All Posts by User
Displaying user's 5 posts
11:27 AM on 07/15/13
Modern Baseball is WAR
User Info.
CluckyB's Avatar
Does anyone have stats on how much people spend on albums before and after signing up for a Spotify/Rdio subscription?

I think most people realize that subscription music services aren't supposed to be a replacement to supporting the bands you like. You should still go see them perform, buy merch, get physical copies of the albums you like, and so on.

But the internet has changed the way music words. People can get everything for free illegally without much hassle so you can't add too much hassle / cost to your service or otherwise you'll get nothing at all. Sure that it is a little strong-arm tactic to claim "you can make pennies with us or nothing at all", but its reality. Don't get me wrong, Thom should have every right to do what he wants with his music. I just think this move is rather short-sighted to claim "I don't make much money directly off Spotify royalties, therefore I don't want my music on Spotify"
11:56 AM on 07/15/13
Modern Baseball is WAR
User Info.
CluckyB's Avatar
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.

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.
12:13 PM on 07/15/13
Modern Baseball is WAR
User Info.
CluckyB's Avatar
I understand that having a graphic doesn't make me right, but it illustrates what I'm talking about nicely.

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.
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?
12:18 PM on 07/15/13
Modern Baseball is WAR
User Info.
CluckyB's Avatar
Nigel Godrich's responce:
So Spotify say they have generated $500 million dollars for 'license holders". The way that Spotify works is that the money is divided up by percentage of total streams. Big labels have massive back catalogues so their 40-year-old record by a dead artist earns them the same slice of the pie as a brand new track by a new artist. The big labels did secret deals with Spotify and the like in return for favourable royalty rates. The massive amount of catalogue being streamed guarantees that they get the big massive slice of the pie (that $500 million) and the smaller producers and labels get pittance for their comparatively few streams.
This is what's wrong. Catalogue and new music cannot be lumped in together. The model massively favours the larger companies with big catalogues. They need the new artists to be on the system to guarantee new subscribers and lock down the "new landscape." This is how they figure they'll make money in the future. But the model pays pittance to the new artist right now. An inconvenient fact which will keep coming up. I feel a responsibility to speak up when I see something going on which I think is unfair. I'm not bitching about not getting paid. It's about standing up for other artists' rights. It's up to streaming providers to come back with a better way of supporting new music producers. It's not for us to think up how it could work. That's your department.

Holy fuck is this guy serious? Is he literally complaining "The little guys get less money because they have less streams because people like their back catalogs"? If people listen to your track you should get paid for it. It doesn't matter if you released the track 40 years ago or 40 minutes ago.

If the fact is that the big labels are getting more money per listen than the little guys because they have special deals with Spotify, that is potentially something to complain about. But it sounds like he is just bitching that he wants to get paid more than some other guy despite having fewer streams, which is all kinds of stupid.
01:16 PM on 07/15/13
Modern Baseball is WAR
User Info.
CluckyB's Avatar
no. he's not saying that. he's saying EMI (or whatever) gets a payment every month based on the total number of all of its artists plays with no information as to which artist got how many plays. then it is divided how the label sees fit (after their cut, of course).
then that is fault of EMI and the bands under it, not the fault of the service itself, right?

Search News
Release Dates
Best New Music
Submit News
Mobile Version
AP.net Logos
Encore Podcast
Free Music
Sports Forum
Technology Forum
Contact Us
Copyright Policy
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Twitter | Facebook | RSS
Encore Podcast on iTunes
Encore on Overcast
AP.net on Tumblr
Chorus.fm | @jason_tate