates what I'm talking about nicely.

The argument isn't "illegal downloading isn't detrimental and everything should be free regardless of what the artist wants". The argument is "there is literally no way you are going to stop illegal downloading. Subscription music services provide an alternative that still compensates the artists/labels to some degree. Its better than nothing"

I fully agree that if Thom doesn't want his music on Spotify he should be able to take it down.

But unless you show me that artists who remove their music from Spotify make more money for doing so, (or somehow get some other benefit) it'll all just seem like a misguided move to me.

People who download music and never show up to shows except maybe two a year are self entitled douchebags, sure, but removing your music from Spotify isn't going to stop them. All its gonna do is stop other people from checking you out and maybe going to a show/buying an album later.

I think that there is a far greater amount of people out there that have no conception of how the industry works than you think. They figure that if they sign up for a subscription service then they're doing the legal thing and the artist is being compensated. All Thom is trying to do is shed light on how bad of a system Spotify has so that people that may not have been educated about it now can be. Spotify gives your average person the ability to pay without actually supporting the artist and I think that the majority of consumers out there are fine with going with that system- without being aware that the artist gets next to nothing.
12:20 PM on 07/15/13
#4
ParkwayTom
Forgive me, Nashville
Offline
User Info.
ParkwayTom's Avatar
Like I said, if there are stats to back up that assertion I'd like to see them. You could certainly possibly be right. Or the people using it now could be the same that previously just googled "ok computer radiohead mediafire" and that they are aware the artist is getting very little in return.

Also another thing to remember: part of the reason why artists are getting so little in return is that they have shitty deals with their labels. That part isn't the subscription services fault. So I'm not sure where Thom is getting this "little guy is getting screwed the most" idea here...

like, anyone know how much say, RFC makes when I listen to the new Captain record?
Normally I agree with ya Clucky, but there's just way too large of a percentage of people out there (I believe) that have Spotify and give no second thought to the compensation of the artist they're streaming. I have a hard time believing that your average pop music consumer with a Spotify subscription thinks twice about something like that... And that's what this is all about: raising awareness for how people SHOULDN'T have Spotify accounts. It may give some exposure but it mainly serves a way for people to get all of the music they want without paying full price; essentially the same mentality that drives illegal downloading.
12:31 PM on 07/15/13
#5
ParkwayTom
Forgive me, Nashville
Offline
User Info.
ParkwayTom's Avatar
There is a reality that needs to be addressed through: The public perception of the value of music is forever changed. It is simply not valued in the market any longer at much more than free. Raising "awareness" that bands are getting paid shit isn't going to change the market value for a song. The next-best-alternative is going to still be close to free; fuck - basically that whole Atoms for Peace album is on YouTube.
I'll agree with that, but I think that this is about getting other artists involved. If (and I realize the hugeness of this "if") enough artists got behind this then they would, essentially take back control of the value of their songs. By removing them from a widely popular service like Spotify, they're establishing the worth themselves. I think this is just one way for artists to redefine what a song is and should be worth. Whether or not it will catch like wildfire is a different story; I just don't like the idea of self-entitled people demanding that artists conform to satisfy their greed.
07:15 PM on 07/15/13
#6
ParkwayTom
Forgive me, Nashville
Offline
User Info.
ParkwayTom's Avatar
Take your record off Spotify, more people will illegally download it. You can't stop the Internet. Record sales have been declining since Napster, and that's not going to stop. People having Spotify may not realize artists make less than a cent per listen, but most people aren't buying every song they like either. It definitely curbs illegal downloading; if you think people would buy everything they like if Spotify went away, you're wrong. It would only encourage more illegal downloading.

Did you read any of the things I said? It's about raising awareness so that a better system can be used and they can begin to take back the inherent value of their songs.

NEWS, MUSIC & MORE
Search News
Release Dates
Exclusives
Best New Music
Articles
CONNECT
Submit News
Forums
Contests
Mobile Version
AP.net Logos
HIDDEN TREASURES
AbsolutePunk Podcast
Free Music
Sports Forum
Technology Forum
Recommendations
INFORMATION
Advertising
Contact Us
Copyright Policy
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
FOLLOW
Twitter | Facebook | RSS
AP.net Podcast on iTunes
AP.net Podcast on Overcast
AP.net on Tumblr
Chorus.fm | @jason_tate