Rdio Abruptly Pulls the Entire Eagles Catalog…

There’s nothing on Spotify or Rhapsody — yet — though Rdio had a major portion of the catalog available for playback on Wednesday.  “We are pleased to confirm that as of today, May 8, The Eagles are now available on Rdio,” an Rdio executive confirmed to Digital Music News.

All of which sounds like the Eagles, one of the biggest streaming holdouts to date, are finally licensing on-demand streaming platforms.  Then again, everything disappeared on Rdio early this (Thursday) morning, for unknown reasons.

Here’s what the site looked like on Wednesday.

rdio_eagles1

So who has (or, had) this besides Rdio?  We’re canvassing around, and can’t seem to find anyone else in the streaming space (as of Wednesday afternoon/early evening).  On the download side, iTunes and Amazon have had the catalog for quite some time.

 rdio_eagles2

The pulldown, which happened literally overnight, suggests some sort of error or disagreement, or even that the Eagles are simply changing their minds.

The rest we’re trying to piece together.  Spotify flatly refused to discuss the matter with Digital Music News, and we’ve yet to hear anything from Eagles longtime manager, Irving Azoff.

This article was originally titled, ‘The Eagles Are Now Licensing Streaming Services,’ before the pulldown.  Stay tuned as the story unfolds.

16 Responses

  1. Me

    Our releases often show up on Spotify a day after the scheduled release date, so maybe tomorrow?

    Reply
    • Paul Resnikoff

      That’s one thing I heard, but couldn’t confirm (Spotify doesn’t say much :). Specifically, that Rdio’s ingestion process is just faster (and, I think their takedowns as well, for that matter).

      Not sure on the rest.

      Reply
  2. Myles na Gopaleen

    “Spotify flatly refused to discuss anything with Digital Music News”

    I like your sense of humor.

    Reply
  3. David

    Rara.com currently seems to have only one Eagles album: ‘Long Road Out Of Eden’. This was released in 2007 on the Eagles’ own record label. So it seems that the band themselves don’t have any fundamental objection to streaming services. Maybe it is just a question of price. Rara and Rdio are both subscription-only services, so they may be able to pay higher royalty rates per stream. I think Pink Floyd, for example, are available on the subscription-only services but not Spotify.

    Reply
  4. Casey

    Still not on Rhapsody. Although they do have Taylor Swift’s Red now and currently, Spotify and MOG do not. Not sure about Rdio, I ran out of listening there.

    Reply
  5. th

    Maybe the Eagles are just getting ready to team up with Chicago for their Grooveshark Broadcast.

    Reply
  6. Chuck D

    The Eagles are alson now available on HDtracks in incredbile sounding Hi-res as of Saturday!!! The albums sound incredible for anyone who is looking for an alternative to itunes or amazon mp3’s!!!

    Reply
  7. McLovin

    I’m gonna go with this being an error on the label side of things with the management raising hell to have taken down immediately. I’ve seen this before.

    Reply
  8. David

    I found a source for my earlier comment about Pink Floyd. As reported in Paid Content on Feb. 27 2012, Pink Floyd’s manager Paul Loasby told a conference “In 2007/8, Pink Floyd were on every single ad-funded stream service going. We did 14 million streams. Of those, we earned just over five figures.” As a result of this, they decided to take PF records off the ad-funded services but to stick with subscription-only ones. They would have been willing to stay on Spotify for paying subscribers only, but Spotify refused, saying it was “all or nothing”.

    There are several interesting points in this, apart from confirming that sometimes streaming ‘hold-out’ artists are not averse to streaming in principle.

    One point is that 14 million plays over a whole year does not seem very much for a well-known band with a large back catalog. If the Floyd only got 14 million plays, heaven help everyone else. Of course, streaming has grown a lot since 2007/8, but even so… Maybe most of the people who would listen to PF (I’m guessing not the youngest demographic) already have the records?

    The second point is the quoted figures for revenue per play. Very few such figures have been published for artists signed to major labels. Unfortunately the figures are ambiguous. Is the currency pounds or dollars? More important, what is meant by ‘just over five figures’? ‘Five figures’ runs from 10,000 to 99,999. On one interpretation ‘just over five figures’ would mean just over 10,000, but it could also mean ‘just into six figures’, i.e. a bit over 100,000. Dividing by 14 million gives about .0007 of a unit (pound or dollar) per play on the first interpretation, but .007on the second. That would actually be rather higher than most streaming revenue figures we have seen, so it would be odd to pull out of streaming because the revenue was too low. So I think the first interpretation is more plausible. On that basis, assuming the total payout per stream to rights-holders was about half a US cent, the band’s share of the payout would be between about 15 and 25 per cent (depending in part on the currency – a pound being worth about 1.5 dollars). That might seem a bit low for a band with PF’s bargaining power, but perhaps the revenue share would be dictated by old contracts, made when their bargaining power was weaker.

    Reply
  9. QSDC

    14 million streams should have netted at least $50,000 for the rights-holder. As with many of these anecdotes, we are only hearing from the artist, who is unhappy with their payout. Who knows how much the label received in this case.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *