AbsolutePunk.net
   Username
Password
 
Comments: Page 3
Displaying posts 30 - 45 of 72
01:21 PM on 07/15/13
Jason Tate
Offline
User Info.
Jason Tate's Avatar
Thank you for clarifying. Despite it being another service, I do think it's certainly relevant.
I believe Pandora's rates are different than Spotify in some degree ... and the linked article breaks it down compared to terrestrial radio, which shows the Pandora deal is actually better for artists than AM/FM radio plays.

My hunch is that it is virtually impossible to scale a streaming business to pay artists/publishing/labels/etc. a livable wage and run said business to a profit. As tech and bandwidth becomes better and cheaper it'll get closer, but I don't think many bands are going to be able to make a full living off of selling music (be it albums or streams) in the foreseeable future. I think there are opportunities to supplement income, and more favorable rates for independent artists not attached to a label may be a step in that direction. But even more favorable rates aren't going to translate into THAT much income ... you can look at big indie-label artists play counts on streaming services, and doing some napkin math figure out how much the service would need to pay for each member of that band to make a livable wage ... and for the foreseeable future, that's a pipe dream.
01:23 PM on 07/15/13
tacosforcharles
...
Offline
User Info.
tacosforcharles's Avatar
The way I see it, I still buy albums that I really like. That being said, when I do buy an album, I still stream it on Spotify. The artist is then getting more money from me than they normally would with just buying the album and listening on iTunes.
01:25 PM on 07/15/13
Jason Tate
Offline
User Info.
Jason Tate's Avatar
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.
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.
01:31 PM on 07/15/13
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.
01:36 PM on 07/15/13
im_FINK
Registered Member
Offline
User Info.
im_FINK's Avatar
I believe Pandora's rates are different than Spotify in some degree ... and the linked article breaks it down compared to terrestrial radio, which shows the Pandora deal is actually better for artists than AM/FM radio plays.

My hunch is that it is virtually impossible to scale a streaming business to pay artists/publishing/labels/etc. a livable wage and run said business to a profit. As tech and bandwidth becomes better and cheaper it'll get closer, but I don't think many bands are going to be able to make a full living off of selling music (be it albums or streams) in the foreseeable future. I think there are opportunities to supplement income, and more favorable rates for independent artists not attached to a label may be a step in that direction. But even more favorable rates aren't going to translate into THAT much income ... you can look at big indie-label artists play counts on streaming services, and doing some napkin math figure out how much the service would need to pay for each member of that band to make a livable wage ... and for the foreseeable future, that's a pipe dream.

I definitely agree with you. Reading your comment made me think of Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. They are an anamoly in the industry for their business savy. I do think their model could become a trend for artists who have to walk that tight rope that is independence.
01:43 PM on 07/15/13
Jason Tate
Offline
User Info.
Jason Tate's Avatar
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.
I disagree that they'd take back control of the value of their songs -- if every single artist gets involved and takes their music away from streaming services, we're back to the next-best-alternative: free and/or piracy for a large, large majority of music listening. I believe that boat has sailed.

Removing music from streaming doesn't re-value the music at iTunes level (which one could also argue isn't a sustainable livable wage for artists) -- if anything, it devalues it further -- to YouTube, mp3s, and torrent level.

I have a hard time thinking that the music itself is going to end up being a viable product for musicians to sell (this is a shitty realization) at a profit, but if the shift can be similar to a Gillette model (give the razor away - sell the blades) maybe that's simply what the music industry is right now.

I say this because if we look throughout history, I can't think of many products that lose their value due to industry disruptions that then regain an equal or greater value later. The product itself needs to change, either to change the margins and make it profitable again, or to add a value previously non-existent.

I don't see a change in royalty rates being the magic bullet to return labels and the majority of musicians back into the black.
01:50 PM on 07/15/13
dreamoverrecord
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
dreamoverrecord's Avatar
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.
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).
01:52 PM on 07/15/13
Jason Tate
Offline
User Info.
Jason Tate'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).
I'm pretty sure the numbers are divided out ... since that information is also publically available.
02:16 PM on 07/15/13
CluckyB
Modern Baseball is WAR
Offline
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?
02:30 PM on 07/15/13
kismet
Occasionally a fan girl
Offline
User Info.
kismet'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.

Basically this. I like Spotify, but I've still paid for a decent amount of albums.
02:36 PM on 07/15/13
15 Step
Regular Member
Offline
User Info.
15 Step's Avatar
but the thing is... spotify is FREE. there are a lot of people who don't want to pay for something that's already free. yeah, the "quality" is lesser of the 10 dollar a month premium option, but mp3 quality is always lesser than a physical entity, so then what? im not gonna spend 10 dollars a month just to listen to music on a streaming application that i would need wifi/3g (both of which would drain the battery of whatever device) to use on a more mobile basis. for 10 dollars a month, i would love to be able to download the mp3, or maybe get 1 or 2 physical cd's a month. but it doesn't work that way. thus i, and many other people i presume, will continue to use spotify for free. the problem isn't spotify; the problem is digital carbon copies of albums and songs aka mp3. minus points for thom yorke and nigel godrich. you guys should know better.
02:40 PM on 07/15/13
jimmyeatsboys
Regular Member
Offline
User Info.
jimmyeatsboys's Avatar
Already own most of the Radiohead albums ... but removing the Atoms for Peace album really is the difference between me listening to it (which I have a few times) and not.

I like it alright, but wouldn't buy it.

O well.
feel the same way about that album and dozens of others that are on my spotify playlists right now. i just won't listen to them if they are gone form spotify
02:44 PM on 07/15/13
Jason Tate
Offline
User Info.
Jason Tate's Avatar
but the thing is... spotify is FREE. there are a lot of people who don't want to pay for something that's already free. yeah, the "quality" is lesser of the 10 dollar a month premium option, but mp3 quality is always lesser than a physical entity, so then what? im not gonna spend 10 dollars a month just to listen to music on a streaming application that i would need wifi/3g (both of which would drain the battery of whatever device) to use on a more mobile basis. for 10 dollars a month, i would love to be able to download the mp3, or maybe get 1 or 2 physical cd's a month. but it doesn't work that way. thus i, and many other people i presume, will continue to use spotify for free. the problem isn't spotify; the problem is digital carbon copies of albums and songs aka mp3. minus points for thom yorke and nigel godrich. you guys should know better.
I know Rdio (and I think Spotify) allow offline syncing.
03:06 PM on 07/15/13
GangbangSuicide
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
GangbangSuicide's Avatar
They didnt take radiohead of spotify so this doesn't bother me. I could live without his solo stuff and atoms for peace never existing so they're wasting their time
03:36 PM on 07/15/13
dashboardkid88
RVA
Offline
User Info.
dashboardkid88's Avatar
They didnt take radiohead of spotify so this doesn't bother me. I could live without his solo stuff and atoms for peace never existing so they're wasting their time

I did the same thing when I saw this earlier. As long as Radiohead is still on there I'm cool.

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
UnderTheGun
Purevolume
Chorus.fm | @jason_tate