AbsolutePunk.net
   Username
Password
 
Comments: Page 2
Displaying posts 15 - 30 of 72
11:37 AM on 07/15/13
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.
11:49 AM on 07/15/13
disconinja2008
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
disconinja2008'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.
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.
11:50 AM on 07/15/13
disconinja2008
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
disconinja2008's Avatar
The thing is, if I'm just getting into a band I'm not going to immediately head to the record store and pick up their CD. I'm gonna hit up Youtube or Spotify and see if I enjoy it enough to purchase.

However, if I do enjoy it, I will head to the record store and SUPPORT the artist. I'd be a liar if I said I've never illegally downloaded music, but it's not a practice I regularly engage in.

In summation; support the artists you love. They deserve that from you, the listener.
End rant.
this.
11:56 AM on 07/15/13
CluckyB
Modern Baseball is WAR
Online
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.
12:02 PM on 07/15/13
im_FINK
Registered Member
Offline
User Info.
im_FINK's Avatar
There was a great discussion about this in two different threads on Reddit. First, there was an independent artist that broke down how he got paid by Spotify for a song he wrote that got over a million plays. He got only $16. It was all that much. The break down was very telling and informative, however a retort was submitted and upvoted the next day or so later. I think Spotify actually responded due to the traction the first article got. What they said was artists shouldn't view their service as a way of getting noticed or revenue. That comes from touring and gaining exposure in different ways other than just putting your song on iTunes and hoping it catches on. I can see both sides of the argument and, being a person who pays for Spotify's services, I'd say it's well worth the $10/month.
12:02 PM on 07/15/13
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.
12:05 PM on 07/15/13
Jason Tate
Online
User Info.
Jason Tate's Avatar
There was a great discussion about this in two different threads on Reddit. First, there was an independent artist that broke down how he got paid by Spotify for a song he wrote that got over a million plays. He got only $16. It was all that much. The break down was very telling and informative, however a retort was submitted and upvoted the next day or so later. I think Spotify actually responded due to the traction the first article got. What they said was artists shouldn't view their service as a way of getting noticed or revenue. That comes from touring and gaining exposure in different ways other than just putting your song on iTunes and hoping it catches on. I can see both sides of the argument and, being a person who pays for Spotify's services, I'd say it's well worth the $10/month.
That was Pandora.

http://theunderstatement.com/post/53...han-16-dollars
12:05 PM on 07/15/13
dreamoverrecord
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
dreamoverrecord's Avatar
the point isn't that it is or isn't illegal. or that it is or isn't a realistic model. it's that spotify and investors are making big money while a tiny, teenie percentage of that is given back to the artists of which the company would not exist without.

thom and nigel aren't out there fighting for their money. they're fighting for small, new bands to not get screwed. taking their music down is making a statement that there's an issue. obviously it's getting press now. they're doing a good thing.
12:10 PM on 07/15/13
Jason Tate
Online
User Info.
Jason Tate's Avatar
the point isn't that it is or isn't illegal. or that it is or isn't a realistic model. it's that spotify and investors are making big money while a tiny, teenie percentage of that is given back to the artists of which the company would not exist without.

thom and nigel aren't out there fighting for their money. they're fighting for small, new bands to not get screwed. taking their music down is making a statement that there's an issue. obviously it's getting press now. they're doing a good thing.
Without Spotify being a publicly traded company, I can't look up actual numbers ... but from everything I have read, the company isn't even profitable.
12:13 PM on 07/15/13
dreamoverrecord
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
dreamoverrecord's Avatar
spotify's responce:
Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music... We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base, and make a living from the music we all love.
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 US$500M to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach US$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.
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.
12:13 PM on 07/15/13
CluckyB
Modern Baseball is WAR
Online
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?
12:14 PM on 07/15/13
im_FINK
Registered Member
Offline
User Info.
im_FINK's Avatar

Thank you for clarifying. Despite it being another service, I do think it's certainly relevant.
12:18 PM on 07/15/13
CluckyB
Modern Baseball is WAR
Online
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.
12:18 PM on 07/15/13
Jeff_Ryan
easy come and easy go, whatever
Offline
User Info.
Jeff_Ryan's Avatar
Spotify sucks
12:20 PM on 07/15/13
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.

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
PropertyOfZack
UnderTheGun
Purevolume
Chorus.fm | @jason_tate