Radiohead’s Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify…

This time, it isn’t about an iTunes exclusive or some ‘windowing’ sales strategy. It’s about principle.

yorketweet

As of Sunday evening Monday morning, the Spotify pulldown includes a Thom Yorke solo album and a release from Atoms for Peace (which includes Yorke and Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich).  Godrich has also removed material from his group, Ultraista, though Radiohead’s catalog remains on the service at present (with the exception of In Rainbows).

The pulldown was first announced by Godrich (@nigelgod) in a lengthy series of tweets Sunday morning.

godrichpullout

In the wee hours of Monday morning, Spotify started to respond (after initially offering no comment).  “So far I’ve not seen any cannibalisation,” Spotify CEO Daniel Ek tweeted.  “So question should be – Why shouldn’t you do streaming?”

 

Soon thereafter, Spotify offered this official statement:

“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 which we all love.”

“Right now we’re still in the first stages of a long-term project that’s already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music.  We’ve already paid $500m to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach $1bn.  Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing new great 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.”

92 Responses

  1. smg77
    smg77

    “Small meaningless rebellion” is right. These guys have to accept that we’re never going back to paying $18 for CDs.

    If they can’t make it work in the modern world they should hang it up and get a room at a nursing home with a view of the therapy pool.

    Reply
    • vie

      Im pretty sure you never paid a single $ for music.

      “If they can´t make it…” that´s Thom Yorke you´re talking about. And he is doing it so young musicians get paid instead of being ripped off.

      Reply
    • Andrew

      You do realise one of them is from a band that released an album as “pay what you want”… right?

      Reply
      • GGG

        Legit question here, so not in my usual tone haha, but how do you explain the rise of album sales with 2+ years of Spotify? Doesn’t that sort of prove it’s not eating away as much as you think?

        Reply
        • Visitor

          “how do you explain the rise of album sales with 2+ years of Spotify”

          I don’t believe any of us can see the entire picture yet.

          But this is what I think: Spotify is unknown in most of the world today and what happened to Norwegian sales will also happen to international sales if Spotify rises to YouTube magnitude.

          Then you’ll argue: Who cares about cannibalized sales if Spotify rivals YouTube?

          And I would agree. Which leaves us with a paradox:

          A small Spotify is damaging to the industry today because most acts lose sales in return for revenues that are insignificant, unless said acts exceed a pretty high threshold. Nobody will finance the next record from unknown weirdo bands like pre-dark-side Pink Floyd in this environment.

          A big Spotify could save the industry tomorrow if it were big enough because even minor acts, jazz, classical and the Next Weird Thing would have a decent sized crowd.

          So the question seems to be if we should save tomorrow’s small & medium sized acts by sacrificing those of today.

          Reply
    • tune Hunter

      Dear SMG77,
      You are equally ignorant and minimalistic as folks inside of the labels.
      I am just observing this business and I cannot understand how it is possible that so many MBAs from the best universities cannot see perfect marriage between music and internet.
      You need just few bold moves to double music industry in 24 months.
      Mr. Ek has a lot of nerve and funny cash to walk into the Music Home with his manure dirty shoes. At the same time Mr. Keeling who controls 60+ % of music is excited like 6 year boy and allowing for demolition of the industry.

      Radiohead is one of the few that has balls and is preventing lockup in streaming “concentration camp”!

      Musician you have to wake up, make a revolt and stop those forced ill minded propositions or you will vanish – YOU ARE LOCKED UP

      Reply
  2. Casey

    Perhaps he should spend less time tweeting and more time helping improve the streaming model. It is the future of music, just like it is the future of tv shows and to a point, video games. Like it or not.

    Reply
  3. Visitor

    “It [streaming] is the future of music”

    Hm, let’s see…

    Spotify loses money and artists by the hour.

    iTunes grows and grows and grows.

    Reply
    • Visitor

      I hope you enjoy your world of dreams.

      MP3 sales are already going down and iTunes is dying a bit every day, while streaming is exploding.

      Reply
      • Visitor

        “iTunes is dying a bit every day”

        Hm, let’s look at the facts:

        “CHART OF TODAY: Apple’s Surprisingly Steady iTunes Growth

        […] growth has been steady at 29% each quarter. This is happening despite the competitive environment where Netflix, Spotify, Google, and Amazon are all trying to chip away at Apple’s iTunes franchise in one way or another.

        Another fun thing about Apple’s iTunes business: It’s huge. On an annual basis, it’s bigger than Yahoo, Facebook, and Netflix combined.”
        Source: Businessinsider, May 2013
        http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-itunes-revenue-2013-5

        Reply
      • jw

        Growth has been steady thanks to app downloads.

        You can’t just apply that growth to music sales. It doesn’t work like that.

        Reply
        • Michael

          iTunes music growth has been flat at about 6% a year for the past three years. the iRadio play is largely due to the hypothesis that a hybrid streaming / store model will actually drive growth in music purchases.

          There is still hope for the business. Streaming is here to stay, we can’t change such overwhelming consumer habits. The key is creating new revenue streams for musicians, and offering something to the fanbase that they don’t know they already want.

          For example, when I learned about how crappy in quality the mp3 is, and I heard what I was missing, I started buying vinyl again. And vinyl sales are up 17% this year! Like those fancy SLR cameras, people will move to quality once they learn the difference.

          Reply
          • Visitor

            “we can’t change such overwhelming consumer habits [streaming]”

            Yes, we can.

            Streaming is the direct reaction to mainstream piracy. Remove mainstream piracy from the equation, and streaming will die at once.

            We’re at the beginning of the first globally coordinated war on piracy ever.

            Result: Sales are up for the first time in 14 years.

          • jw

            You are SERIOUSLY misguided if you really think these things.

            Streaming is going nowhere. And sales are up in part thanks to streaming.

          • Visitor

            “sales are up in part thanks to streaming”

            On the contrary, sales go down in areas where streaming is popular:

            http://dmnrocks.wpengine.com/permalink/2013/20130711norway

            As for the rest — do you honestly think streaming will survive for as much as a day when we stop mainstream piracy?

            Really?

            Do you think we (right holders) are morons? 🙂

            Well, don’t answer that; we have indeed behaved like jerks for a decade. We’re probably the only industry that was ever bullied into accepting wholesale theft.

          • Visitor

            I’m using sales in the way that it’s used in both the Financial Times article & the DMN article you linked to. That is to say I’m including streaming revenue in “sales.” Basically I was paraphrasing this…

            Physical revenues are still falling – down 5 per cent to $9.4bn in 2012. But that loss is now being offset by growing digital revenues from Apple’s iTunes download store, subscription sites such as Spotify, Rhapsody and Muve, ad-funded platforms such as Google’s YouTube and digital radio services such as Pandora.

            Or this…

            The streaming surge has caused an outrageous 17 percent gain in music sales in Norway (in 2013 alone).

            Essentially you just proved my point.

  4. David

    I don’t see that Thom Yorke is objecting to streaming as such, just to the current payment rates, especially for new artists who don’t have a large and popular catalog to rely on. Whether he is right or wrong, it’s a fair point to make, and I haven’t seen anyone yet answer it, beyond the inevitable ‘tour and t-shirts’ nonsense.

    Reply
    • Visitor

      Well said David. Touring and T-shirts is not the answer. Streaming has so far proven to be ineffective. Destroying what has already worked is already eating the art from the inside out. End result: less to be heard.

      Reply
  5. Dan

    This mean’s nothing.

    Actually, I guess technically it does mean something: If you’re as big an artist as Thom Yorke, go ahead and take your music off of Spotify. If you’re not, continue to live with the reallization that streaming music is the future of the industry

    Reply
    • Oli

      If you’re a small artist being on Spotify does you no good whatsoever, whether or not it’s the ‘future of the industry’: that’s his entire point.

      Reply
      • Dan

        Spotify and streaming services in general are the only way young people are listening to music. Keep your music off spotify and nobody is going to come to your shows. Nobody is going to buy merch. Nobody will buy your vinyl.

        Unless of course you’re Thom Yorke or the Black Keys.

        Reply
        • Visitor

          “Spotify and streaming services in general are the only way young people are listening to music”

          Nobody knows Spotify.

          Teenagers use YouTube. That’s their jukebox.

          And YouTube as of right now has two significant advantages over audio-streaming:

          Bigger audience!

          You can upload and monetize everything! Which means you’re not cannibalizing sales!

          Reply
          • dan

            Spotify has 24 million users. That’s THREE TIMES the population of the State of New York.

            Not really sure how you can say “Nobody knows Spotify.” but nice try.

            And yep Youtube is great, but nobody is creating a library using Youtube or paying for subscsriptions. So not a long term solution.

          • City

            Maybe you mean the CITY of New York. If you include the burbs of Long Island, NJ and southern CT, Westchester, it’s 12M

            New York state has 20M

  6. GGG

    What they REALLY need to do now is report their sales every week for a while to see if there is a boost or not compared to when it was on Spotify.

    Especially something like Eraser which is not a new release at all, so the honeymoon period is long over. Thom/Radiohead are big enough names that people could still be discovering that record that it’d be interesting to see what happens with sale.

    Perfect opportunity to shit all over Spotify or (though, I’m sure they wouldn’t publish it) see that it really doesn’t eat away at sales.

    Reply
    • Visitor

      They have enough fans that would buy their CD, screw the streaming model because it doesn’t work. At the end, the only ones doing it will be desperate wannabes that “need” fame, even if they live out of a car. What we really need is for more artists with their talent to pull their stuff off of splotify/pandora, etc. Let the freehadists eat cake.

      Reply
      • GGG

        You don’t know that for sure, which is why Eraser is a perfect album as an experiment. If all of a sudden his sales go up a substantial amount then yes, you’re right. If they stay basically the same, then clearly Spotify wasn’t eating into them.

        Reply
        • me

          Sorry you feel this way, but it really isn’t going to hurt anyone but the fans.

          The fans are the people that support the band and their success or failure, and not allowing the music to be heard on a platform like Spotify is just hurting fans and the band as well as stopping the fluid motion of the music to flow to the people. Itsna shame that the pay pet stream model didn’t cone sooner, but now that it is here its not going back. No one wants to pay a buck plus for a song, and frankly that makes sense, as apple did a major research on the cost before pirating a song? And that was 49¢ well apple wasn’t happy with that aplng got a dollor and more now that it removed the DRM but it is not the same. So jump off of Spotify as the supposively do t make enough… You get paid everything you stream, so promote and get more and more friends. That will help.

          Reply
        • Visitor

          “Eraser is a perfect album as an experiment”

          Good point. Let’s hope they will report their sales as you suggest.

          Reply
  7. buttfractal

    I will gladly (proudly!) pay more money for a spotify-like service. I would consider $2 per day to be outrageuously cheap, and that’s six times what it costs now. I think maybe some measure of radical transparency, like showing exactly how the cost gets disbursed to artists, would make more people see the value proposition. For now, I can’t fault artists for rejecting the bargain — but the rental model could potentially work out great for both artists and fans, if the price is right.

    Reply
    • Jacques

      I believe you’re right, prices are just too low for now, and a lot of middlemen in the industry have to go away. If the money went to pay the artists and the service (spotify) only, then, given a well defined price, fans and artists would be way happier.

      I believe that we’re definitely coming towards this model, because this is the only one that is going to work in the long run.

      Reply
      • jw

        $2 per day? Are you kidding me? What kid has $730 per year to spend on music? That is downright delusional. Just proposterous. Even on iTunes consumers are spending less than $50/year on music downloads. You are out of your mind.

        The problem is NOT Spotify’s premium price point.

        The reason that payouts are low is because premium subscriptions are subsidizing free (ad supported) streaming because the streaming format never had the runway that Napster gave mp3 downloads (i.e. the iTunes store). The solution is not to have fewer people paying more, but to have more people pay the rates that Spotify already charges… it’s converting free users to premium subscribers. End of story.

        Reply
  8. Spotify, say hello to AT&T

    Guess who own the biggest music subscription service in the USA right now?

    AT&T. Who just bought Cricket Wireless who own Muve Music.

    Muve Music has more paying subscribers in the USA than Spotify.

    AT&T is negotiating with all 3 major labels for a bundle similar to Muve Music. AT&T will bundle Muve Music to all AT&T smartphones. In exchange the music industry get $2.5 per month per subscriber.

    Overnight, AT&T Muve Music will have more subscribers than Netflix and SiriusXM combined.

    Reply
    • Visitor

      And even more interesting:

      “AT&T Invents The Ultimate Anti-Piracy System

      Outside of the public eye AT&T has lent copyright holders a hand inventing new anti-piracy tools. Previously we reported that the Internet provider has patented a BitTorrent monitoring system, but the company is sitting on an even scarier invention. AT&T has patented a mechanism through which it can detect copyright infringing files that are sent over its network in real-time, and then stop the transfer or report the perpetrator to copyright holders or law enforcement.”

      https://torrentfreak.com/prism-for-pirates-att-invents-the-ultimate-anti-piracy-system-130713/

      Get rid of mainstream piracy and streaming is dead…

      Reply
      • PiratesWinLOL

        With encryption easily available, that is no problem for the pirate world. Most torrent clients and of course USENET already support it. Fact is that the pirates will make you and the industry walk the plank, if you keep insisting on old obsolete models like MP3 downloads. Half of your ship has already been destroyed, since this thing started.

        Reply
        • Casey

          Encryption doesn’t even matter much anymore because fewer and fewer people use bittorrent. It is so much easier to download directly from file lockers or from youtube.

          Reply
        • Visitor

          “With encryption easily available, that is no problem for the pirate world”

          The bad news for pirates & pedophiles is that credit card companies began to ban vpn providers last week…

          “VPN services are no longer allowed to accept Visa and Mastercard payments due to a recent policy change”

          http://torrentfreak.com/mastercard-and-visa-start-banning-vpn-providers-130703/

          I’m sure you’re aware of the unprecedented high paranoia level amongst pirates today. 🙂

          But perhaps you’re not aware of the reasons. Here are some of them:

          * New Intellectual Property Crime Unit in the UK this month.

          * New tough anti-piracy laws in Russia, Japan, Norway and several other countries.

          * New improved version of Hadopi on its way in France: Pirates now have to pay!

          * 6 Strikes and lots of other initiatives in the US.

          * New anti-piracy technology on its way.

          * Torrent sites (originals as well as proxies), lockers & illegal Usenet index sites shut down all over the place.

          * Huge fines to piracy site owners.

          * Paypal boycot piracy sites.

          * Credit card companies boycot piracy sites and vpn’s.

          * Huge brands stop their cash flow to piracy sites.

          * The final verdict over Tenenbaum sets precedence and sends strong signals to criminals: Yes, a stolen song is indeed worth $22,500!

          Reply
          • Casey

            You can copy/paste all you want. Meanwhile piracy continues to thrive.

          • Pinko

            “The bad news for pirates & pedophiles is that credit card companies began to ban vpn providers last week…”

            The updates to this story are interesting:

            1. “Contrary to earlier reports, MasterCard has not been involved in this matter in any way. We have not placed any restrictions on Payson.”

            2. “Visa Europe told us that it “has not been involved in this matter in any way, and has not made any such stipulations to Payson or to any other organisation.”

            It sure looks like a storm in a teacup and is in any case not a realistic way to stop people from being anonymous. People can pay in many ways, such as bank transfers or even use the free options that is available.

            “I’m sure you’re aware of the unprecedented high paranoia level amongst pirates today. :)”

            Some has always been paranoid, it is nothing new 🙂 In some countries such as Denmark, the copyright organizations has simply given up on pursuing individual non-commericial fileshareres, and rely on streaming to fix the problem. Just a few years ago, they where almost as aggressive as you are, but reality has caught up with them. Now they are dealing with the problem in a more constructive and realistic manner.

          • Visitor

            “The updates to this story are interesting”

            That’s for sure, but you forgot the exciting part:

            “We specifically asked whether VPNs and other anonymizing services are in any way prohibited by Visa, but the company didn’t confirm nor deny. Visa believes that the issue was raised by Payson’s acquiring bank, which acts as an intermediary between payment processors and card associations such as Visa and MasterCard.”

            So the new vpn-ban — which means that pedophiles & pirates no longer can use VISA or MasterCard to pay companies such as Swedish Payson for vpn’s — seems to be carried out by certain banks.

            This may be way bigger than first assumed!

            And while we’re at it; here’s the latest brand new and super effective way to finally choke the Piracy Industry:

            “Tech Giants Sign Deal to Ban Advertising on Pirate Websites

            Some of the world’s largest web companies have come together to establish a set of self-regulating best practices to deal with the issue of infringing sites within their advertising networks. Google, Microsoft, AOL & Yahoo and other ad companies say that they will start accepting DMCA-style notices from rightsholders against adverts that appear alongside infringing content.”

            https://torrentfreak.com/tech-giants-sign-deal-to-ban-advertising-on-pirate-websites-130715/

            Stop the cash flow to the Piracy Industry, and mainstream piracy will die.

            Stop mainstream piracy, and Spotify will die.

          • Visitor

            “now artists have the chance to be listened everywhere in the world”

            “Streaming music, just like radio, is obviously not to get paid but to get known”

            I think your age shows here. You really have to understand that the times are changing.

            I’m sure you know what happens to items that used to be rare but now are available to everyone.

            Exposure is such an item.

            That’s why it’s worthless today — unless you get it in extreme doses (at least 20M+ views).

            “easy for artists to record and share music with fans”

            Not correct: Producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect is way more expensive than it ever was.

          • Visitor

            “How is it [Producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect] more expensive than it ever was?”

            1) Hit writers charge more than ever because they can deliver. And they are necessary because hits are absolutely essential today:

            In the past, there was room for experiments and mistakes. Not so today. Piracy and low streaming revenues mean that you won’t get any money back to finance your next production unless the previous one was a hit.

            2) Gear and instruments are more expensive than ever. Rooms cost what they always did. And what you paid for tape machines back then, you pay for conversion, computers and software now.

            3) Popular Mixing & Mastering Engineers charge more than ever and for the same reason as in #1.

            Next chapter: Videos.

          • Visitor

            Dunnow — what do you think it cost Springsteen to record Nebraska thirty years ago?

            Back to the facts, jw:

            Producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect is way more expensive than it ever was.

          • Visitor

            “The fact that he did it proves that it can be done”

            Go back and read what I said.

            Two of the three reasons (why producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect is way more expensive than ever before) deal with the price of talent — not equipment.

            Every once in a blue moon, a clever dude will bypass the entire system and not only write and perform but also produce or co-produce an awesome hit.

            As for equipment, there’s only one rule and it’s really simple:

            You get what you pay for. If it sounds like big budget, it’s because it’s big budget.

            Yes, some day a singer with a battered guitar recorded on a cell phone will appear on the charts. And everybody will know — because it’s against all odds.

          • Visitor

            “Quality is not related to high budgets on recordings, but on promotion”

            That is, of course, nonsense. Promotion has nothing to do with music quality.

            Now, here’s what I said:

            “Producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect is way more expensive than it ever was.”

            I’m not saying you won’t make it to the charts from a $10K bedroom studio.

            We all know the exceptions and I already pointed out the most classic one to jw — Nebraska — to show that they didn’t pop up yesterday as a result of cracked cubase-versions but have been around forever.

            The thing about exceptions, however, is that you can’t count on them when you need to finance your next production.

            You need a solid income for that.

            How you generate that income is the topic of this thread.

            And like Nigel Godrich says above:

            “I doubt very much if dark side would have been made [if people had been listening to spotify instead of buying records in 1973]. It would just be too expensive.”

  9. Casey

    The deal has not gone through yet. They can’t negotiate with labels for a service they don’t own. Even if they did, and $2.50 the rate paid per play would rival what Spotify free pays, for complete on-demand.

    Furthermore they can’t simply bundle the service with all smartphones. It doesn’t support all smartphones on At&t’s network, like Windows phones and Blackberry’s. It can’t be bundled with the iPhone, as Apple controls what can and cannot be installed on the iPhone by carriers. That leaves out over half of At&t’s smartphone userbase, and that’s assuming it can be bundled with every Android smartphone which it can’t. That is definitely not near as many as the 50 million SiriusXm/Netflix combined total.

    Reply
  10. Bob

    60 years ago :

    – 1 or 2 TV channels, people were listening to the radio
    – music was played for parties, and that’s it
    – few rock stars, sharing nothing with small artists

    now:

    – plenty of channels to get new music
    – people listening to music all the time, everywhere
    – easy for artists to record and share music with fans

    So basically, now artists have the chance to be listened everywhere in the world. People are going more and more to concerts. Without internet, they probably would have never heard of them, but rock stars.

    And maybe artists are not supposed to be billionaires, just like many other jobs: when it’s not rare anymore, the jobs value goes down.

    Go ahead and live in the past. If you don’t want people listening to digital music, then don’t record and play concert. Good luck with that.

    Streaming music, just like radio, is obviously not to get paid but to get known.

    Reply
    • jw

      How is it more expensive than it ever was? Can you cite something there?

      Reply
  11. Visitor

    “How is it [Producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect] more expensive than it ever was?”

    1) Hit writers charge more than ever because they can deliver. And they are necessary because hits are absolutely essential today:

    In the past, there was room for experiments and mistakes. Not so today. Piracy and low streaming revenues mean that you won’t get any money back to finance your next production unless the previous one was a hit.

    2) Gear and instruments are more expensive than ever. Rooms cost what they always did. And what you paid for tape machines back then, you pay for conversion, computers and software now.

    3) Popular Mixing & Mastering Engineers charge more than ever and for the same reason as in #1.

    Next chapter: Videos.

    Reply
      • Visitor

        Dunnow — what do you think it cost Springsteen to record Nebraska thirty years ago?

        Back to the facts, jw:

        Producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect is way more expensive than it ever was.

        Reply
        • jw

          That’s a terrible analogy. Nebraska was a stripped down folk record. Maclemore’s record sounds just like any big budget album on the radio.

          The fact that he did it proves that it can be done, & that the usual suspects obviously aren’t the only folks who can pull off hit songs.

          Reply
          • Visitor

            lol. I read what you said. I’m saying it’s not true.

            I mean there’s always options for labels to throw money down the toilet, but that’s their choice. It doesn’t HAVE to be that way. What do you think it cost for Gnarls Barkley to record Crazy? What do you think the new Queens of the Stone Age record cost? What about grammy award winning records by Bon Iver & Arcade Fire?

            If you think every record needs to be a Kelly Clarkson record, you’re just wrong.

            The major labels have ditched artist development, that was a choice. The fact that all they’re left with is Dr Luke & Timbaland & a bunch of pretty faces doesn’t really say anything about the true cost of recording music today. If they’ve painted themselves into a corner & can no longer reach what’s readily available to others, well… screw ’em. Who cares?

          • Visitor

            “The fact that he did it proves that it can be done”

            Go back and read what I said.

            Two of the three reasons (why producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect is way more expensive than ever before) deal with the price of talent — not equipment.

            Every once in a blue moon, a clever dude will bypass the entire system and not only write and perform but also produce or co-produce an awesome hit.

            As for equipment, there’s only one rule and it’s really simple:

            You get what you pay for. If it sounds like big budget, it’s because it’s big budget.

            Yes, some day a singer with a battered guitar recorded on a cell phone will appear on the charts. And everybody will know — because it’s against all odds.

    • hippydog

      he asked you to cite your facts, not make a list of your opinions..

      Reply
  12. Marmuro

    Wrong… you may like music, but I can tell that you don’t belong to the industry at all, in any way… Quality is not related to high budgets on recordings, but on promotion. Nowadays it takes more money to expose an album than to record it.

    Foo Fighters as an example, they spend big bucks on recordings, yes, but more so on making their albums available on every corner… that doesn’t imply that they are bad quality artists and that they require such investments to make a “good album”.

    Artists like Porcupine Tree (amazing band) records most of their stuff at a home studio; John Frusciante’s To Record Only Water for Ten Days album was recorded on a Korg hard disk recorder; less than 20 years ago, we saw Creed record My Own Prison for 6,000 USD and don’t bother asking Pearl Jam or Bruce Springsteen how many millions they paid to record amazing albums, because they will frown and spit on your face… it’s almost insulting what you are saying… did you know that The Strokes’ first record costed less than 10k????

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “Quality is not related to high budgets on recordings, but on promotion”

      That is, of course, nonsense. Promotion has nothing to do with music quality.

      Now, here’s what I said:

      “Producing music in the quality buying customers want and expect is way more expensive than it ever was.”

      I’m not saying you won’t make it to the charts from a $10K bedroom studio.

      We all know the exceptions and I already pointed out the most classic one to jw — Nebraska — to show that they didn’t pop up yesterday as a result of cracked cubase-versions but have been around forever.

      The thing about exceptions, however, is that you can’t count on them when you need to finance your next production.

      You need a solid income for that.

      How you generate that income is the topic of this thread.

      And like Nigel Godrich says above:

      “I doubt very much if dark side would have been made [if people had been listening to spotify instead of buying records in 1973]. It would just be too expensive.”

      Reply
    • musicman
      musicman

      Not sure that it’s accurate that people are going to concerts more these days. Pretty sure every area of the music industry is hurting.

      Reply
  13. Junior82

    The library in spotify is pretty bad, lot’s of cover artists and missing classics! Last FM for me, is so much better and been around for a longer period.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “lot’s of cover artists and missing classics”

      The former is necessary to cover up the latter…

      Reply
    • jw
      jw

      You’re comparing apples to oranges, but I’d be interested to hear what artists/songs are available for streaming on last.fm that aren’t on Spotify.

      Reply
    • Casey
      Casey

      I doubt last.fm will be around much longer. They have been cutting features and services steadily for some time.

      Reply
  14. Pinko

    Calling it a small and meaningless rebellion is actually generous. If they where remotely serious about this nonsens, they would remove all of their music from the streaming services. The fact that they onlly removed a few obscure releases, actually makes it clear that choosing not to be a part of streaming, is not realistic or viable for a band, that want to remain relevant to consumers today. All they will get out of this, is to attract some (negative) attention and annoy their more dedicated fans, who will now have to type for example “youtube” or “grooveshark” in their browser, to be able to stream these things again.

    Reply
  15. Visitor

    “The move has won support on Twitter from a number of artists, including Four Tet’s Kieran Hebden, who tweeted: “I had everything on my label taken off [Spotify]. Don’t want to be part of this crap.” He added “I don’t get why [it’s] such a big deal to not do Spotify. My music [is] easy to get elsewhere. I’m just not into it.”

    Tracks from the Beatles and rockers AC/DC are not available on Spotify.

    Other big names from the past such as Led Zeppelin and King Crimson have refused to put their music on streaming services.”

    Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/15/thom-yorke-spotify-twitter

    Reply
  16. Rahul

    Seeing no pun/reference to any Radiohead song in the comments section makes me wanna ruuuuuuunn from the comments section.

    Reply
  17. $1 billion USD

    Spotify needs to pay $1 billion a year in royalties before it can be taken seriously.

    With the royalties rate at 70%, it needs to generate about $1.4 billion a year in revenue. Until then, it’s a bit player in the music world.

    Spotify: 7 million paying subscribers

    Deezer: 4 million paying subscribers

    Melon: 2 million paying subscribers

    Muve Music: 1.7 million paying subscribers

    Rhapsody: 1.1 million paying subscribers

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “Spotify: 7 million paying subscribers

      Deezer: 4 million paying subscribers

      Melon: 2 million paying subscribers

      Muve Music: 1.7 million paying subscribers

      Rhapsody: 1.1 million paying subscribers”

      iTunes: 3.5 million new accounts. Every week.

      Reply
    • jw
      jw

      Less than 15% of those are going to download music, & even that doesn’t guarantee overall sales will increase.

      All real data on the subject (i.e. unit sales) points to digital downloads plateauing, or even dropping for the first time.

      I realize that it has “tunes” in the name, which is probably confusing you, but millions of folks downloading Angry Birds on their iphone doesn’t necessarily mean anything for the music industry.

      Reply
  18. Pinko

    These clowns should listen to Mick Jagger, who understand history and accept inevitable changes without fighting and whining:

    “… it is a massive change and it does alter the fact that people don’t make as much money out of records. But I have a take on that – people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone! Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone. So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8681410.stm

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      That’s silly, you can’t expect old men to understand the huge changes we see today.

      Artists just don’t accept to be screwed anymore. And they shouldn’t.

      Reply
      • Pinko
        Pinko

        No matter what, they are not getting screwed more than the average person. If they go out and work they’ll get paid (some more than others) and if they don’t get out and work, then they don’t get paid. It is not a thing anyone should start whining and complaining about.

        Reply
  19. Visitor

    “”So far I’ve not seen any cannibalisation,” Spotify CEO Daniel Ek tweeted”

    Congratulations, the Stevie Wonder award goes to Mr. Ek.

    Here’s the cost of streaming in Norway:

    “it’s clearly starving almost every other format: according to the data, downloads are down a drastic 21 percent over the same point last year. Physical sales, already in deep trouble, plunged 29 percent.”

    Paul Resnikoff, July 12, DMN:

    http://dmnrocks.wpengine.com/permalink/2013/20130711norway#NzN4Xk8AFexwhMd3MitLvg

    Reply
  20. Alex Kane

    Heres what I want to know. What percentage of you actually earn your living from the physical creation of music? How many of you are in the industry yet do not make music? How many of you are dependent on people making music to survive? So, while musicians are hardened and have learned to live off nothing for long periods of time and STILL hang on to our enthusiasm for our work, I shudder to think what will happen to the pundits and middle men if theres no more music to sell or money to be made from music? Theres alot of theoretical posturing here but if us players walk away from the plate there’s not a whole lot of food left on the table for you to eat. The problem is when you earn your living from the exploitation of others, you better make sure “others” are around to exploit. Discuss….chuckle.

    Reply
  21. Money

    Does anybody have a system that will help the artist and company I hear people talking but not offering ideas how to fix it. There must be a better way for both sides to be profitable.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “Does anybody have a system that will help the artist”

      Help your local politician understand why we need to stop mainstream piracy.

      You’ll find that s/he listens.

      Mainstream piracy is the only issue that matters in the music world today.

      Fix it, and you’ll fix a wide range of other problems at the same time.

      Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          That’s the kind of thinking that led to zero results from 1999-2009.

          Mainstream internet piracy is an extremely simple type of crime, and it can easily be stopped in a couple of days.

          All it takes is political will. And we’re getting there.

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            There was tons of anti-piracy activity between 2001-2009, in fact more then it was today. It didn’t work, hindsight only works in reverse.

            The political will statement is kinda obvious. I could have a robot army, all it takes is political will. The problem is acquiring it. A bill that would have been rubber stamped through Congress in 2001 was instead vigouriously defeated in 2011. These days Congress holds hearings about how we should weaken copyright, not strengthen it.

  22. Gabe

    I read every single post here; not because I have ample time on my hands but because I’m dually a fan of music and a musician and this is an important issue that affects people who are on either side of the fence yet not many people here offered any solutions/solvency. The problem has been present for years yet everyone amasses to these post to type in the same responses that are on every other site in constant repetition. My point is as the consumer and the artist, both need to have a meeting of the minds to suggest what would satisfy the people; the greater good for the greater amount of people. Instead pointing out the difference in the views we can come to a solution by pointing out the likenesses which, the most prominent being piracy. That is an issue that involves record labels, polictical bodies, seach engine providers and ISP’S. The merging of these powers are the ones needed to put an end to piracy with a solution such as this; just as libraries filter websites to stop piracy from their locations record labels, through legal action, should insist that search engines block pirating sites from being searchable and ISP’s ban the pages or applications from using their networks resources to connect to web by port blocking, ip blocking, mac address blocking etc from the end of the provider to the users so we dont even have access to the pirating services. China was effective in blocking US sites so Im sure we can internally block our nations from accessing the sites and torrent applications from within. That wouldnt take any internation policy just national. Easier said than done but it is basic model of solvency to start from.

    I don’t expect this to be the best answer but it is one. It would make more sense for use to contribute to cause by addendum of solutions presented or come up with your own. At some point one or all of our views may be validated by someone who has the authority or right relationships to act on them. If you are not adding to the solution you wasting your time talking about it and are better off surfing porn sites.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Agreed. The PRC are pro at population supression. Might as well learn from the best.

      I’m sure at the rate they are going, in a few decades we won’t even have to actively learn from them, they’ll show us themselves.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *