Finally, an artist gets to bend Spotify over.

Thanks Metallica.

Bend Spotify over?

How's that?

Previously, Spotify didn't pay the label. Now, they don't pay Metallica.

Unless, of course, they sweetened the deal.

"Unless, of course, they sweetened the deal."

Now you're learning. Labels gets advances, why not Blackened?  ANd guess what happens come renewal time...

"Now you're learning."

Let's hope so. But why thank Metallica if this is just damage control after Hurricane Swift?

In that case, it's like Dr. Dre endorsing the latest piece of Behringer gear...

Are you all forgeting the major labels have a financial stake in Spotify? How does that aahnge your perspective?

Metallica/Spotify is really about Blackened Records/Spotify. Streaming services don't pay artists, they pay labels.

Nobody here gets that. Everybody jumps on the bandwagon of hate against Spotify but they don't realize Spotify doesn't pay the artists directly, no one who licenses music does.

"So why did Metallica finally license Spotify?"

Good question. Unfortunately, we don't know the answer.

Here's another one:

How much cash upfront was it worth for Spotify to get a major act aboard after their recent failures?

Metallica, Inc.  Splendid.  Too bad the product is crappy.  

Surely all this 'article' proves is that Spotify is a good source of revenue for musicians and that the problem facing artists is the 50plus-year-old business model operated by the labels...

"Surely all this 'article' proves is that Spotify is a good source of revenue for musicians"

No.

All it proves is that Spotify is a good source of revenue for Metallica.

It's still a non existent source of revenue for other artists.

Because of the proportion of money that gets filtered off by labels, before it reaches the artist. The fact that not all of the money reaches the artists is the fault of the deals they sign with labels. The difference is that Metallica aren't contending with a label - the label being the sponge taking a huge percentage.

fact is that there is money to be made through spotify and that the way to move forward is to re-assess to role of record labels in a world where record sales aren't going to happen.

Labels need to accept that they are essentially managers/publicists and the huge profits that have existed in distributing and selling vinyl, tapes and CD's have gone.

Musicians need to realise that as long as they make something good and work hard they can make a living, like the rest of us. Perhaps the days of writing one song 30 years ago and expecting to live off the profits are gone...not necessarily a bad thing.

"fact is that there is money to be made through spotify"

That's not a fact.

Why do you think the biggest acts on the PLANET avoid Spotify?

Because they're stupid?

Hm?

Stupid - maybe. Short sighted with a fear of change. Almost certainly.

FACT IS THERE IS MONEY TO BE MADE FROM SPOTIFY. 70% of it's revenue goesto labels and labels pass on what they see as appropriate to artists. The amount of money may be smaller than was available throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s but why should musicians make such large amounts of money? It's ultimately just a job like anything else - if you don't think it's financially worth it then change career and become a corporate banker...

"Stupid - maybe. Short sighted with a fear of change. Almost certainly"

Taylor Swift, October 2012: Best first-week sale in ten years. No Spotify.

Rihanna, November 2012: Number one all over the place. No Spotify.

Stupid? Short sighted? With a fear of change?

And you are...?

Not sure sighted. And happy to embrace change. As for stupid, quite possibly but at least I can face reality... 

And you have no conclusive data as to whether those high sales link to not being on spotify. Both huge artsists with a pre-established fan base that would, i all liklehood, have bought the records anyway...! A big 'I'm not on spotify (for a month or two)' announcement' is just a way of creating scarcity for your product.

Rihanna is one of Spotify's most streamed artists last year, Mumford and sons album 'Babel' sold LOADS of copies in the UK whilst simultaneously being heavily streamed on spotify.

It is currently the case that those record sales made Mumford much more money than streams but....In a few years when people are streaming the album they will still be bringing streaming royalties in. They won't be selling 600,000 copies in a few weeks by then!

Just let go of the past and look to the future. The internet has changed things...the debate is getting boring after 15 years of the industry rooting itself in an outdated business model. Look at record sales over the last 15 years... I don't think any company has found the perfect business model yet and I'mnot naive enough to think that Spotify don't do it to make money but at least companies like Spotify are trying to look forward...!

Dear Paul

you just don't get it do you? This is about our music first, and our creativity and how we want to spread it to every last eardrum in the world to enjoy.  

We're happy now remember?

money - what is that even?  I play for the love and joy of it

#happyguy

fake LARS

Spotify should make the music labels to pay the artists better streaming royalties.

If an artist sign a bad deal, Spotify should ask the labels to change to better terms.

Win for artists.  

Win for spotify. 

Win for the label.  (they make less money but good PR).

Not a bad idea, but it is impossible to impliment.

It would be nice but why should it be Spotify's responsibility? Shouldn't the label sign a fair deal with the artist routinely?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Spotify should give every artist $10 million dollars.

Artist sign with a major label.

The song sold 50,000 downloads at $1.10 on average.

50,000 x $1.10 = $55,000 total revenue

Itunes/AmazonMP3 get 30% or $16,500, which left $38,500

$38,500 is split between labels/publisher/songwriter/artist.

How much would the artist get?

before the artist, how much does the U.S. Government get, then continue...

it's nearly impossible to pay to get your masters because the labels never paid artist's enough in the first place. spotify STILL pays shit to artists. sorry....spotify guy pretending to be a 5th grader...they still suck and pay less than the greedy major labels. it's a loing game for artists but a win win for the public. 

This article lacks the fact you need the mechanial license too.  Granted getting a mechanical is much eaiser than the license for the master, but you still need to know who owns the work, which is much harder than master recordings.

I think that is the point of the article. Metallica finally has ownership of their masters and can determine for thenselves how to monetize. They have chosen to deal with spotify because the revenue stream is controled by metallica now and not a major label.

RIAA reports 77,000 albums come out a year.  CD Baby says that number is closer to 320,000.

Indie acts have to use aggregators to get music to Spotify.  Major labels take equity in the company or large, one-lump payments that never get paid back to their artists under contract.

Big acts that can broker direct deals with entities like this will always win, but Spotify shouldn't allow those deals to happen.

Like Clear Channel brokering a direct royalty deal with Taylor Swift's label.  How is that possible?

With 320,000 indie records coming out a year, I put the onus on Spotify to negotiate individual deals with every indie act.

Too much headache for them?  Sorry. With the Metallica deal, you set the precedent.

If an indie artist comes to spotify with proven sales numbers like Metallica, then I am sure spotify will take the time to negotiate.

A good question would be; What is the threshhold? At what point has an indie artist achieved enough sales and plays to get to the negotiating table? Is there a hard number?

Maybe spotify could create an algorithm that determines the deal based on sales, plays, fanbase, catalogue, etc.? A minor problem would be verifying the numbers. But I am sure it can be done.  

If the indie artist doesn't like the automated deal maker app, then they can go to an aggregator or try another stream service.

Good idea on the threshold, but I think the major problem- iike with iTunes, is that Spotify doesn't want to track and account for a zillion independent artists who may just be 'passing through' the music industry.

I mean, imagine what headaches Soundexchange goes through doing that.  I'm sure CD Baby pockets more than they try to track down and pay out dealing with baby bands and indie acts.

So, the problem with Spotify is that labels don't pay their bands.  Doesn't sound so much like a problem with Spotify...

No, the problem with Spotify is that they don't have a way to pay all bands DIRECTLY.

An indie band that is not part of the 1% like Metallica is, has to go through an aggregator to get paid.

Face it, indies are indies most of the time because their music sucks horribly and shouldn't have been recorded in the first place. It's time to expose the ameturs for what they are, not reward them for "avoiding" (lol) a label.

What a bunch of traitors.. makes me sick.

I have consistently maintained that Spotify's "artist problem" is not just a question of money.

It is connected with the sickeningly arrogant attitude and statements of its founder Daniel Ek.

He always gives the impression that he thinks his way of delivering music is more important than the music itself.

"He always gives the impression that he thinks his way of delivering music is more important than the music itself."

I hope you don't have an iPod, or anything Apple in your home. Because according to your post, then you'd have to think Steve Jobs and iTunes was a horrible thing to happen, too.