in the case of spotify (the free version) the only difference is that you get to choose what you listen to rather than have a DJ "not" getting paid by the record companies to play certain songs 50 times an hour. you have a certain number of ads to listen to in any given timeframe with both spotify and with radio. so you're not Really listening for free, even though you are. KWIM?
pay spotify gives you the ability to save playlists and play them offline via the app with no ads. but, the second i don't pay my bill all of my goodies go bye-bye. thankfully the settings are saved so when i finally remember to revise my CC on file i just have to resync my app and all is good.
OK that makes sense.
So really the only difference is that artists thinks they should be getting paid more by Spotify and the like. Then....negotiate a different contract? I don't get why this is some enormous injustice.
@eveer does a much better job of explaining the evils of spotify than i can but IIRC, it comes down to spotify setting the terms and the artists either agreeing and putting their product up for $.0000001/listen or not putting it up there at all. artists don't have the ability to negotiate their own contracts. i mean, i guess someone like madonna could but not the regular up-and-comer.
but even with the free version royalties are paid, they're just paid through the ads rather than subscription fee.
in the case of spotify (the free version) the only difference is that you get to choose what you listen to rather than have a DJ "not" getting paid by the record companies to play certain songs 50 times an hour. you have a certain number of ads to listen to in any given timeframe with both spotify and with radio. so you're not Really listening for free, even though you are. KWIM?
pay spotify gives you the ability to save playlists and play them offline via the app with no ads. but, the second i don't pay my bill all of my goodies go bye-bye. thankfully the settings are saved so when i finally remember to revise my CC on file i just have to resync my app and all is good.
OK that makes sense.
So really the only difference is that artists thinks they should be getting paid more by Spotify and the like. Then....negotiate a different contract? I don't get why this is some enormous injustice.
Because they hold a monopoly on streaming. Well, almost a monopoly.
It's like itunes holds a big share of music purchased digitally. To make their music readily available, artists need to release their albums on itunes. However, out of the $10 or so paid to itunes, the artists themselves make something like $0.25 when all is said and done.
Which isn't a big deal to the large artists, but the smaller ones get the shaft.
So really the only difference is that artists thinks they should be getting paid more by Spotify and the like. Then....negotiate a different contract? I don't get why this is some enormous injustice.
@eveer does a much better job of explaining the evils of spotify than i can but IIRC, it comes down to spotify setting the terms and the artists either agreeing and putting their product up for $.0000001/listen or not putting it up there at all. artists don't have the ability to negotiate their own contracts. i mean, i guess someone like madonna could but not the regular up-and-comer.
but even with the free version royalties are paid, they're just paid through the ads rather than subscription fee.
I can understand this for smaller, lesser known artists, but please don't tell me that Madonna, Beyonce and Taylor Swift simply have no negotiating power whatsoever. I just can't stand the way they're portraying themselves as these downtrodden, exploited, powerless workers.
in the case of spotify (the free version) the only difference is that you get to choose what you listen to rather than have a DJ "not" getting paid by the record companies to play certain songs 50 times an hour. you have a certain number of ads to listen to in any given timeframe with both spotify and with radio. so you're not Really listening for free, even though you are. KWIM?
pay spotify gives you the ability to save playlists and play them offline via the app with no ads. but, the second i don't pay my bill all of my goodies go bye-bye. thankfully the settings are saved so when i finally remember to revise my CC on file i just have to resync my app and all is good.
OK that makes sense.
So really the only difference is that artists thinks they should be getting paid more by Spotify and the like. Then....negotiate a different contract? I don't get why this is some enormous injustice.
I haven't followed this all closely, but I *think* part of the issue is that, for whatever reason, artists simply can't negotiate better contracts. Maybe Spotify is too big? I don't know. In any event, this is why Taylor Swift pulled her catalog. Spotify just wasn't going to pay, so she hoofed it. What a smaller artist would tell you is that streaming is the primary way most people listen to music these days and their career can't afford not to have their music played on these platforms, so they have to suck up the low fees.
I think @eveer had a pretty good explanation a while back of how Spotify, et al., screws artists. Hopefully he'll come back to explain for those of us who forgot our meds and don't remember.
@eveer does a much better job of explaining the evils of spotify than i can but IIRC, it comes down to spotify setting the terms and the artists either agreeing and putting their product up for $.0000001/listen or not putting it up there at all. artists don't have the ability to negotiate their own contracts. i mean, i guess someone like madonna could but not the regular up-and-comer.
but even with the free version royalties are paid, they're just paid through the ads rather than subscription fee.
I can understand this for smaller, lesser known artists, but please don't tell me that Madonna, Beyonce and Taylor Swift simply have no negotiating power whatsoever. I just can't stand the way they're portraying themselves as these downtrodden, exploited, powerless workers.
They probably actually don't. It would be up to their record labels.
I can understand this for smaller, lesser known artists, but please don't tell me that Madonna, Beyonce and Taylor Swift simply have no negotiating power whatsoever. I just can't stand the way they're portraying themselves as these downtrodden, exploited, powerless workers.
They probably actually don't. It would be up to their record labels.
Are consumers who pay Spotify and other streaming services shafting the artists because our rates are too low, or are record labels shafting them? Or both?
They probably actually don't. It would be up to their record labels.
Are consumers who pay Spotify and other streaming services shafting the artists because our rates are too low, or are record labels shafting them? Or both?
i'd have to look at the revenues for spotify to say either way. i have no idea if these services are even in the black.
They probably actually don't. It would be up to their record labels.
Are consumers who pay Spotify and other streaming services shafting the artists because our rates are too low, or are record labels shafting them? Or both?
IIRC, reeve said artists have always gotten the shaft. Back when albums and CDs were the primary way music was shared, the record labels would take most of the money from the sales and leave a pittance for the artists. Now we, the consumer, are demanding unlimited music at our command every month for less than the cost of a single album. Because consumers have shown a strong willingness to stream music illegally/for free, the industry is scrambling to figure out how to continue making money from music, and this is driving down what artists can demand to be paid.
Are consumers who pay Spotify and other streaming services shafting the artists because our rates are too low, or are record labels shafting them? Or both?
IIRC, reeve said artists have always gotten the shaft. Back when albums and CDs were the primary way music was shared, the record labels would take most of the money from the sales and leave a pittance for the artists. Now we, the consumer, are demanding unlimited music at our command every month for less than the cost of a single album. Because consumers have shown a strong willingness to stream music illegally/for free, the industry is scrambling to figure out how to continue making money from music, and this is driving down what artists can demand to be paid.
Or I could be making all of this up.
i think you just want me to feel bad about listening to the new Mumford & Sons single for the eleventy-billionth time.
IIRC, reeve said artists have always gotten the shaft. Back when albums and CDs were the primary way music was shared, the record labels would take most of the money from the sales and leave a pittance for the artists. Now we, the consumer, are demanding unlimited music at our command every month for less than the cost of a single album. Because consumers have shown a strong willingness to stream music illegally/for free, the industry is scrambling to figure out how to continue making money from music, and this is driving down what artists can demand to be paid.
Or I could be making all of this up.
i think you just want me to feel bad about listening to the new Mumford & Sons single for the eleventy-billionth time.
Or just play the video repeatedly on YT and don't pay a penny.
Now that I'm reading up on this issue a bit more, the arguments are interesting and not always black and white. On the one hand, it appears to be artist against Spotify; on the other, it's about large music labels versus small labels. There are indie artists who hate the Spotify platform because they aren't popular enough to get streamed that often (so people who ordinarily would buy the entire album without having heard it now listen to one or two songs for a pittance and never stream the artist again) and indie artists who love it because it gives them exposure they would never otherwise have. The debate within the industry appears to be pretty fierce and, frankly, not unprecedented. Similar debates were had about cassette tapes, for example, and of course artists have always felt ripped off by their labels.
@eveer does a much better job of explaining the evils of spotify than i can but IIRC, it comes down to spotify setting the terms and the artists either agreeing and putting their product up for $.0000001/listen or not putting it up there at all. artists don't have the ability to negotiate their own contracts. i mean, i guess someone like madonna could but not the regular up-and-comer.
but even with the free version royalties are paid, they're just paid through the ads rather than subscription fee.
I can understand this for smaller, lesser known artists, but please don't tell me that Madonna, Beyonce and Taylor Swift simply have no negotiating power whatsoever. I just can't stand the way they're portraying themselves as these downtrodden, exploited, powerless workers.
Actually, artists such as Madonna have as much negotiating power as me - that is, almost none. She can ask her label to forbid Spotify from using her music, and not allow streaming, or they can take the same royalty as I get. Because, as we all know, "company policy" is the end of any discussion. Spotify don't need Madonna. Many of the larger acts refuse them because its a principle thing. I don't know about Madonna, but Radiohead have said they think its criminal how all the artists get paid. And they don't need the money from Spotify, and why should their work be worth so little, and if more of the bigger artists joined in, Spotify would have to change. Its not hard for me to forbid Spotify - I just tick a box on the screen via my online distributor. So irs easy to do. But they are absolute shit. Here is the breakdown...
Last FM will make me 0.0004 cents per play, so I would need over a million plays to make a minimum monthly wage from them. Spotify requires nearer 4 million, paying 0.0016 cents per play.
I stream Pandora for free, I don't mind the ocassional advertisement that pops up. I can't see myself paying $10-$20 per month for basically the same thing.
I love Pandora as well - because I find so much good music that way. But they are also very shitty as far as royalties go.
I love Pandora, too. I pay to stream, is that better for the artist than us hearing the ads? Does it make any difference? I was wondering which way the artists make the most money. Concert tickets? Merchandise? CD sales? Does satellite radio screw the artists as badly as the other formats?
I can understand this for smaller, lesser known artists, but please don't tell me that Madonna, Beyonce and Taylor Swift simply have no negotiating power whatsoever. I just can't stand the way they're portraying themselves as these downtrodden, exploited, powerless workers.
Actually, artists such as Madonna have as much negotiating power as me - that is, almost none. She can ask her label to forbid Spotify from using her music, and not allow streaming, or they can take the same royalty as I get. Because, as we all know, "company policy" is the end of any discussion. Spotify don't need Madonna. Many of the larger acts refuse them because its a principle thing. I don't know about Madonna, but Radiohead have said they think its criminal how all the artists get paid. And they don't need the money from Spotify, and why should their work be worth so little, and if more of the bigger artists joined in, Spotify would have to change. Its not hard for me to forbid Spotify - I just tick a box on the screen via my online distributor. So irs easy to do. But they are absolute shit. Here is the breakdown...
Actually, artists such as Madonna have as much negotiating power as me - that is, almost none. She can ask her label to forbid Spotify from using her music, and not allow streaming, or they can take the same royalty as I get. Because, as we all know, "company policy" is the end of any discussion. Spotify don't need Madonna. Many of the larger acts refuse them because its a principle thing. I don't know about Madonna, but Radiohead have said they think its criminal how all the artists get paid. And they don't need the money from Spotify, and why should their work be worth so little, and if more of the bigger artists joined in, Spotify would have to change. Its not hard for me to forbid Spotify - I just tick a box on the screen via my online distributor. So irs easy to do. But they are absolute shit. Here is the breakdown...
Spotify, the company that has come to symbolize the growth of streaming music around the world, had more than $1 billion in revenue in 2013. But it has yet to turn a profit.
In its latest financial statements, Spotify reported that it had 747 million euros in revenue in 2013, or about $1.03 billion, according to the exchange rate at the end of the year. That was up about 74 percent from 2012, the company, which is privately held, said in filings made public on Tuesday.
Spotify had $80 million in net losses during 2013, down from its $115 million loss in 2012.
The company has said that it pays about 70 percent of its revenue to record companies and music publishers. By the end of 2013 it had 958 employees, but that number is already obsolete. Last week, Martin Lorentzon, one of Spotify’s two founders, said at a trade conference that its head count had grown to 1,500 and would soon be “up to 2,000 people.”
The finances show how quickly streaming music has spread. Started in Sweden in 2008, Spotify came to the United States three years later and is now available in 58 markets around the world. (Some 32 of those opened in 2013, the company reported.) It makes millions of songs available by subscription — usually at around $10 a month — or free with advertising.
Streaming’s growth has coincided with sharp drops in sales of CDs and downloads around the world, making services like Spotify the music industry’s biggest hope for new revenue. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, sales of music on physical formats like CDs dropped nearly 12 percent in 2013, and the 4.3 percent growth for digital sales that year was driven by a 51 percent increase in subscription outlets.
More people listen to Spotify free than pay for it: Of its 36 million active users at the end of 2013, the company said, eight million of them paid. (This month, Daniel Ek, Spotify’s other founder, said it had since grown to 50 million users, including 12.5 million paying subscribers.)
But subscriptions make up most of the company’s revenue. According to its statement, $897 million, or about 91 percent of its sales, came from subscriptions, and only $90 million from advertising. As a result, the royalty rates it pays to music companies for the free streams are substantially lower than those for the paid ones.
That differential helps illustrate a wave of criticism the company has received lately from artists, most prominently Taylor Swift. This month, Ms. Swift removed her entire catalog from Spotify, apparently because the service would not make her music available only to paying users.
In Spotify’s defense, Mr. Ek said that the company had paid a total of $2 billion in music royalties since it began in 2008, and argued that “our free service drives our paid service.” But artists and record companies have become increasingly frustrated with the amount of free music being made available to listeners, and as streaming music has grown more popular, it has also attracted a range of outlets that compete for listeners, like Rhapsody, Rdio and Google Play Music.
This month, YouTube, which is owned by Google, also introduced a paid subscription tier for music, and Apple, which this year paid $3 billion for Beats, is expected to reintroduce the Beats Music service next year with changes that could make it a major competitor against Spotify.
Spotify’s future plans, and the possibility of a sale or initial public offering, have been the subject of constant speculation in the music industry. It has raised more than $500 million in investment, and in its most recent round of financing late last year was valued at $4 billion. A company spokesman declined to comment on its plans.
So is the real problem that people just don't actually value music enough to pay for it? Is there any model that is sustainable for artists and consumers alike?
I feel like money from the actual music sold (no matter what form - streaming, CDs, cassettes, records) has never been a big moneymaker for artists/musicians. It seems like record labels have always been screwing them over, but I could be wrong. I remember reading articles about how the record companies really screw the artists.
My mom's best friend's son is in a band that has recently started "making it," and it's interesting to see inside a little to how it all works and how hard it is.
So is the real problem that people just don't actually value music enough to pay for it? Is there any model that is sustainable for artists and consumers alike?
Well, no one is sure. That's why we have this cluster. The entire music industry is struggling to figure out how to convince people to pay for music when it's all right there for free. I don't envy musicians at all. Their work has been completely devalued by an Internet generation that thinks everything should magically be available at no cost.
My BIL was telling me something once (and I didn't pay super close attention, because he's one of those people who tells long meandering stories), but that basically when you buy digital music (mp3s) you are only buying a license and in theory it's not the same as owning the CD. He was telling me this because he buys his music from Amazon and he buys the CD and they also provide the mp3 for download. I actually do that too, because it's generally the cheapest option - there will be deals on CDs for the whole album and it's cheaper than the digital album. And now that prime allows you to choose the longer shipping for the credit, it's like the best deal EVER.
My BIL was telling me something once (and I didn't pay super close attention, because he's one of those people who tells long meandering stories), but that basically when you buy digital music (mp3s) you are only buying a license and in theory it's not the same as owning the CD. He was telling me this because he buys his music from Amazon and he buys the CD and they also provide the mp3 for download. I actually do that too, because it's generally the cheapest option - there will be deals on CDs for the whole album and it's cheaper than the digital album. And now that prime allows you to choose the longer shipping for the credit, it's like the best deal EVER.
I know I mentioned this the last time we discussed it, but many years ago I had to learn the hard way to back up everything I purchased online because one iTunes update wiped out ALL of my non-iTunes music. When I went back to the vendors to download what I had already paid for, a lot of the music was no longer available so I was simply SOL. I now have a huge collection of CDs of all of my online purchases. I've had to fall back on them more often than I would have predicted thanks to a variety of technological fuckery.
No, you can pay an extra $3 a month to stream through the app or your computer. I think they have special radios for at home too.
They do, and back when I used Sirius, they were pricey. They also weren't durable and chat boards were filled with complaints about how quickly they died. When I figured out I could stream music for free from one of a thousand apps/websites, I happily dropped Sirius.